Mac, "The Troops are Welfare Whores Administrator", Bans the guy that Destroys him in Debate

I was reading posts on Johnny Bea's Facebook wall. In the process of destroying John Elmo Sheppard Jr.'s arguments, I came across a link to this anti-military Facebook group. This group goes by the name, "The Troops are Welfare Whores."

A misguided, under researched, and anti-military person, going by the nickname "Mac" runs this group. Mac posted a photo. The accompanying caption talked about a mall cop describing civilians as being "softheaded."

A Facebook poster responded. He stated he didn't need the mall cops for his protection. For that matter, he didn't need the troops either. All that was needed was for him to be armed. He extended that by talking about armed civilians.

His reasoning?

Who'd mess with the United States if millions of Americans were armed? What foreign nation would mess with that?

His statement evolved into a debate on that thread. To bolster his argument, those that agreed with him pointed to Vietnam. The assumption they made was that a Vietnamese civilian militia "defeated" the United States military.

I jumped in and countered these specific points. Included in my argument was the fact that the United States military defeated the Vietnamese militarily. The Vietnamese had both, a standing army, and a militia. The United States military defeated both in the battlefield. The U.S. Military defeated the Vietnamese military and the Vietnamese militia throughout the war.

The exchange started off in a civil manner. Mac, "The Troops are Welfare Whores" administrator, looked like he was going to tolerate disagreement.

After we traded a few "blows" on that thread, he backed down and tried to "disown" his stance. He supported the above "just need civilian militia" argument. After I had provided him with the facts of why that argument was wrong, Mac insisted that this topic was a "strawman argument."

I countered his backpedaling by quoting his statements supporting the very thing that he insinuated was a "strawman". In the course of his back peddling, he dropped hints that he wanted the argument to end.

His hopes; however, required me to "move on" and to let him have the final say. That goes against my modus operandi. He didn't realize that if he mentions something in an argument, I counter it.

I kept destroying his argument.

Finally, he asked me to shorten my posts by being more "concise." The losing side uses this tactic when they don't have an argument.

I reminded him that one of two things could happen.

I could present a logical, factual, and reasoned argument. This option generally resulted in longer posts. I mentioned that the other option was to use shorter posts while lacerating him, and his supporters, with flames.

I also called him out for even talking about how "I wouldn't know" how the government would react to an invasion... Mac argued that we would immediately resort to nuclear warfare. I countered that by mentioning my first hand military experiences... we trained to use conventional warfare first.

Normally, battle problems start with a conventional scenario. If NBC, or "CBRN" is part of the problem, it usually happens later in the exercise... not as a first resort. Battle problems started with a conventional scenario before they turned into a nuclear scenario.

This means that we'd resort to conventional means to repel an invasion first. Tactical nuclear missiles come into the picture when the conventional means fail... or if there's no time to resort to conventional means to repel the invasion... and that's the only way to prevent the enemy from accessing critical territory or holdings.

Given the state of the other world's militaries compared to ours, the former is more realistic than the later. This policy on the use of nuclear weapons, by the United States military, is researchable.

Mac, administrator for "The Troops are Welfare Whores," had the audacity to insinuate that I wouldn't know the government's actual nuclear use policy.

I reminded him that I had working knowledge of how the military would do things. I also reminded him that he shouldn't tell me what I know or don't know about a profession I've been in for the majority of my adult life.

I capped the argument by reminding him, using a simple strawman formula, how he utilized a strawman argument.

Mac ran out of argument. He also ran out of steam.

I destroyed his arguments so bad that he angrily, and arrogantly, accused me of "lying." Nowhere in the argument, or in his response, did he prove his assumptions of my "lying," or using "strawmen" arguments, "true." Our exchange is included in the posts that follow this one.

I hammered him so hard that he responded by banning me.

That's an impact indicator telling me that he knows that I destroyed him in debate. I know that his blood was boiling when he moved to block my profile from posting on his page. He couldn't stand up to me in debate.

So, he moved to protect himself, and his fragile ego, by preventing me from continuing to prove him wrong.

These next series of posts will show the argument that Mac, "Troops are Welfare Whores," didn't want the world to see. His own statements, in the following posts, counter what he later told his community.

More on this in my next batch of replies related to Mac, The troops are Welfare Whores.

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores, a Veteran? Probably was Incompetent

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores, claims that he did 10 years in the U.S. military.

The reality?

Two of his main arguments makes me wonder about his military service. First, he immediately supports an argument about a civilian militia "defeating" a standing army. Second, he insisted that the United States would resort to nuclear warfare first in response to an invasion.

Now, when I showed him about how wrong he was, he back peddled from that argument. He later argued that "nobody would know" what the government would do.

The vast majority of your military personnel, and veterans, with experience in line units, would disagree with both of those arguments. Our training scenarios involve us doing conventional training, and conventional battle scenarios.

When we did train a "nuclear scenario," it generally was an exercise where conventional means to do the problem were done first. This is consistent with the US government's policy for the use of nuclear weapons... a policy that the vast majority of the people that served in the military would know.

Does this mean that he didn't serve?

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one for the sake of argument. His philosophy, and the way he deals with disagreement suggests that if he did serve, he was a substandard performer... one who pissed people off the moment he opened his mouth.

He claims to have done 10 years. That amount of time is the halfway point to the coveted "20 year mark." Once you get that on the active duty side, or 20 good years on the reserve side, you become eligible to retire.

Whether active or reserve, most service members, at the 10 year mark generally think, "I got this far, I'm halfway through, I'm going for the '20'!" Normally, if they don't do that, or don't come back in to complete that time, there's something non-flattering in the background.

So, why didn't Mac, "The Troops are Welfare Whores," continue on till 20? Well, it's NOT for the reason he'd like to roll out.

Given his lack of knowledge on basic military tactical procedures... as well as his lack of knowledge on basic military strategic procedures... I'm guessing that "Mac" was a substandard performer. That's the most lenient way for me to look at this.

The worst case scenario is that he had an attitude in addition to him being substandard. His commander may have put a bar to re-enlistment on him. Or, he could've been whacked by a quality review board, or a retention review board.

If commentaries, about Mac's weight are true, Mac, "The Troops are Welfare Whores," could've been kicked out for being a fat boy program failure. But, absent his photos, I'm going to assume that this wasn't the case.

Now, I did say that the vast majority of us, in the military community, understand certain things. The vast majority of us like to argue from the facts... something that Mac isn't doing on "The Troops are Welfare Whores" group page.

Researching the facts, and arguing from the facts, is something that we're trained to do. That training carries itself with us beyond the military.

There are a minority of service members who are like Mac. They're usually the substandard performers, the people that are identified as "that guy," "that gal," that "problem child," etc. Mac's demeanor on his page suggests that he had a hard time getting along with others in the military.

These are usually the folks that blame events, things, or others, for their own shortcomings. Consequently, they don't grow as a person or professionally.

Instead of seeing his own flaws, and thus moving forward with his career, he probably blamed "the man," his officers, his NCOICs, his fellow service members, or others, for his failures and his poor standing in his unit.

His commentary does read like he has a "vendetta" against the military for its "perceived" transgressions against him. 

Devan Robert Nelson, Clueless About Armed Civilian Militias Reacting Against Foreign Invasion

Devan Robert Nelson: I wouldn't need a mall or regular cop if I was allowed to open carry everywhere. Wouldn't need to troops either. Civilians with More guns than most of the worlds armies? Yeah, try and invade. 

By "unorganized," I'm referencing US and state law that categorizes the legal militia... the reserve state and reserve federal militias.

I've seen how certain private "civilian militia" conducted their training, and conducted themselves in a simulated combat environment. Many are hurting when it comes to basic weapon handling, muzzle awareness, weapon discipline, etc.

Many non-police/military veteran members of these "armed civilians," were a joke when it came to tactical competency.

If you think that fully arming the American civilian population would stop an invasion... without the US military providing the bulk of the effort and leadership... you're seriously high on crack.

Realistically speaking, without U.S. military experience, a fully armed civilian population would get slaughtered. It wouldn't take long before the remainder of the "civilian militia" to cut and run to cut their losses.

The sense of specie preservation, and coming face to face with their own mortality, would knock the wind out of the remainder of the militia's will to fight.

Historically, civilian militias, with no standing military background or support, engaged in rivalry and infighting. They ultimately melted away when there was nothing stronger above them holding them together... especially in response to a threat from a powerful military.

There are those among the civilian population, with no formal military or police training, who are good marksmen. But, guess what? During combat, you don't always have the time to do the four fundamentals of good shooting.

You're not always well rested, you're not surrounded by the familiar surroundings of your firing range, and you're not always still. You're not always given the convenience of having something perfect to aim and shoot from. In a lot of cases, you're shooting, moving, under stress, exhausted, sleep deprived, sweating, etc.

When you have civilian militias operating across the US to repel an invasion, one of the things you need is fire coordination. This needs tactical communication. This communication and coordination must happen when rounds are firing.

An invading military force would be a group of people that'd be working together, with different specialties, and with different types of equipment. They'd be organized from a basic rifle company to ships operating beyond the horizon.

I highly doubt that a bunch of American civilians, without a standing military at their side, could stand up to that. They wouldn't be effective against an enemy's tank or attack helicopter elements. They wouldn't be effective against an aerial bombing campaign.

The civilian militia would be useless against enemy naval gunfire support.

Also, battle field coordination isn't the same thing as Facebook, cellphone, and texting coordination. How are millions of armed citizens going to organize their efforts? You need a command structure to control multiple militia groups... across increasingly larger geographic areas.

These command structures must also be coordinated, so you have to have command structure above them. You have to have C2 from the basic fire team all the way to the commander in chief.

In order for the US population, without the police or military experienced people, to be able to take on a foreign invasion, there has to be other coordination. This includes logistic and administrative support.

This also requires field and general grade leadership. You need company grade leadership to coordinate company sized operations. You don't just create this from a vacuum. This is developed from experience and training.

The civilian militia would have experience coordinating and supporting within their own militia groups. Have they done this with all the militia groups in the United States? That's a key question, because different militia groups will have different ways of coordination and support.

There's a good chance that egos would get in the way of choosing support and leadership.

There has to be a higher ranking echelon controlling these different militia groups. The larger area that you're working with, the higher level of command that you're going to need.

The civilian population lacks battlefield coordination and battlefield command across large areas of the U.S. They'll need an organized military to bridge that.

Worse, a civilian population without military or police training lacks effective battle drill type coordination. They may have one for within their groups. But, the different militia groups will have their own standard operating procedure on how they will operate together.

Most of the constitutional and statutory militias don't even know they're members of the reserve militia.

Also, without real tactical experience/background, most civilian militia would fight as if they're re-enacting an online first shooter game, or a war movie... neither of the two reflect how one is supposed to actually engage the enemy.

The military regularly runs these administrative, logistics, fire and coordination exercises, from fire team and up. They train consistently, even between battles, and before battle as part of troop leading procedures. I doubt this is going on across all militia in the US throughout the year.

Most civilian militia, without military or police experience, will end up learning in the heat of battle. The tuition paid? Militia bodies piling up at a rapid rate... unnecessary loss of militia lives and spilled militia blood.

When you get these different militia groups together, you have room for a lot of errors and confusion. You have room for fratricide. And since your civilian militia is not trained to conduct sustained combat operations on land, you have the potential of lowered morale and mission abandonment.

Living and operating in a combat environment is different from living and operating from the comforts of civilization. It's arduous duty, one that'd earn combat troops an additional monthly stipend. It's one that'll make people question why they're there... as the side of them that misses the comforts of civilization kicks in.

Military discipline, leadership, and experience keeps that sentiment in check.

This, my gun waving gung ho "don't need the military civilian militia only" advocates, is where discipline and training come in. Going camping, or boating, are relaxing endeavors compared to the military's doing field and sea exercises.

When a civilian goes camping, that civilian has the option to bedding down all night. That civilian controls most of his/her camping or boating time.

When the military goes on a field exercise, they could continue through the night, sleep deprived, operating in complete darkness with night vision, while wet and damp, and feeling everything that most civilians would avoid... but the troops would press on, because they'll have to do this during war.

That takes some growing into.

A professional military is paid, and required, to condition themselves to operate in sustained combat environments... while dealing with the most uncomfortable living and working environments... long before the first rounds start flying.

We adapt and learn to operate in that kind of environment, in these and other conditions. We do this until they're second nature, and to keep them second nature... before we have to live and work this way in a combat environment.

Most civilians don't have this requirement, and don't exercise it on their own. Most civilians, with no military or tactical background, would succumb to doubt... they'd be driven to return to the comforts of civilization.

Bottom line, millions of armed civilians can't do the job alone. If they did, they face massive casualties and would fail to repel the invasion. History has proven that you need a standing Army to provide for the main defense.

Historically, an armed civilian militia would be the auxiliary for the standing army. 

Devan Robert Nelson, Clueless about the Vietnam War: U.S. Military won Every Major Battle in Vietnam

[quote]Devan Robert Nelson: You'll get what the US troops got in Vietnam...... A massacre.

Mac, "The Troops are Welfare Whores": Yeah, that didn't work in Vietnam, did it? ... wait...[/quote]

First, let's take a look at the statistics.

The US lost over 58,000 service-members as a result of the Vietnam War. The North Vietnamese? Together with the Vietcong, lost over 500,000 soldiers. This is just a low estimate of what the later lost.

How could that be them subjecting our forces to the slaughter?

Second, the US military won every major battle in Vietnam including the Tet Offensive. The United States military won the Vietnam War in Vietnam on Vietnamese soil. The United States military's involvement in Vietnam took place until 1973.

The peace treaty required the US military to pull out in 1973. This is well before the events associated with the Fall of Saigon.

This is the peace treaty that the North Vietnamese originally didn't want to negotiate. But, the U.S. military's firepower forced the North Vietnamese military and government to the bargaining table.

The United States military pulled out in 1973 not because of "defeat," but because they forced the North Vietnamese's hand in the battlefield.

It was up to the U.S. population and U.S. Congress to keep the South Vietnamese armed monetarily and materially. The will to do that wasn't there.

The antiwar people in the United States, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, shortchanged the South Vietnamese. The Democrat-controlled Congress defunded the Vietnam War. The result is that the Democratic Congress, and the antiwar crowd, won the Vietnam War for the North Vietnamese.

They did so on American soil.

The Vietnamese acknowledge that we militarily defeated them in the battlefield. The Vietnamese military held a strategy that involved "holding on" until the will of the American electorate wore down.

Keep in mind that we were fighting a standing army in addition to their militia. The United States military decimated the Vietnamese militia and guerrilla units' ability to fight us. By the end of our involvement, our main battles were taking place against a standing North Vietnamese Army with conventional military hardware.

This wasn't a case where we had a bunch civilians "defeating" a standing army. 

Dirk W. Sylvester, Clueless About the American Revolution: The British Would've Destroyed the Militia if the Later Fought Alone

Dirk W. Sylvester:  Civilians can't take on an invading army... lives in a country founded by a civilian militia.

A civilian militia didn't establish the United States. Corporate ventures, approved by the English Monarchy, either directly or through agent corporations, founded what was to become the United States.

This began the colonial period.

Even during the colonial period, this area was referred to as "our country" or "this country" or "this great country."

What our forefathers and founding fathers saw as "country" isn't the same thing that you, and others today, see as "country". Back then, "country" was more of a locality or region involving the community of the person that said, "country."

That concept still lives on today when we say, "We're taking a trip out to 'the country.'" That's the concept that our founders had in mind when they talked about "country."

Now, sometime after the Revolutionary War began, people started to think in terms of being "independent" from the British crown. Now, they weren't talking about a "United States of America" as a "country" being "independent" from the British.

When they talked about "independence," they were talking about each colony, individually, being individual "states" on the same level as the United Kingdom. In fact, the original term that they used was "These" united "states", as in plural.

If you read the peace treaty that formally ended the American Revolution, you'll see the 13 states being referenced as a group, rather than as a single entity.

Now, about the Founding Fathers.

You do realize that George Washington was a member of a regular Army, do you? That's what the Continental Army was back then, a regular, standing, Army. Yes, he was originally a part of the citizen militia. However, he ended up being incorporated into a regular, standing, Army, during two major wars.

The first one was as an augmentee to the Royal British Army during the French/Indian wars. He started as an advisor based on his knowledge of the lay of the land. When the British Commanding Officer was killed, George Washington was able to lead/coordinate an effective British retreat.

His second time being part of a standing Army was during the American Revolution. He was a member of the Continental Army.

The American Revolution, by the way, was won thanks largely to the standing Armies of Spain and France in alliance with the Continental Army.

Let's face reality... had it not been for the support of the Spanish and French Army and Navy, we would've gotten crushed during the American Revolution. In fact, our "militia" suffered a string of defeats in the beginning of the war following the shot heard round the word.

There was one time, during the war, when German mercenaries come close to capturing or killing the core of our revolution. The British called these mercenaries back before the later could deliver the blow that would've ended the American Revolution.

We owe our victory, of our war for independence, to British tactical blunders, to the combined French, Dutch, and Spanish navies, to the French and Spanish armies, as well as the coalition of nations that supported us under the cloak of neutrality.

The idea that a bunch of civilians, with guns, defeated the most powerful nation in the world in order to make the United States possible is a MYTH.

The United States was founded by a group of people that included veterans of our first regular, standing, army.

So NO, this country wasn't founded by a citizen militia. In the sense that our founders meant "country," we were founded through charters blessed off by the British Monarchy. In a sense of the United States being founded, we had help making that event possible.

My great (6 times) grandfather fought against the British during the American Revolution. My Great (4 times) grandfather fought against the British during the War of 1812. I'm looking at this objectively.

Dirk W. Sylvester, I recommend cracking open a history book, one talking about our founders and their mindset. Do this before you go on with your views of the civilian militia and its importance. Failure to understand the concept and purpose for a constitutional civilian militia makes you guys just as dangerous as a government utilizing a military to abuse people's rights.

Kenneth Farrell, Standing Armies from the European Powers, and the Continental Army, won the American Revolution

The British would've won with a straight cut victory if we just had a civilian militia.

Kenneth Farrell: How do you think the revolutionary war was won? Oh yeah, it was a Militia of civilians.

Read my reply.

We had the standing armies of France and Spain on our side east of the Mississippi River. The Spanish armies operated from the Mississippi River to the Appalachian Mountains. The French military operated on the East Coast.

We had the combined navies of the French, Spanish, and Dutch fleets on our side. This contribute to the British focusing a lot of their military resources to defending the UK... there were other factors as well.

The American Revolution ended up becoming a part of a global war. This war started with the "shot heard around the world." It ended with a shot fired in another part of the world. The war didn't just happen in North America. It also happened in the Caribbean, the seas of Europe, and the seas adjacent to Brazil, and in Asia.

This included battles taking place on some of the adjacent land areas. During our American Revolution, Great Britain feared an invasion from continental Europe.

We started off with nothing but a civilian militia.

Reality hit. The Patriots realized real fast that all the states militias needed coordination. They also realized that the militia wasn't going to get the task done. These, and other factors, convinced the patriots that we needed a standing army.

The Continental Army was formed from among the militia. The remaining militia became auxiliaries. An event later happened that'd transform the Continental Army from being manned by militia men to being manned by "standing army" soldiers.

Now, their attitudes towards those that remained militia changed.

George Washington, a member of the Continental Army, saw how undisciplined the civilian militia was. He saw that they weren't combat ready. He also saw that they were quick to give up the fight.

In fact, George Washington, and most the Continental Army, didn't trust the civilian militia to do their part of the fight. What was one of their solutions to taking care of this? They started to put the civilian militia in the front.

If any of the civilians dared to get up and retreat without shooting the enemy, the Continental Army would've shot them while they ran.

This wouldn't have been necessary had the civilian militia had the discipline to keep fighting when the war dragged out.

Remember Fredrich W. Von Steuben?

He was the guy brought in to instill discipline into the Continental Army, composed of civilian militia. In the process of him doing that, he turned them into a real, standing, army. It wasn't until they got disciplined that they started to see success in the American Revolution... and that triggered a bolder involvement by the European armies to help us.

Until those nations came to our assistance, we were facing a string of defeats against the British and the German mercenaries. It wasn't until the patriots became, and acted, like a standing Army that they started to turn the tides of war in our favor.

Again, without these factors, a civilian militia would've been crushed. Had we not formed a standing Army, and had we not had the benefit of the standing armies of the European powers, we would've had a different opinion today of the patriots... seeing them as traitors and rebels instead.

The Revolutionary War would've been extremely short lived. 

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores, and his "Nuking Capitals" Strawmen Arguments...

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: Why would a country want their capitol city nuked, Joe?

First: "...this is a pretty magnificent straw man argument" -- Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores

What, if anything, does this question have to do with the argument on the utility of a standing military... or, for that matter, an argument on whether civilians could successfully repel an invading Army without a need for a standing Army?

I wasn't arguing from the standpoint that Canada wouldn't want to invade the US for fear of getting its cities nuked. However, advancing that argument raises the usefulness of a standing Army.

I've been in the US military cumulatively for over 1/5th of a Century. I know that we wouldn't need to resort to nukes if the Canadians tried to invade the United States. This mere fact makes your question, with regards to nuking their capital city, a "null and void" point.

We'd defeat them through conventional means. The Canadian military knows that such an act, invading the United States, would be suicide for them.

Realistically, there's no need for either country, under the current conditions, to invade each other. They did draw plans up, during World War II, for invading each other.

They did this from the context of countering an invasion threat from a hostile country. If a foreign power had invaded the U.S., there'd be a plan in place to liberate the U.S. using Canada as a launching point.

This would also be applicable had Canada been invaded. We would've had an invasion plan already in place to liberate Canada, from the U.S.

Mac, the Troops are Welfare Whores: Also, this is a pretty magnificent straw man argument, since I've never suggested getting rid of the military and having no means or system of national/regional defense, but I'm totally used to straw man arguments from you people.

Says the guy that asked questions about why a country wanted its own capital city nuked.

First, from this thread:

"I wouldn't need a mall or regular cop if I was allowed to open carry everywhere. Wouldn't need to troops either. Civilians with More guns than most of the worlds armies?" -- Devan Robert Nelson

In response, a poster says this:

"If you think civilians could take on an invading army your dumb" -- Ian Harmon

Your response:

"Yeah, that didn't work in Vietnam, did it?" -- The Troops are Welfare Whores

This in support of this statement:

"You'll get what the US troops got in Vietnam...... A massacre." -- Devan Robert Nelson

The trend in this part of the argument?

We don't need troops, just millions of armed civilians. Nowhere in there did you correct the other person with regards to the need for a standing military... but you ratified his comment about the alleged effects of "armed civilians" against a professional military.

That was the string, within the thread, that I was addressing, a string that had two points:

1. We don't need a military, just millions of armed civilians...

And...

2. Look at what happened in Vietnam, see point number 1.

I countered both claims with my response. I wasn't advancing a strawman argument. I was sticking to the points that were brought up.

Nowhere in my argument am I arguing against a citizen militia... in fact, I'm a strong supporter of having a lawful citizen militia. They exist per US federal law, as well as per the law of most states. I'm a supporter of their 2nd Amendment rights.

I simply refuse to believe; however, that they alone are needed for this country's defense.

Also, your "not believing" in arguing about the ability of a disorganized civilian militia doesn't constitute my making a "strawman argument" when I do advance my argument.

More on that in one of the following posts. 

Mac, the Troops are Welfare Whores, gets Schooled on What Constitutes a Strawman Argument

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: Joe the entire thing is a straw man argument. 

The basics of a strawman argument:

Person "A" advances statement "X."
Person "B" advances statement "Y," a distorted version of statement "X."
Person "B" concludes that statement "Y," is wrong.
By extension, since "Y," is wrong, then "X" is also wrong.

The original post contains a link to Mark's opinion. You explain that this was a case of a mall cop telling a bunch of civilians that they don't understand the risks that mall cops deal with. This may have happened in another thread or another part of the Internet.

It didn't happen in the quoted statements in your original post.

Mark is "Person A."
You're "Person B."
Mark's statement is "Statement X," and your statement is "Statement Y." The rest follows the above flow for a strawman argument. Based on this formula, and based on your actions, your statement constituted a strawman argument.

Now, the original post resulted in another post. This is a post that hinted that millions of armed civilians are needed... and that the troops wouldn't be needed. That post, the response to that post, and your response to that response, drew me in. I stayed on that specific topic during my reply.

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: I'm not interested in theoretically discussing how well a bunch of totally disorganized civilians would repel an invasion, because it's not relevant to anything I believe.

First, you were interested in arguing that point. I quoted you supporting such an argument. You back peddled from it when I proved that argument wrong.

Second, my arguing something that you don't believe in doesn't constitute a strawman argument. Your reason for something being a "strawman" doesn't fit the above strawman flow.

The topic that I'm arguing against came up courtesy of other posters on this thread. You supported that concept, indirectly, when you brought up the points about the Vietnam War. My argument was against you, and those that shared your opinion.

Your arguments helped shore up the argument advanced by another poster. This poster argued that we didn't need the troops. He insinuated that millions of armed civilians, in the wealthiest country in the world, "could handle" the job just fine.

How these civilians do against a trained enemy military, or organized armed group, is evident throughout history, and even during current events.

For example, there are more armed Iraqis than the stated number of people in ISIL. I know this, as I've combat deployed to Iraq as an infantryman.

That fact, about an armed population, hasn't been effective with most Iraqi civilian effort to repel ISIS. In fact, their tribal militia are arguing that the U.S. Military should do more to intervene to repel ISIS.

There are reports that elements of Iran's standing army is providing help to Iraqi militias.

The same is also true in Afghanistan. There are more armed Afghanis than there are members of the Taliban. What would count as "civilian militia populations" in these countries haven't been effective in repelling the radical Islamic threat.

Having a standing Army on your side makes a world of difference.

Mac, The Troops Are Welfare Whores: The point of mentioning the nukes is that any country that invaded the US would be nuked immediately. You must surely know that.

Here's what I do know.

Department of Defense Policy, and US Government Policy, prohibits "first use" of nuclear weapons. There are exceptions, but these exceptions aren't the norm. The primary effort is conventional force used first.

Meaning, if a conventional military response is enough to repel the threat, no nuclear weapons will be launched.

Even the Chinese and Russians don't have the logistics and power projection capabilities to launch an invasion of any US State. Meaning, the United States, right now, would be able to repel a foreign invasion from these two countries. They'd be able to do it conventionally.

Now, if they immediately use nuclear weapons against us prior to their conventional strike, then we'd immediately use nuclear weapons in response.

Don't make assumptions about what I do or don't know simply because you don't want to admit that you're wrong. 

Mac,Troops are Welfare Whores, Utilized Strawman Arguments

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: I know what a straw man argument is. I have written extensively on the topic of logical fallacies.

Then you should know that you're engaging in straw man fallacies on this thread. Whether you've written about that fallacy or not is beside the point. In practice, you don't appear to know what constitutes a strawman fallacy.

You don't seem to know that you're actually engaging in it while erroneously accusing others of engaging in strawman tactics.

Trying to claim that "this is a strawman" because it's not something that you subscribe to isn't you accurately identifying what a strawman is.

The points that I brought up on this thread directly addresses the points that I was countering... I wasn't countering something similar or that sounded the same... I countered what was actually being said while remaining on the topic that they started... that doesn't constitute my advancing a strawman argument.

Mac, the Troops are Welfare Whores: And I seriously doubt if there would be a conventional military response to an invasion. We'll have to disagree about that, because neither of us know.

Again, I've been in the military for over 1/5th of a century, cumulatively. I've practiced this craft, to include training to maintain my professional specialties as part of a larger training effort. I've done this long enough to know for a fact that we won't always immediately resort to a nuclear strike.

The last time I've trained in a scenario that involved nuclear weapons was back in the 1990s. The last battle problem that I did, involving nuclear weapons use training scenario, was almost 2 decades ago.

Every time we did these training scenarios, these battle problems began with a conventional scenario... and it evolved into "mass conflagration." This was also known as the losing side, the Soviets or rogue third world dictator, using tactical nuclear weapons.

You see, that's the key... by the losing side.

If we successfully repel an invasion using conventional forces, there'd be no need to resort to nuclear war... unless the losing side resorts to it in order to regain momentum in an attempt to complete their invasion.

As part of my profession, I have to know the doctrines that impact what the military does. Those doctrines, specifically talking about nuclear weapons, don't identify those weapons as being "first resort" weapons.

Don't tell me what I do know, or don't know, about a profession that I've practiced most my adult and professional life. Thank me for giving you a clue about how the real military would do things against your lack of knowledge about what you're talking about here.

Don't make assumptions about what I do or don't know about this topic. Have the honor and integrity to know that I know more about this topic than you... I have experience against your lack of it. You should be thanking me for educating you in the face of your not knowing what you're talking about.

It's painfully obvious that you need to do a lot of research in the areas that we debated. Your argument in this topic isn't able to withstand a fact check.

What I'm telling you are facts based on firsthand experience. I'm also giving you a perspective that's based on my familiarity with our doctrine and law involving the use of nuclear weapons.

If what you said were true, we would've turned Afghanistan into a glowing mushroom garden. We didn't. We used a conventional and special forces response instead. We also used economic, political, and other types of responses.

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: Also, you should try to be more concise. This isn't a very good medium for such long comments.

The fact that I post in the length that I post contributes to my being able to do this:

"Although, I must thank you for your calm and articulate comments. We aren't used to that around here." -- Mac, Troops are Welfare Whores

I could do one of two things, I could lacerate you guys via a flame war, which doesn't take a long post to engage in... or I could advance a factual, reasoned, and logical argument. The latter requires a lengthy response at times.

You should be thankful for my long posts. 

Mac, "The Troops are Welfare Whores," Lies in a Debate he's Losing, he bans the Victor to Protect his Ego

Mac, "The The Troops are Welfare Whores": I am not engaging in straw man fallacies, 

Actually, you are engaging in straw man fallacies. You provided a link, in your first post, to a statement from Mark. You quoted Mark's asking that you guys address the causes of warfare. He provided you with examples of approaches that you could take. He tried to discourage you guys from attacking members of the military.

Your summary of the account?

That a "mall cop" was trying to tell you "civilians" that you guys were being "softheaded," or something to that effect.

The implication there is that the post that you linked to captured him criticizing you guys for not knowing the risks that he went through. When the readers read that post that you linked to, where you include his statements, that's not the impression that they get.

You advanced a strawman argument.

Mac, "The The Troops are Welfare Whores": Joe and you are banned for lying.

If you read the posts that I made, I proved my case that you advanced a strawman argument. I wouldn't have done that had I "lied."

There's only one liar between the two of us, and it isn't me.

You assumed that you weren't advancing a strawman argument, when in fact that's what you were doing. You assumed that I was advancing a strawman argument, when in fact I was countering the points made.

I wasn't countering points not related to what I was responding to... in an attempt to tie them to the actual argument. I countered the actual argument.

You failed to prove your point. You reacted by banning me instead of being man enough to "take what's coming".

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: I fucking thanked you for being calm and articulate on this page and you come up with some bullshit like that?

First:

"It's for that reason us admins are careful of what language we use. You'll almost never see us curse, use the r-word for a slow person, etc. There's multiple pages devoted to monitoring and reporting us. I wish I was joking." -- "The troops are welfare whores"

Yup, alias Stephen "Mac" Duffy, you made a liar out of your admins, didn't you? :D

Second, I was consistently calm and articulate throughout that thread. That tone didn't change. What did change was your perception of my posts.

Your perception changed as the thread progressed, because you were getting more and more emotional. You were getting more emotional, because my arguments forced you to question your own stance. Your ego refused to acknowledge that fact.

Your blood kept on boiling when I forced you to see the fallacy of your stance.

You couldn't be man enough to even stand by your implied argument. You dismissed that as something that "you didn't originally believe." The more your blood boiled, the more my posts came across to you as something other than what they actually were.

What you consider as "bullshit" is me forcing you into a position to where you're questioning your own stance.

If you're going to sling factually challenged comments, be man enough to take the blistering fact check scrutiny. You could always avoid that by doing your research, by studying, and by arguing from the facts instead of from your emotions and feelings. 

William Derek Church is not an Army Ranger or Combat Veteran

William Derek Church, of Lenoir, North Carolina, is parading himself as a Veteran Army Ranger with Combat Deployments to Iraq. He showed himself in photos wearing SSG rank, service stripes indicating a full career, and medals he didn't earn. His infantry blue chord is on the wrong side, his beret is improperly worn, and he looks like a sack of potatoes trying to wear a uniform.

There are other uniform discrepancies as well, like trousers badly in need of tailoring, and badges worn in the wrong places.

He claimed getting shot in the sternum five times, and is using that as a reason for his alleged disability.

What's the truth about this clown?

He served in the Army National Guard from February 22, 1994 to September 13, 1995. William Derek Church went on active duty from August 8, 1995 to September 13, 1995. He was discharged as a Private First Class. His only award was the National Defense Service Medal, for being on active duty during the Persian Gulf War.

He reported to Basic Combat Training on June 21, 1994, and graduated on August 12, 1994. He reported to his unit to do one weekend a month drills until it was time for him to do AIT. He reported to Advanced Individual Training on August 7, 1995 but was discharged on September 13, 1995.

He was discharged from the military while attempting to complete Advanced Individual Training.

Thanks to "This Aint Hell" and others for giving this embellisher/phony his "spotlight." 

Jay Kerwin, of Bootcamp LA, Never a SEAL, Never an Air Force Pararescue Jumper

Retired Senior Chief Don Shipley, also a retired SEAL, would've never contacted Jay (Jason) Kerwin had it not been for Jay Kerwin's SEAL claims. Don Shipley doesn't just investigate someone that claimed SEAL once. He'll investigate the person that repeatedly, and knowingly, claimed to be a Navy SEAL.

Jay Kerwin, the guy that runs Bootcamp LA, as "The Major," had insinuated being a Navy SEAL veteran, as well as being an Air Force Pararescue Commando veteran. The reality? He never served a day in the Navy. He did serve in the Air Force, but got kicked out for selling an unauthorized drug/supplement to other service members.

His Freedom of Information Request Act response shows that he made it to Basic Military Training. It also shows that he went from being a student, in one of the schools he went to, to being a prisoner. He spent a good amount of time in the Air Force as a prisoner prior to being discharged as an E1. He never was a major, he never was in the Navy, and he never was a pararescue commando.

On his Bootcamp LA page, he made the following disclaimer:

"Disclaimer: Jay Kerwin is not a military officer nor has he ever been. Additionally, any reference made by third parties online or in the media to Jay being a member of the U.S. Navy or a Navy SEAL is inaccurate." -- BootCamp LA website

This is deceptive. "Being," without clarification, implies present tense, which isn't what many in the veteran community are complaining about. They have issues with his claims of being a Navy SEAL, and Air Force PJ, in the past. This disclaimer allows Jason Kerwin to claim that he was one or both of these groups once the attention switches away from him.

Judging by the fact that Jason Kerwin was discharged as an E1, after being in military prison for a long time, he may have received a type of discharge that disqualifies him from being considered a veteran.

Thanks to Don Shipley, of Extreme SEAL Experience, for exposing this phony. Thanks to This Aint Hell for giving this individual some "fame and spotlight". 

Jeff Orchard, Of Sabina Ohio, Never Special Forces, Not Retired Military

Jeff Orchard, of Sabina Ohio, talked a good game of being "Special Forces" serving in Vietnam. When asked for details on this experience, he resorted to the "it's secret" or "can't talk about it" excuse. This is usually a sign that someone didn't do what they claimed they did. It doesn't help him that he's claiming to have served in Vietnam years after the US pulled out.

Jeff Orchard also has people believing that he retired from the military.

The truth?

Jeffrey Earl Orchard served in the Army from May 11, 1982 to January 14, 1997. He served on active duty from May 11, 1982 to April 22, 1994. This is approximately 14 years, 8 months and 3 days of military service; of which approximately 11 years, 11 months and 11 days were spent on active duty; and the final 2 years, 8 months, and 22 days of his military service were spent in the Individual Ready Reserves.

No Special Forces Qualification Course is listed in his education history. No combat deployment, or combat deployment related awards, are listed in the response to the query into his military record.

His wife, Christy Broughton -- Orchard insisted that he was retired. If he's getting a "retirement" it's not from regular military service. His time fell short of the 15 year early retirement program that they were offering some service members back in the '90s. With "IRR" as his last status, it's unlikely that he's getting medical retirement. Christy Broughton may have mistaken his VA compensation check (if he's receiving such), or some other payment, as his "retirement" check.

Thanks to Scotty, of Stolen Valor, for the research exposing this embellisher/phony. Thanks to This Aint Hell for giving this person some "fame and spotlight." 

Youtube's 155 Millimeter, AKA "Kings of Battle" is a Faker

In one video, 155 millimeter showed what looked like a coin. He claimed that the coin came straight from Washington. He claimed that it was pinned on his chest, in the battle field, for an act of valor that almost cost him his life.

Unfortunately for him, his "medal" looks like a coin, which you could purchase from a mint, or a battalion or company challenge coin. There is a medal "from Washington," and that's the Congressional Medal of Honor. There's a recommendation process that involves sending an award write-up through the chain of command to the person that could approve or disapprove the award.

These awards don't just mysteriously come down from Washington D.C.

What 155 Millimeter shows, on his video, "Valor Thief or Washington Recognized Warfighter? You decide," isn't the kind of medal that's pinned on anybody's chest.

This isn't the only indicator that You Tube's "155 Millimeter" aka "Kings of Battle" is a faker.

There's a training video that he put up that involved "room clearing." In that video, you see an empty hallway. Then you hear some toy electronic noises, then the door opens as 155 millimeter, wearing his beret and sporting a toy weapon, barges in. He points to one of the doors, and you hear the electronic noises from the weapon again. He opens the door after he "fires" into it. He lowered his "weapon" down to take a look into another door.

His demonstration doesn't match how things are really done.

In general cases, you don't just shoot at a door, then open it to see if you killed anybody. Moving as part of a team, you enter the room and "cover" the entire area with your team's firepower. You don't pull the trigger to take someone down unless you positively identify that someone as a hostile. If you shoot first, you're letting potential hostiles, on the other side of the door, know that you're there and... in 155 Millimeter's case... know exactly where you're at. You could also end up killing non-hostiles.

If 155 Millimeter did, what he demonstrated in the video, in the real world, he would've been shot and/or killed.

There's another video that he put up, that talks about doing "red leg" PT. In this case, it was a training exercise on doing ruck marches. Again, just by looking at how he does things, it's obvious that he's making things up, or basing things on pre-conceived assumptions.

First, he stuffs a duffle bag with nearly 500 pounds of weights. This is assuming that he's telling the truth. He claims that "pogues" ruck with ruck sacks, and that red legs rucked with duffle bags. I do recall a movie where military trainees marched around with their duffle bags on their backs. However; in the Army, it doesn't matter if you're combat arms, combat support, or combat service support. If the ruck march is the prescribed training/operational event, the ruck sack is generally the prescribed item that the Soldier must use. This is the case most of the time.

Second, that video doesn't show him carrying the riffle properly. He had it at somewhat of a port arms. When we do a tactical road march, we have our rifles at the "low ready." He also claimed that you used the weapon as leverage to assist your movement. To demonstrate that, he swung his weapon back and forth in front of him.

He looked really silly doing that, we don't use our weapons that way.

If you wear the rucksack, and other items on you, properly, you'll already have stability and balance. Moving the weapon horizontally in front of you doesn't serve a purpose.  

One key issue, that Veterans hammer him on, is his DD 214. A service member that leaves active duty, actual active duty, receives one of these. 155 Millimeter aka "Kings of Battle" wouldn't have a problem showing this, less sensitive information, to personalities like retired Navy SEAL Don Shipley. The later did ask 155 Millimeter for a copy of his DD 214.

The response? Another video, done by 155 Millimeter, aka "red legs" or "Kings of Battle," showing a bunch of snot rolling down his nose... followed by a scene of him walking circles in his living room. In the video description, 155 Millimeter goes up in arms about Don Shipley's "daring" to ask him for a DD 214. Nowhere in that video does 155 Millimeter show a DD 214 that other veterans can examine.

155 Millimeter implies that he took part in operations in the "Secret Gulf War." This puts him in the same category... as those older people who claimed that they took part in the "Secret Vietnam War" that took place after US forces officially pulled out from Vietnam.

At best, 155 Millimeter did serve, but didn't come close to accomplishing the things that he claims to have accomplished. At worst, he never served, and he's basing his stories on what other people have said... or on the fiction that he as read.