I agree there’s a difference between ordering a wounded man to fight and not ordering a wounded man not to fight.

Well, at least we’ve managed to accomplish that…

This thread, however, is about “Congress Probes Report That Soldiers ‘Medically Unfit For Battle’ Are Being Sent To Iraq”

I’m curious…in what way do you feel that that’s substantively different from “Congress Probes Report That Wounded Soldiers Are Being Ordered To Fight”? In other words, where’s the part where you disagree with me?

— are you seriously saying that no one who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle have ever fought in battle?

No, I never said that. You really ought to lay off the straw men.

That was my main point above.

Interesting. If that was your main point, it’s unfortunate that you didn’t even try to support it with argument. Look back to post #112 to see why you fall short.

it is just unrealistic to suddenly declare, for this war only because we hate the current occupant in the White House, no one who is wounded can fight anymore.

I could go on and on here, but I think gummich summed it up quite concisely when he asked you, “What part of “unfit for duty” is too complicated for you to understand?”

I know you’d like to link all the ills of the world to the Dems’ irrational, foamy-mouthed hatred of Chimpy, but reality just doesn’t work that way. Sorry.

Oh, and BTW if you haven’t had a vacation in a year or by-the-book training (when did that happen in WWII?) those troops can’t go to Iraq either.

That’s not the topic of discussion here, and you know it. You’re gonna break those goalposts if you keep moving them like that.

I mean, I want our boys properly equiped as much as the next guy, but at least admit that you are throwing up all these technicalities just so you can stop the war.

You’re judging us by your own detestable moral standards. We don’t use our soldiers as chits in political arguments. And we don’t regard injuries that render soldiers medically unfit for duty as “technicalities”.

And look…my opinion of you has fallen even further. I guess there’s just no limit to how low you’ll sink.

What part of “unfit for duty” is too complicated for you to understand? No one has suggested that a soldier or Marine that has been wounded can never be redeployed. The point, which seems remarkably simple to understand for most people, is that you simply do not do this until the person is “fit for duty.”

The only reason this even comes up is that the Administration has so badly botched this entire conflict that they do not have the necessary healthy resources to continue.

Your implication that people are opposed to the Iraqi occupation because we “hate” Bush is asinine. I might just as easily suggest that you only support it because you’re a big fan of the man.

Are you seriously saying that no one (who a doctor has said is medically unfit for battle) has ever fought in battle?

If I read your post correctly, you are saying plenty have VOLUNTARILY done so. My position is that plenty have been ordered to do so as well.

Of course I want every wounded soldier to get the best medical treatment available — and I think it is undisputed that they are which is why we are even facing this question in the first place — it is just unrealistic to suddenly declare, for this war only because we hate the current occupant in the White House, no one who is wounded can fight anymore. Oh, and BTW if you haven’t had a vacation in a year or by-the-book training (when did that happen in WWII?) those troops can’t go to Iraq either. I mean, I want our boys properly equiped as much as the next guy, but at least admit that you are throwing up all these technicalities just so you can stop the war. Wouldn’t it be better to just defund the whole thing if that is your goal?

Actually, wayne @ 1:16 pm claimed that “Sending wounded troops back to a battlezone is not a ‘mistake’ a$$hat, it is a travesty. That you support it shows exactly what kind of scum you are and proves beyond a doubt that you truely do not support the troops.” I disagreed with that assessment, and pointed out that same “mistake” has happened in every war.

No, Jake, you didn’t. Again, every example you cited was that of a wounded soldier continuing to fight on of his own initiative. Nowhere in any of your examples does it say that the wounded soldier was ordered to continue to fight, or was ordered back into battle. Your attempt to twist the tales of these heroes to your own sordid ends is physically sickening, and has forced me to revise my opinion of you down yet again. I didn’t think you could sink any lower, but there it is.

(BTW, it’s absolutely charming how you put “mistakes” in quotes….perhaps, on some subconscious level, even you can’t stomach your vile lies. ^_^)

Unless you are saying that every wounded soldier who has gone back into battle did so in violated of direct orders, I think I proved my point just fine.

Nice attempt to move the goalposts, jake. Too bad I’m not falling for it.

There’s a significant difference between ordering a wounded man to fight and not ordering a wounded man not to fight. The difference lies in the soldier’s personal initiative. To rephrase it a bit more simply (in deference to you, Jake), there is a big difference between a wound man volunteering to fight, and a wounded man being ordered to fight. The first is heroism, the second is depraved indifference. I honestly don’t know how I can make it any clearer to you, but odds are good you either know full well what the difference is, or you are so impaired you’ll never understand. As you can see, we’re back to poisonous disingenuousness vs. terminal stupidity. Which is it?

The above talks about weapons and body armor, not injuried troops being sent into combat.

Also, if you read a little further down the thread, Chris posted a story about his experiance in Iraq and seeing NG troops without armor. I told him that, because of his first hand account, I would have to re-think my position.

I have been to Iraq twice. Fact

Everyone I saw had a weapon and body armor. Fact

I want to see and actual account of someone that didn’t. If one can not be provided, then one does not exist, right?

Read Chris’s experiance and my reply to it.

There is a big difference between “it’s not happening” and I have never seen it happen”.

bob, I’m not going to let you cherry-pick your own post. Sorry.

Your own words:

I have been to Iraq twice. Everyone I saw had a weapon and body armor. I want to see and actual account of someone that didn’t. If one can not be provided, then one does not exist, right?

This statement, coupled with your outright rejection of said accounts, makes the statement quite eloquently, your denials notwithstanding.

Where did I say that it is not happening. From what you linked:

As for the injuries, I am not a M.D. I can not evaluate someones medical conditions. But I have never seen someone that was deployed that could not meet the physical requirements of their job.

There is a big difference between “it’s not happening” and I have never seen it happen”.

I never said it wasn’t happening, I just said that I had never seen it. So please show me where I said it wasn’t happening.

Here you go.

Honestly, bob, did you think I wouldn’t be able to back up my statement?

Comment by TripMaster Monkey — March 15, 2007 @ 11:49 am

I never said it wasn’t happening, I just said that I had never seen it. So please show me where I said it wasn’t happening.

I also spelled out a form of redress that the soldiers have that they seem to not have taken advantage of.

Twit.