Army Strong

[JihadJane]

Veterans represent 8.5% of the total UK prison population

Taking advantage of the recession and stirring up patriotism with similar myths to those spun by the 'Army Strong' video, UK Army recruiters are targeting young, poor people from disadvantaged areas.

When Ciny Sheehan protests that her son was recruited to fight in a war under false pretences, a poster on this thread informs us that she is pissing on her son's grave. One poster suggests that this is an extreme position but no-one else objects. In fact, some happily chip in with character assassination of their own.

Contrary to recruitment propaganda, veterans are not valued by society, which gives them little support. Many of the long-term possible consequences of their service are under-emphasized.

Posters, above, use themselves as examples to illustate the shining future that can await veterans. How typical are they and would it be ethical to use their example to represent the likely outcome of fighting in a war, particularly in a fraudulent war*?



A recent study by the UK probation officers' union Napo "uncovers the hidden cost of recent conflicts ... and provides provides the strongest evidence yet of a direct link between the mental health of those returning from combat zones, chronic alcohol and drug abuse and domestic violence."

The probation union's estimate of 20,000 veterans in the criminal justice system breaks down into 12,000 veterans on probation or parole, and a further 8,500 in custody. These figures represent 8.5% of the total UK prison population, and 6% of all those on probation or parole."


The shadow justice secretary, Dominic Grieve alleges that "the government has failed to provide proper support to our troops on return home".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/24/jailed-veteran-servicemen-outnumber-troops

*Inner moral conflcit is a major contributor to PTSD.

 

[JihadJane]

Adult. You stopped posting when the weekend started. I am frequently under those time constraints myself, but not this time. The thread was about to slip to the second page.

Take down your defenses; I aint attacking.

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure what you were comunicating.

You don't need to worry about me abandoning my post, beyond pauses for necessary periodic doings.

I take my OP duties seriously.


Sorry you are unable to watch the video.

It is a juxtaposition of some 'Winter Soldier' testimonies and an over the top (but genuine) army recruitment video.

"This video is a mix of the Army Strong video produced by the army to entice young women and men to join the military. The other video is produced by Displaced Films which is a series of films produced for the Iraq Veterans Against the War http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier The series of films can also be seen here http://www.vimeo.com/5448532 "

That has no bearing on your discussion of the topics with me.

You haven't said much about these topics yourself.

 

[paximperium]

Do what you like with others. Please stick to one of these three topics with me.

What do you call someone who refuses to stick to relevant topics when unable to mount any intelligent defense but keeps vomiting out new claims in hoping some of it will stick?

 

[Darth Rotor]

The topic of a JREF thread is defined by the OP.

Original post. Not, original poster. You can go OT in your own thread, others have done so.

Unfortunately, discussuion about the topics you mention, above, is severely hampered my the consequences of some posters' previous forum behavior, namely that I now ignore their contributions to the JREF entirely.

This is code for "I am a coward." One could almost respect an honest confession. That mealy mouthed rot?

Not so much.

I think you meant by, not my, after "severely hampered."

DR

 

[Toke]

What do you call someone who refuses to stick to relevant topics when unable to mount any intelligent defense but keeps vomiting out new claims in hoping some of it will stick?

If you see the OP as an accusation of the evil, lying, army gunning down civilians indiscriminately, then Fallujah is quite relevant as an example for discussion.

(Just a shame she abandoned it so quickly)

 

[paximperium]

If you see the OP as an accusation of the evil, lying, army gunning down civilians indiscriminately, then Fallujah is quite relevant as an example for discussion.

(Just a shame she abandoned it so quickly)

Most definitely if that was Jane's point. But then Jane has never had a point since she has consistently refused to clearly state what the topic of the OP really is but runs away and cries victim whenever called on it.

So what is Jane talking about?
1)Recruitment propaganda?
2)Indiscriminate killing of civilians?
3)Improper actions against enemy combatants ie bulldozing Iraqi troops?
4)the effect of war on veterans?
5)The weather?
6)The taste of this wonderful smoothie?

 

[Darth Rotor]

If you see the OP as an accusation of the evil, lying, army gunning down civilians indiscriminately, then Fallujah is quite relevant as an example for discussion.

Way to buy the lie.

Skeptical fail. You have been had.

DR

 

[paximperium]

Way to buy the lie.

Skeptical fail. You have been had.

There were cases of indiscriminate violence against civilians from a few soldiers and the trials that followed but those are few and far between. A debate on how extensive these situations were is warranted.

But then JJ wants to talk about the weather so I don't derail this thread with silly talk.

 

[Toke]

Way to buy the lie.

Skeptical fail. You have been had.

DR

No I do not buy it and have not been had.
I thought you knew me better, or had read my post carefully.

 

[Sabrina]

Taking advantage of the recession and stirring up patriotism with similar myths to those spun by the 'Army Strong' video, UK Army recruiters are targeting young, poor people from disadvantaged areas.

When Ciny Sheehan protests that her son was recruited to fight in a war under false pretences, a poster on this thread informs us that she is pissing on her son's grave. One poster suggests that this is an extreme position but no-one else objects. In fact, some happily chip in with character assassination of their own.

Contrary to recruitment propaganda, veterans are not valued by society, which gives them little support. Many of the long-term possible consequences of their service are under-emphasized.

Posters, above, use themselves as examples to illustate the shining future that can await veterans. How typical are they and would it be ethical to use their example to represent the likely outcome of fighting in a war, particularly in a fraudulent war*?



A recent study by the UK probation officers' union Napo "uncovers the hidden cost of recent conflicts ... and provides provides the strongest evidence yet of a direct link between the mental health of those returning from combat zones, chronic alcohol and drug abuse and domestic violence."

The probation union's estimate of 20,000 veterans in the criminal justice system breaks down into 12,000 veterans on probation or parole, and a further 8,500 in custody. These figures represent 8.5% of the total UK prison population, and 6% of all those on probation or parole."


The shadow justice secretary, Dominic Grieve alleges that "the government has failed to provide proper support to our troops on return home".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/24/jailed-veteran-servicemen-outnumber-troops

*Inner moral conflcit is a major contributor to PTSD.

I'm afraid I'm at a loss as to how this contributes to the discussion.

No one is denying that sometimes military folks are "less than ideal", shall we say. I pointed out a few instances myself, and I hesitate to try and number the times I heard of a soldier coming up hot on a urinalysis or smuggling drugs across the border (I used to be stationed in Fort Bliss, which is right next to Juarez, Mexico) or heard that there was a domestic disturbance of some sort; although bear in mind that I was on active duty for four years and there were at least a hundred thousand soldiers stationed on Fort Bliss, so the actual number in comparison to the population was very small. But I fail to see how that relates specifically to them being in the military. The military did not make them that way; they were that way already. They were inclined to break the law well before they joined the armed forces. And when they break the law, they are usually dismissed from service unless they are a D*** good soldier and the incident was a momentary aberration that they show no inclination of repeating. Repeat offenders get kicked out; single offenders, if they are good soldiers, stay in.

As for veterans; I can't speak to how they are treated in the UK, but being a disabled veteran (technically speaking at any rate) myself, I CAN speak to how they are treated in the US. They are given every opportunity to get help here; people in the Veterans Administration actively seek out veterans who slip through the cracks of an imperfect system and get them the help they need when they find them. You also need to define the term "veteran"; in the strictest sense, it means someone who has seen combat of some sort, but in the sense it is typically used in the US, it means someone who fought with honor and dignity and served their country well. Someone can technically be a veteran without embodying the spirit of the word, and that is typically where you find those individuals you list in your post, JJ.

As for Cindy Sheehan; don't get me started on the lies that woman spouts. I knew people who served with her son while I was on active duty; they've all said she's full of and that her son joined the military at least partially to get away from her. I'm a little more inclined to believe people who served on a daily basis with the man than a woman with a political agenda, regardless of her personal relationship with him. Her son CHOSE to join the military; he CHOSE, IIRC, to re-enlist once his term of service was up at least once. What she is doing is spitting on his choice and the choice of every other honorable military member, so I have NO respect for the woman and wish she would just shut up.

As I said, I'm not really sure what you are implying via that post, JJ, but it looks to me as though you are somehow drawing a correlation between the inclination to break the law and military service, either current or former, on the part of the criminal in question. While I will not deny that the military has its share of lawbreakers, I find it difficult to believe the number is much higher than any other group of people you could name.

And as to the opportunities granted to military members; most of us are a typical example, yes. Military service is viewed by many companies in the private sector as an example of a person's ability to carry out a job in the right way and with the right attitude doing it; we are seen as hard workers who get the job done properly. I will admit that I likely have more going for me than some, since I was and am an officer, but Longtabber has enough time in the enlisted side to more than make up for that difference in rank, and even a soldier who was discharged as an E-4 can parlay that into higher pay and more responsibility than someone who is just starting out in their chosen career.

The long and the short of it is this; is that video an entirely truthful representation of military service? The answer is, yes and no; they aren't lying about what they show, they just aren't showing all of it. But advertising isn't meant to be completely truthful; it is meant to show the most positive aspects of whatever is being sold to make it more appealing to those watching. If you're going to complain about truth in advertising, you might want to aim your weapons in the direction of every company that has ever advertised, because I can guarantee you that you won't find ONE that was completely upfront about their product in their advertising. If the military is to be penalized for not showing absolutely everything, you'll have to apply that standard everywhere else as well, or you're a hypocrite, JJ. It is up to the consumer, in this instance, to educate themselves about the product in whatever way they feel necessary before "making a purchase", so to speak.

 

[Marcus]

Thanks for your comment. I hope my reply to Garrette, in this post, above, satisfies you.

That would complicate things if you have a lot of the veterans on your ignore list. I don't think it explains it completely, though. To give one example, it was explained to you how and why some enemy soldiers got buried, and why it was not the nefarious evil you made it out to be. The poster was on your ignore list, which you explained when someone else quoted him, but you never addressed the argument. You will have more credibility if you admit when you are wrong.

I believe you when you say these guys have attacked you before, but to start a military thread and then ignore those who have personal experience with those events you can only speculate on doesn't seem too wise.

 

[Garrette]

I take my OP duties seriously.

Glad to hear it. I look forward to your comments on the OP, then.

Sorry you are unable to watch the video.

Temporarily unable. I have watched it now.

It is a juxtaposition of some 'Winter Soldier' testimonies and an over the top (but genuine) army recruitment video.

"This video is a mix of the Army Strong video produced by the army to entice young women and men to join the military. The other video is produced by Displaced Films which is a series of films produced for the Iraq Veterans Against the War http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier The series of films can also be seen here http://www.vimeo.com/5448532 "

You haven't said much about these topics yourself.

I disagree, but I am willing to set that aside.

Since we are sticking to the OP I will focus my comments on your comments regarding it.

What are they?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

That would complicate things if you have a lot of the veterans on your ignore list. I don't think it explains it completely, though. To give one example, it was explained to you how and why some enemy soldiers got buried, and why it was not the nefarious evil you made it out to be. The poster was on your ignore list, which you explained when someone else quoted him, but you never addressed the argument. You will have more credibility if you admit when you are wrong.

I believe you when you say these guys have attacked you before, but to start a military thread and then ignore those who have personal experience with those events you can only speculate on doesn't seem too wise.

JJ is less than honest in many areas and her agenda shows thru her postings.
I have NEVER responded to her in any other thread and only skimmed over most of her posts.

She likes to refer to post 120 as her "basis"- go back and read it. She asked for a definition of terrorist and I gave her one- that was it. In her world, since that definition didnt suit her agenda- that makes it an attack and me the attacker.

She doesnt want the truth and has no interest in it- she just wants to promote her agenda and you "believe" it. Anything else is an attack. Thats why she switches gears so much.

 

[Marcus]

JJ is less than honest in many areas and her agenda shows thru her postings.
I have NEVER responded to her in any other thread and only skimmed over most of her posts.

She likes to refer to post 120 as her "basis"- go back and read it. She asked for a definition of terrorist and I gave her one- that was it. In her world, since that definition didnt suit her agenda- that makes it an attack and me the attacker.

She doesnt want the truth and has no interest in it- she just wants to promote her agenda and you "believe" it. Anything else is an attack. Thats why she switches gears so much.

JJ, if you have Longstabber on ignore, perhaps you would still like to respond to this post of his.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

JJ, if you have Longstabber on ignore, perhaps you would still like to respond to this post of his.

I would love to see that one myself and ( using her words) base it on that 120.

I dont think she is creative enough or has enough character even if she has the guts to even try.

 

[Quad4_72]

I would keep replying in this thread, but I really have no idea what it is about anymore. JJ has gone off into a different world (As she always does). And apparently those of us with military experience is just an appeal to authority to JJ, so what's the point.

 

[Nosi]

I would love to see that one myself and ( using her words) base it on that 120.

I dont think she is creative enough or has enough character even if she has the guts to even try.

How do I find post #120 using the search function?

 

[Marcus]

How do I find post #120 using the search function?

If you haven't changed your display options, you will have 50 posts per page, so #120 will be on the third page.

 

[JihadJane]

JJ, if you have Longstabber on ignore, perhaps you would still like to respond to this post of his.

Thanks.

The patronizing idiocy that I refer to in post 120 is:

"You need to remember sweetheart"


I have no interst in responing to anything in the extract of LONGTABBER PE's that you have quoted, which is a good example of a poster believing his/her own fantasies to be real.

Darth Rotor appears to be doing something similar in his/her post:

Original post. Not, original poster. You can go OT in your own thread, others have done so.

My "OP" was referring to the Original Post

This is code for "I am a coward."

Wrong code/faulty remote viewing.

----------------------------------------

I'll respond to other recent posts as my doings allow.

 

[JihadJane]

I would keep replying in this thread, but I really have no idea what it is about anymore. JJ has gone off into a different world (As she always does). And apparently those of us with military experience is just an appeal to authority to JJ, so what's the point.

Thanks for another post declaring the pointlessness of posting and for your sweet little ad hominem fantasy about me.

Sometimes, people with military experience have the "agenda" of needing to cover up the truth about what the military does, so they are not necessarily good authorities.

Such "agendas" are frequently flagged with juvenile ad hominem abuse.