Paul Montez of Troops are Welfare Whores, my Response to your "Serious" Question to the Military

Paul Montez, The Troops are Welfare Whores poster‎: Serious question for every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman. 

I read your question. You ask us a serious question, you asked us a question based on your lack of understanding of how the real world works. You made an assumption that your ignorance, of what's going on in the world, was "reality."

It isn't.

Paul Montez, The Troops are Welfare Whores poster: If you really believe you protect our freedoms, 

Have you paid attention to what our enemies have said? They have put enough video on the Internet to make it clear that they intend to put the flag of Islam on top of the White House. You have to see this from their, radical Islam's, perspective.

They argue that we should live under their strict interpretation of Islamic law. Our Constitution is a violation under radical Islamic law. To them, Islamic law is a law of God. They see our Constitution as a law created by men, an abomination.

They've declared their intention of destroying the United States. This is key, because if they could successfully defeat the US military in the United States, the rest of the world is theirs for the taking.

They are following what they feel is their manifest destiny. This a manifest destiny that started with the rise of Mohammed. Crack open a history book and read about how fast Islam spread throughout the Christian world.

Prior to Mohammed, the countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea were predominantly Christian. Over 60% of Christianity was wiped out due to the spread of Islam. It was spread similar to the way ISIS is going about it in Iraq and Syria today.

The radicals in that region anticipate that the entire world will be under the flag of Islam. If they succeed, forget about your constitutional rights. Better yet, forget about your interpretation of what true freedom is.

You'll be living under radical Islamic law. If you refuse to convert to their interpretation of it, you'll get beheaded in front of your family.

Then they'll take the women of your family as sex slaves. Now, let's say you do convert in this scenario. Guess what? You're expected to join the fight against non-Muslims. Once you convert, you could end up being pressed into their militia service... what they call "being a holy warrior".

Once that happens, you'll be doing the very things that you argue against on your Facebook wall. If they determine that you can't go to the frontlines, they could easily position you to where you're in a supportive role... enabling the very things that you argue against.

It's either that, or your life being taken while the women in your family end up becoming sex slaves. Married? Not if you're dead. Your wife or girlfriend could end up being the sex slave of the person that takes your life.

If you don't think that we protect your freedoms, go to Iraq and Syria and talk to those who have been victimized by ISIS. This is an example when a military is unable to protect the rights of the people that they're supposed to defend.

It's a fact, The United States Military protects the freedoms of all Americans in the United States.

Paul Montez, The Troops are Welfare Whores poster: if you really believe you uphold and defend the constitution,

We uphold and defend the Constitution, that's a fact. We swear an oath to defend the Constitution. We guarantee that no foreign power, or US-born enemies, does something that results in people not benefiting from their constitutional rights.

Paul Montez, The Troops are Welfare Whores poster:  then why don't you start shooting at politicians taking away our rights? 

Where, in the United States Constitution, does it authorize the United States military to start shooting at politicians? Simply making this statement proves that you have absolutely no clue about what the Constitution is about, or how it came about.

Because the politicians that you talk about are not taking away our rights. And, if they were taking away our rights, what are you doing about it, other than calling for people to break the law?

You people forget that it's the people in the United States that's responsible for governing the people of the United States. Congress works for the American people. The President of the United States works for the American people. Congress and the president are public servants.

They work for us.

If you, and your fellow tinfoil hat Army, strongly believe that the politicians have been taking our rights away, why aren't you people doing anything about it politically and peacefully?

We have the judicial system in the United States, with the United States Supreme Court sitting at the top. The court's job is to strike down any law that violates the Constitution. If you feel that any law that Congress has created, that the President has signed into law, has taken away our rights, why haven't you taken this to the court's attention?

This is a right that you have as a citizen of the United States.

Second, we don't have the authority to go around shooting people that you think are enemies of the people. In our system of government, everybody has a right to due process of law. Even if you know that somebody has committed an act that requires the death penalty, that someone has a right to due process of law.

There's also a due process involved with removing someone from office. You didn't bother looking into that. You people refuse to exercise your self-governing rights, through your representatives. You people don't have a leg to stand on.

In the United States, when there's no war going on, the only people that should really be taking the time to decide if someone should die, or not, is the court system. This includes judge and jury. If someone is brought up on charges that could include life in prison or the death penalty, it will be the judicial process that makes that decision.

Even if these politicians did try to take our rights away, that act doesn't call for the death penalty. Again, you people have to leverage your numbers when it comes to communicating peacefully and legally with your representatives. You also have to leverage your numbers at the ballot box.

There are legislative and judicial procedures to removing politicians from office. You'll have to reference legislative procedures and the judicial system in this country, and in your area, to get more details.

There's a more peaceful way to do this, and it involves you doing your job as a voter. You failed to do that... so has the majority of the electorate. You people have no legs stand on demanding punishment for the politicians that you people refuse to "supervise."

Every single time a conspiracy whack job tries to argue that our rights are being taken away, they fail to prove their point. They mention a law. But, when I read the text of that law, it's blatantly obvious that these conspiracy whack jobs didn't read the text of this law that they're condemning.

The Patriot Act? Nothing in the text of the Patriot Act suggests that our rights are being taken away. The NDAA? Nothing in the text of the NDAA suggests that were losing our rights. But, if you can find a law that contains text that specifically takes our rights away, you have a responsibility as a citizen to bring that to the court's attention.

If that law was written by the federal government, then you have to bring that to the attention of the federal courts. Likewise, if the law was written by your state government, you need to bring that to the attention of your state courts.

Nothing has been done because the conspiracy whack jobs have consistently failed to prove that our rights are being taken away.

Paul Montez, The Troops are Welfare Whores poster: Why don't you go to the White House and arrest or kill your commander in chief who you claim to despise? 

First, we are a nation of laws. We, the members of the military, make our decisions based on the facts. You people, the tinfoil hat Army, have failed to prove that the President has done anything that would warrant the treatment that you're demanding.

Also, nowhere in the United States Constitution is your call authorized. The President has done nothing to warrant his being shot. He has done nothing to warrant the United States military placing him under arrest.

Yes, many of us will disagree with him in private. But, he has not committed to an action that would warrant the military doing anything to him. Again, if you feel that the President should not be in the White House, if you feel that he should no longer be president, then you need to bring that to the attention of your representative.

There's a constitutional process involved in removing the president. If he meets that, then you need to take that up with your representative.

Second, we don't have the authority to make arrests on US soil. Federal law prohibits our use in general law enforcement outside of a federal military reservation.

Paul Montez, the Troops are Welfare Whores poster: Why don't you storm the NSA headquarters and arrest the people spying on us? 

First, you need to review the Posse Comitatus Act. Federal law prohibits the use of the United States military for general law enforcement. If the people that you talk about, and the NSA headquarters, have broken the law, then the law enforcement in charge of handling their situation needs to place them under arrest.

Second, you failed to prove that their actions require them to be arrested. All you've done was to base your opinion on second hand information. The big question is this, do you have hard-core evidence that he NSA has been spying on you?

If you do, if you could prove that they have been spying on you specifically, is it for something that's justifiable?

The fourth amendment to the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It does nothing to protect you from a reasonable search... like a crime in progress, with the tools of crime in plain view. If you're breaking the law, for example, coordinating with terrorists intending to commit acts of terror, or helping the terrorist, then listening in to your conversation is a reasonable "search".

If those descriptions fit you, then they should be spying on you. If you're breaking a state law, the state should be spying on you to get evidence to hold you accountable. That's part of investigation. A warrant would be obtained just the same.

The Patriot Act requires a judge's consent, if a search is going to be done before a warrant is going to be issued... because the time needed to stop a crime is shorter than the process to obtain a warrant. Better to get the judge's verbal authorization now, while the warrant issuing process is underway, if waiting for a written warrant would delay the prevention of an act of terrorism from happening.

That's not an erosion of our rights, but a move that brings law enforcement into the 21st century.

The burden of proof is on you. You need to prove that the NSA has specifically been spying on you. If you have that evidence, then you have to prove that you are completely innocent. That is, if you're going to accuse the NSA of committing crimes.

I doubt that you're making this argument because you have "evidence" that the NSA was "spying" on you. There's very good chance that you are arguing this point because of what you heard from others.

Put that Kool-Aid down. Look at the applicable laws that presumably violate your "constitutional rights". If you can't find such loss in our rights, if you cannot quote specific statements from those laws, then you don't have an argument.

Paul Montez, The Troops are Welfare Whores poster: Why don't you arrest IRS agents who target conservatives? 

Again, using the United States military for law enforcement is a violation of federal law. You want those agents arrested for targeting conservatives, which is a violation of federal law, but you want us to break federal law to get one of your wishes carried out.

Where's the logic in that?

Let Congress investigate that organization. If they find fault, the mechanisms are already in place to hold those agents accountable. I guarantee you that this will not require the use of the United States military.

Doing what you demand is outside of our lane, it's not our job.

Paul Montez, The Troops are Welfare Whores poster: Why don't you arrest government officials who sell weapons to drug cartels? 

The same story here as with your last point. Since this is an act of the federal government, by government officials, this falls into the domain of federal law enforcement and Congress. This is outside the United States military's control.

Paul Montez, The Troops are Welfare Whores poster: Why instead do you take orders from corrupt beauracrats who send you to countries who literally pose no threat to us?

This statement proves that you have absolutely no clue about what you're trying to argue. Throughout your "serious question", quotation marks used strongly, you've shown the reader that you know little to no facts about what you're talking about. You show the reader that you know a lot of the garbage the conspiracy whack jobs spew.

Do you have hard-core evidence that the bureaucrats, that give us orders, are corrupt? If you do, there are procedures in place that you, as a regular citizen, to utilize to get that bureaucrat held accountable. Without evidence, with nothing but a tinfoil hat argument, you're assuming that all our bureaucrats are corrupt.

Also, your failure to see the threat that we addressed during the War and Terror shows that you have little to no understanding of asymmetrical warfare. You have little to no knowledge of world history. You have little to no knowledge of current events... outside of what other conspiracy whack jobs have told you.

I guarantee you that the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, our support for the wars going on around the world that focus on fighting the terrorists, are all connected to our security. Go back and read what I said about Mohammed, and the radical Islamic movement today.

You failed to understand that in this war, which is a mortal struggle between radical Islam and the West, led by the United States, there could only be one outcome.

The cold hard reality is that there could only be one outcome to this struggle.

Either we win and change the geopolitical, economic, and cultural outlook in that region, or radical elements of that region will succeed in turning the United States, and the rest of the west, into a series of radical Islamic caliphates.

There is no third option. There is no other option. In the end, one side or the other will get its way. I vote that we prevail. If we don't, they'll prevail. With the radical Islamists in charge, you wouldn't think that the current government arrangement is what you think it is.

If you bothered to do your own research, to include knowing what's BS from what's valid, you'd know that.

You see conspiracy were none exists. You're seriously blind to where it does exist.

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores, Lies About our Debate

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: He is on an anti-TTAWW page saying that I banned him because he beat me in a debate. That is false. 

That's a fact. I beat you in debate. You even backed away from an argument you originally supported. You said this to me towards the end of our debate, before you banned me:

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

Usually, when people demand that shorten my posts, they're getting mad... or they've already gotten mad. They're seeing that they don't have an argument, and they see the length of my posts as an extensive reason to why they're wrong.

This didn't sit well with you. You pulled many of the cards that the losing side of the debate normally pulls during a debate. This is the pattern that I've seen repeatedly throughout the decade I've been debating people online.

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: I banned him for several reasons:

Your own statement:

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

Nope, that doesn't sound like "several reasons." You banned me for disagreeing with you.

You didn't ban me for the reasons that you stated below.

You got emotional. My argument made you realize that you didn't have an argument. You couldn't handle the fact that I was using a reasoned argument to destroy your argument. Deep down inside, you saw that I was wiping the floor with your arse.

Finally, you dropped hints that you wanted me to "drop it" and to either move on, or provide a reply that you could "stomach."

You banned me for emotional and ego reasons.

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: 1. He wouldn't debate.

Wrong. I debated against you, and those that you supported, using a point by point rebuttal. Go back to that statement that I quoted above. If I refused to debate, I wouldn't have generated the responses that lead you to suggest that I cut down my replies.

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: 2. Instead of debating, he tried to prove that I had made a straw man argument. I hadn't, but even if I had, the alleged straw man argument was utterly irrelevant to the discussion I was trying to have with him.

Do you see the contradiction in your own argument here? On one hand, you claim that I "wasn't" debating. In the next breath, you described a debate that we were having.

The reality is that we were debating more than one topic. As the thread progressed, we were arguing even more topics. I addressed you point by point, like what I'm doing here.

I debated you, and you know it. You refused to acknowledge it, because to acknowledge it would also mean that you acknowledge that you got destroyed in debate.

There is no, "tried," about this. I proved, using the strawman formula, that you advanced a strawman argument. Your first post on that thread was a strawman. Your description of what was going on was different from the quote that you linked to.

You failed to argue how that was "not" a strawman argument.

Mac, The troops are Welfare Whores: 3. I was on about day 4 or 5 of a cluster/migraine headache, and I simply wasn't interested in playing games with the Lobsterman.

That migraine wasn't there when you jumped in to support the argument/myth on that thread... a myth that a bunch of civilians "defeated" the U.S. Military. You didn't have that cluster/migraine headache as that thread progressed... you generated your replies to that thread.

If you had that cluster migraine headache, it didn't seem to bother you when you felt that things were going your way. It became an issue only when you ended up getting your arse handed to you on that thread.

Mac, The troops are Welfare Whores: Just throwing this out there, in case he happens to see it.

As you indicated above:

"He is on an anti-TTAWW page saying that I banned him because he beat me in a debate." -- Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores

In the same post, it was obvious to the reader that Mac was reading what was being posted on that site.

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: What happened was that someone else (a third person in the thread) HAD made a straw man argument, and I pointed it out. Lobsterman decided to play the white knight and basically twisted logic into a pretzel to show that I had made a straw man argument by accusing the other guy of having made one.

This is an example of "deflection," when the losing side deflects their own trait to the winning side. What am I talking about here?

Here's what you actually said in the other thread, in response to me:

"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." -- Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores (emphasis added)

You see, you were accusing me of advancing a strawman argument. Never mind that you said this first before I addressed it:

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

This was in support of the third person that you claimed "advanced a strawman argument":

"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." - Devan Robert Nelson

What was he responding to?

You posted a meme about a guy leading a 3 man "tac" team in the mall. You posted a caption right next to that photo. You talked about how this mall cop told you "civilians" that you guys didn't understand the risks that he went through.

That "third person" that you talked about, that you accuse of advancing a strawman, was responding to your statement. Both you guys touched on the theme of the utility of the mall cop. When the argument evolved into one about the utility of the troops, you jumped in... supporting the argument of the "third person."

Now, you left a link along with your commentary. This lead to another post that you made, quoting a "Mark". When you read that post, it said nothing about you guys being "softheaded". It said nothing about you guys "not understanding the risks" that mall cops went through.

Nope, it said something else.

That post talked about how you guys should explore the causes of war, and how you guys could get your message across without attacking the "humanoids" that were in the military. Nowhere in that quote did he berate you guys about being too "softheaded" and not understanding the risks that he goes through for you guys.

Your statement was a distorted version of the statement that you ultimately linked to. Hence, the first post that you generated was a strawman argument. This is something that you touched upon with your reply above.

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: I wouldn't have banned him for it, except he went on and on and on and on about it. Every time I refreshed the page, he was going on about it some more, so I decided, "Fuck this guy."

Mac, you've been caught in another one of your lies. You're implying that I was spamming the thread. Your own words; however, disagree with you:

"I am not engaging in straw man fallacies, Joe and you are banned for lying." -- Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores

Proving someone wrong with their own words is like beating a man up with his own prosthetic limbs. :D

You stated, in simple terms, why you were banning me. Nowhere in that statement, nor in any of the statements made in that other thread, did you complain about me "spamming" your thread. Our actual arguments have been posted below.

Even when it comes to what you actually did, you openly lie.

Yes, you probably thought "fuck this guy," because you were getting your butt kicked. 

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores, Mistakes Civilians for Military

Mac, "Troops are Welfare Whores": "Of course, when I've told that story in the past, grunts will retort that they must have been POGs, or Air Force, or whatever, but I don't know what they were. 

There is legitimacy to that statement. Combat arms soldiers, which includes infantrymen, are required to go through combatives classes. Once they complete the course and get their basic certifications, they have combatives competitions during their training cycles.

These are informal competitions, were soldiers just have at it and wrestle each other. This usually happens on an impromptu basis provided that a soldier, certified to a higher level than the combatants, is present to supervise.

Now, your statement said that there were about two or three "Soldiers" there. Had the Soldiers been infantrymen, the guy that you talked about would've gotten his arse handed to him in front of his girlfriend. He more than likely would've ended up in the hospital.

They were being too nice about this when they said that these "Soldiers" could have been POGs, or Air Force. Since it's apparent that you didn't serve, there's a very good possibility that if this event actually did happen, those three people could've been very well nonmilitary.

Mac, "Troops are Welfare Whores": There's no reason to assume they weren't Army grunts. 

This is one of your main problems. You're making assumptions based on your bias. Until you've actually served in the military, there's no way for you to figure out whether these people were actually in the Army, in the military, or were simply civilians.

Well, you might say, "These guys claimed that they were in the Army."

Given the presence of stolen valor sites, where veterans expose phony service members, there's a good chance that you can't tell the difference between "phony" and "real". If you had served for 10 years in the military, you'd be able to recall that event and say precisely what those guys were.

If you served for 10 years, like you claimed, and you're making that assumption, there's a good chance that you served those years in the reserves. During that time, you had no real active duty time outside of the training courses that you attended.

That's being nice about it.

You claim that you served. However, your comments here indicate that there's a good chance that you're making false claims about your being a veteran.

Mac, Troops are Welfare Whores: I can go to some of the bars I used to haunt when I was younger, throw a pebble into the crowd, and probably hit some drunk redneck who could beat the shit out of the average Army grunt.

Nowhere in your stories did you indicate that you investigated whether those people were in the military or not. Your litmus test here isn't sufficient to tell you whether you could hit somebody that could beat up a soldier.

However, there is a way to test this. Walk into one of the bars that you used to hunt. Toss a pebble into the crowd. Pull aside the person that the pebble hits. Invite him to go to an army base. Have him challenge one of the soldiers, engaged in combatives, to a fight.

I guarantee you that the vast majority of the people, that you identify as a redneck, would think that you're nuts. They'd probably kick your arse for being stupid enough to throw pebble on them.

If you had any real military experience, you wouldn't have doubts as to who those people were that harassed your friend's girlfriend. It'd be blatantly obvious whether they were military or not given your "military" experience.

You may not have had the military experience back then, but your follow-on military experience would've answered that question.

The fact that you're still guessing at this point, after that supposedly 10 years of service, argues strongly against your claims that you served for 10 years. Again, if you did serve those 10 years, it probably was strictly one weekend a month, two weeks a summer, and whatever course they had to send you two.

No real active duty experience. If you did serve in active duty, your best bet is to not even admit it. You actually make yourself come across as "that guy," the problem child, the incompetent, while "in" the service. 

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.

Profile of the Demand Studios Sucks Agitator

What do Page 1 News, Just Browsing, Undercover, and CE Cluebat have in common? They have something to do with journalism. Now, there is a Demand Studios Sucks poster that brags about her journalism. That person is behind those four accounts... as well as other DSS zombie accounts.

Now, who is this agitator?

Like I said before, this person isn't relevant in her real life. To make up for that, she plays games on Demand Studios Sucks in order to gain some relevancy. This gives her a sense of "control." As part of this "control," she'll exaggerate information, mostly as a liar. Lying for her is natural. If she has access to the facts, she'll exaggerate and manipulate them as well.

This person's main DSS zombie identity doesn't get involved with the drama that she starts. She creates sock puppets for that.

She'll get people to react a certain way on the website, then sit back and watch from the sidelines. To her, this is a way to drive more traffic, viewing and posting, to DSS. The more audience and traffic, the better it is in her mind. DSS is her little fiefdom.

Many of the posters, in the blog response section, have accurately identified the sock puppets under the same puppet master's control.

Who is this puppet master?

Find someone, on Demand Studios Sucks, that acts "normal," as if she's just "stumbling" onto the fiasco. This someone is associated with journalism, associated with travel, and is interested in keeping DSS afloat. This person will have pictures containing things associated with travel in her avatars, or blogs.

Jennifer Attacks Veterans on Month When Government Shutdown Withholds Survivor Benefits

[quote]Originally posted by Jennifer

Jeremy Briggs is a lunatic

October 19, 2013 at 4:34 pm * Reply [/quote]

My tying your different sock puppets to you is starting to take a toll, isn't it? Do continue to rant and deteriorate. I'm discovering more of your sock puppets on Demand Studios Sucks. Your "lunatic" commentary reminds me of this:

"Makes me think this whackadoodle is my intense IRL stalker. SCARY SHIT! Someone call Interpol, ASAP!" -- Page 1 News

Yup, you, just like your other sock puppets, can't be original. It seems like you're the stalker that you like to accuse people of being.

Jennifer: For those who are interested, here is the unmasking of "thebesig," 

People on Demand Studios Sucks, looking at my blog, were able to trace who I was a long time ago. Your pointing this out illustrates your desperation. You like to stir up drama on Demand Studios Sucks, using your different sock puppets.

I've long suspected who your other sock puppets were, and who the puppeteer is. But, unlike most of you retards, I sit back and observe and gather facts. So continue to show me your desperation. I take sadistic pleasure in unmasking you... which has been one of the aims of my batches of blog posts.

This unmasking has been an ongoing campaign. I wonder which sock puppet you're going to use this time to try to dismiss what I say here.

Jennifer: the silly shmuck Jeremy Briggs who was kicked off this forum, shitcanned at DMS, who crashes airplanes,

First, let's find a "Jeremy Briggs" who's in the military... here we go:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeremy-briggs/75/969/79

Now, here's a big question. Do I have a ground pounder hair cut, or do I have that of a pilot? As you could see, in the photo, he's a UH 60 MEDEVAC pilot. Now, let's expose your insensitive azz.

MEDEVAC stands for "medical evacuation." That's opposed to "CASEVAC," which is something that "ground pounders" would be involved with. If a service member is injured or wounded, combat or non-combat related, or sick, that UH 60 becomes an ambulance.

Now, why do I say this? During a month when surviving members had their benefits withheld?

You joke around about "crashing airplanes." It's like you don't take loss of lives seriously. If Jeremy Briggs were to crash that UH-60... and he were carrying patients in need of advanced medical attention provided at a major FOB... and he crashed, what do you think would happen to those patients?

Here, let me break this down for you. Imagine if an ambulance was rushing your loved one to the hospital. The driver, who was drunk, crashes the ambulance. Death claims your loved one in the process. How would you react to someone joking about crashing ambulances?

You have no sensitivity for the service members that've died out there. You certainly don't have any sensitivity for the surviving family members, with your rants about this Soldier "crashing planes."

Second, I still have the ability to post on the blog comment section. I don't exercise that. Now, had you said something about the Demand Studios Sucks forums, that would've been a different thing.

You, as a regular poster on that section, as well as in the forums, via your different sock puppets, should've known that. This means that even when it comes to things that you should know, you have your head shoved up your azz.

The more accurate term here is that I got "locked out" from the Demand Studios Sucks Forums for destroying that forum's bullies. Again, you people, as well as the voices in your head, couldn't handle my continuing to stand my ground. You can't handle my continuing to strike back at you retards on this blog.

Third, I abandoned Demand Media Studios, as a writer, long before they removed my permissions. This is like having a club membership pulled for inactivity. That's what you're cheering. You also ignore the fact that many of your allies got booted from Demand Media Studios.

Jennifer: rants like a psychopath and posts on a certain blog ya'll enjoy laughing at.

Hmm...

"Thanks for reminding me, Willie. Reading Thebesig's blog is like staring into an abyss of lunacy" -- BurnCEs

Two things pop up here. One, claims of mental issues, and two, swipes at the blog, all in one sentence.

And, who are these, "you all" that you're talking about? Are you describing the voices in your head? Are they your sock puppets? Or, are they for the single handful of people that hang out at Demand Studios Sucks?

There's only one thing that's "psychopath" about this. You have issues with the fact that I keep coming back to hammer the voices in your head and you.

Also, nobody is laughing at my blog. I'm the only one that's enjoying this experience. The voices in your head, and you, are rather annoyed that I won't go away.

Jennifer: He's military. Lives in Virginia Beach, VA. 

Again, this is information that Demand Studios Sucks zombies already figured out a long time ago. The fact that you'd mention this shows your desperation in the face of my exposing your sock puppets and you.

I'm still curious as to which sock puppet you're going to roll out in your defense this time.

Jennifer: And is almost certainly a stone-cold whacko. 

Again:

"Makes me think this whackadoodle is my intense IRL stalker. SCARY SHIT! Someone call Interpol, ASAP!" -- Page 1 News

And this:

"He's clearly an unhinged military dude with an M-16." -- Page 1 News

But wait! There's more! We have this:

"Thanks for reminding me, Willie. Reading Thebesig's blog is like staring into an abyss of lunacy" -- BurnCEs

The only thing that makes me a "stone-cold whacko" in your eyes is that I refuse to "let go" of you... just as you refuse to let go of whomever you hold on to.

Jennifer: Then again, that's the caliber of DMS contracting, for ya. Lots of damaged folks scribbling for that useless shit of a company.

You described yourself to a "T." Hey, didn't you work at Demand Media Studios? That's right, you did, as one of your online profiles show. The cold hard reality is that you're damaged, a whacko, and an internet stalker.

Of course, you were damaged long before you worked at DMS. Someone identified you as having "mommy issues." You're consistently getting "crap canned" from message boards that you post on. Unfortunately, that still hasn't clued you on where the real problem lies.

Some advice; quit projecting your traits onto others, and start owning up to your own failures.

One of the reasons I left Demand Studios, and refused to write for them, and/or abandoned the latest re-write requests, is that I'm not damaged, like you.

Jennifer: Regards, An amused journalist. 

I've seen journalists make posts on forums and on social media. They're similar to each other in demeanor, and professionalism. None of them were like you. If you're a journalist, you come across as being a washed up reject.

However; you're not amused by any of this. You're actually agitated that I refuse to quit hammering you. 

Demand Studios Sucks Sock Puppets Argue With Each Other

[quote]Jeremy Briggs
October 18, 2013 at 2:58 pm * Reply

I'm watching you retard butt munchers. I'll blog about you. So there.
Soon as I learn how to fly a plane with a hangover.[/quote]

First, I don't post on the Demand Studios Sucks blog comments section. If I have something to say, I'd say it on this blog. It's obvious, though, that you're the same person that posts under the other aliases on that website.

Second, are you that desperate for attention that you end up responding to yourself? Or, is this an attempt to provide free, new posts to Demand Studios Sucks? I wouldn't be surprised if you're trying to trick others to post there. DMS is the only place you feel relevant in the world. You love to go there and start some drama.

For a journalist, you seem to waste a lot of time having a self conversation with your sock puppets. 

A Demand Media Studios CE Slams a DSS Sock Puppet...

[quote] CE Responds
October 29, 2013 at 9:29 am * Reply

As someone who worked as a freelancer for Demand until recently, I can testify that Other Info has his or her facts wrong.
...
You also mentioned his "alleged" involvement as the author of "books." A quick search of Amazon, Abe's Books and other sites finds 20 titles under his byline. A search of the net finds interviews with him by reputable columnists, including one that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, and he's appeared in documentaries on baseball on the MLB network.

By putting quote marks around "books," you seem to imply that the books don't exist, whereas clearly they do.

By "alleged," you seem to imply he didn't write the books. If you have hard evidence of that, present it here. If you don't, you're either a fabricator or a fantasist. [/quote]

She's both, a fabricator and a fantasist. She loves to stir drama on Demand Studios Sucks. She thrives on the resulting attention.

"Other Info" is a sock puppet. The puppeteer that I'm smacking around controls that sock puppet. Having facts wrong is epidemic on the Demand Studios Sucks website.

These azzclowns are losers in real life. The puppeteer, with her sock puppets, is the biggest loser of them all. They hate other people's success, because "Other Info" et al are largely failures. They attempt to diminish other people's success. They'd rather bash successful people. That's easier than doing what it takes to succeed as a writer... or anywhere in the professional world.

Telling them to do actual research, to back what they say, is a tall order for them. These DSS zombies have absolutely no use for the facts. One reason for this is that the actual facts make it hard for them to believe the nonsense that they want to believe.

Take their claims about my being here all the time for instance. They insinuated that I spent all my time on this blog, while conveniently ignoring my posting frequency across a year. It's easier on their ego to think that I'm a "failure" just like them... than to recognize the fact that I've succeeded in ways they never will.

In the same sense, they're trying to paint Richard Lally as a "failure" while refusing to acknowledge his success. At least Jeremy Briggs, the UH-60 pilot, can fly. These ding-dongs tend to fly off with their mouths instead... yet, they still manage to crash.