Mark Hutchins demonstrates lack of understanding of military information gathering

Mark Hutchins: Front lines do not get full intelligence, 

We are talking about the war in Ukraine. When it comes to kinetic action, and combat operations, those in the front lines are going to have a more detailed outlook on what is going on in the combat theater than someone who is higher up in rank and sitting back in the rear.

In the case of your "retired naval intelligence officer", he is far removed from what is going on with regards to boots on the ground. He is going to get selected information that is relevant to his duties. Naval intelligence focuses more on naval activities, we are talking about Army related areas. In most instances, an Army intelligence officer would have more privy to what is going on with regards to boots on the ground than the Naval intelligence officer.

Mark Hutchins: man you are out there, 

Sorry, you're the one who is taking, at face value, claims from someone who claimed to be a "retired naval intelligence officer." Do you not realize that there are Russian nationals pretending to be Americans, and adding specific credentials to their persona, to cause people like you to fall hook, line, and sinker for their propaganda? The video that you showed was in no way shape or form something I would expect from any intelligence community in the military.

Unlike you, I have relevant professional experience in this specific topic. I followed the war in Ukraine, religiously, since the Russians attempted a full-scale invasion back in February 2022. I have followed that war long enough to see and detect habits, behaviors, tactics, that the Russians will employ given specific actions. Enough of this information is available via people uploading videos straight from the front lines for you to see that you are being hoodwinked.

It is you that is way out there. You, having no experience with this topic, having apparently not searched for those videos on the Internet that would have told you what was actually going on, have no real credentials in this argument. All you are doing is running off with an opinion that you are emotionally vested in, powered only by your ego to keep pressing the argument.

Mark Hutchins: when on front lines in Iraq were you aware there were no weapons of mass destruction? 

There were Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq; thus you are incorrect regarding WMD in Iraq. Weapons of Mass Destruction consist of biological, chemical, and radiological agents. Sarin, mustard, and blister agents were found in Iraq post invasion, and were used against coalition forces, and against Iraqi security forces, throughout the Iraq War. They are chemical agents; hence, they are WMD. WMD was found in Iraq. A couple of Iraqi security men in my AO got injured by blister laced IEDs right before I went on R&R leave. 

Understand that the way the media handled evidence of WMD in the 2000s is EXACTLY how they treated evidence of election fraud in the aftermath of the 2020 elections. Also, the New York Times, of all places, published an article of when US forces uncovered buried weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Mark Hutchins falls for bio lab conspiracy

Mark Hutchins: Did you know of bio labs ? 

The reports of bio labs in Ukraine, where the US was allegedly creating new bio warfare weapons, are nothing but propaganda. In the aftermath of the disintegration of the USSR, Ukraine had Soviet biological laboratory research centers. The United States entered an agreement with Ukraine to assist the Ukrainians with containing and managing what was in these labs. The United States was not conducting biowarfare research in these labs.

Why would we be doing that? Effective 2014, Ukraine faced the risk of being completely invaded by the Russians. So, even if this nonsense theory was correct, it would not have been the case in the immediate aftermath of Russia taking Crimea in 2014. However, that theory was never correct.

One of the conspiracy whack jobs posted a part of an agreement regarding bio labs between United States and Ukraine. The conspiracy whack job claimed it was an agreement for the United States to engage in biowarfare research, or to support it. However, when I pulled up the document, it described what I just mentioned above. Nothing nefarious, no conspiracy, nothing like what the Russian propagandists have claimed regarding of "evidence."

Mark Hutchins: No you were not privy I'm sorry, 

This is incorrect. A lot of what the conspiracy whack jobs have said about Ukraine is arguably wrong. The two main people that I've seen advance the biological warfare laboratory nonsense are either Russian trolls or Western conspiracy whack jobs. Both groups rely on each other for strength and reach. Enough information exists online to prove these whack jobs incorrect regarding Ukraine bio research labs.

The only thing you should be sorry for is the fact that this information is something that you are privy to, via your access to the Internet. Yet, you choose to believe the nonsense people have fed you.

Mark Hutchins: when they roll out war plans they seek the intelligence not the front line, 

This is incorrect. When you roll out the war plans, you are rolling out something that is already out of date. New information is required and is obtained via multiple methods. Yes, what is going on in the front lines is key. You need what is going on with the front lines, or potential frontlines, before you send combat troops into the area.

Mark Hutchins: you have mistaken the knowledge needed to create planning offensive and defensive, 

Again, you are incorrect. My argument is based on firsthand experiences related to the topic that you and I have argued. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It is painfully obvious that you have absolutely no military experience under your belt. You, not having that experience, are trying to lecture somebody who does have that experience and who is trying to correct you by informing you of what really happens. I told you what kind of knowledge is needed to create planning for offensive and defensive. Without information straight from the front lines, whatever plans you come up with are futile, incomplete, and do a disservice to those who must carry out the operations.

Mark Hutchins: how do seals know what to expect? Intelligence, 

Intelligence straight from the front lines, what you claim is not needed. Your "recently retired naval officer" was more than likely a desk jockey relying on open-source information in addition to Navy related information that he may have been privy to. This is assuming that this individual is who he claims to be, and is not a Russian troll. 

Mark Hutchins: sorry my friend, you are way off base and ilinformed

Again you, having no military experience under your belt, or having a lack of military deployment experience if you did serve, are trying to tell someone who not only has military experience but also has deployment experience where intelligence and carrying out plans are involved, that he is "way off base" and "ill informed."

Your narcissism is such that you do not see what you are doing here. You, having no experience, yet you told someone with experience in the debate topic that he is "incorrect" in response to your being told how things work in the real military.

Mark Hutchins tells veteran with experience gathering tactical intelligence that he is wrong... About military intelligence

Another coward that responded then moved to block instead of being man enough to take the rebuttal. 

Mark Hutchins: Ok, I'm sorry you are feeling offended that your rank did not give you the privy info you so gallantly thought was Topps, 

Again, you demonstrate lack of knowledge of how military intelligence works. You do realize that it's the enlisted personnel that gather the intelligence, do you? They gather it, analyze it, then provide a bigger picture for the officers to review. 

Also, intelligence information is on a need-to-know basis, not on what rank you hold. Meaning, that "naval intelligence officer" that you reference is providing you opinion that is not based on military intelligence data. If he were providing such, he would be in hot water as you and others do not have a need to know of what he is talking about. 

I do not envy that naval intelligence officer's position, if he is what he claims to be; he would have been a desk jockey who spent a lot of time pouring through open-sourced data to put his power point briefings together... We called folks like him "power point rangers." 

Was he even in the Navy, I would not be surprised if this was a stolen valor case. Judging by the video, I would not be surprised if this individual is a Russian national.

Mark Hutchins: you have overestimated your knowledge by far, I understand your ego has been bruised but it's reality

Don't mistake my telling it like it is as "overestimating my knowledge." My knowledge is dead accurate, and based on firsthand experience. It's painfully obvious to me that you have absolutely no clue about what you are talking about. Nope, ego is not working on my end, but on yours. My actions were not ego based, but on the fact that I take sadistic pleasure in proving people like you wrong, and then watching your reactions. 

You refused to answer my question about whether you served or not. Your responses make it painfully obvious that you didn't serve... Yet that didn't stop you from telling someone with firsthand experience gathering information in the military that he was "way off" and "ill informed."

Glenn Beck Is Wrong, He Does Not Speak for the Military

Glenn Beck: Not one more life. Not one more life. Not one more dollar, not one more airplane, not one more bullet, not one more Marine, not one more arm or leg or eye. Not one more.

I'm sorry Glenn Beck, but I'm in one of the professions that you're speaking for. You neither speak for any of my comrade-at-arms nor for me.

The reality is that we have to do whatever it takes to defeat that threat. If we have to send more ground troops to neutralize the threat, so be it. I'd rather that we lose lives over there than to suffer a holocaust level of life lost over here.

Any argument that we no longer engage the Middle East is an argument for appeasement... And in favor for ultimate defeat on US soil.

I'm sorry, but the cold hard reality is that the problems over there will not disappear if we disengage. It would only follow us here. It's not a matter of "if" but "when."

And yes, we have to keep fighting this, even if it takes decades, or centuries. Our enemies have certainly been at work for approximately a millennia and some centuries. They do not intend to quit. Their fight with us is but a drop in the bucket.

Abdicating this war, and our responsibilities in it, invites their ultimate victory here. Just look at the landscape right now within the city. Just imagine seeing mosques were churches once stood. Picture all the women walking in the streets as being fully clothed in burqas.

That's just the beginning of the imagination that would become reality. The transition would be bloody and horrific. That's the future you're inviting when you say "no more."

Glenn Beck: The people of Iraq have got to work this out themselves.

Unfortunately, they do not have the time to work it out themselves. The stability and protection they need to be able to do this are simply not there.

It's easy for you to tell the Iraqis that they need to work things out for themselves. You live in relative stability and comfort within Western Civilization. You're not witnessing hundreds of people getting beheaded, maimed, raped, enslaved, kidnapped, etc.

ISIS is propagating the most savage form of psychological warfare to gain control of the populations that they're overrunning. It's working in those areas. Unfortunately for your suggestion, this works against them just sitting there and working things out for themselves.

Just look at what happened in 1930s Germany. It took outside intervention to reverse that.

In that part of the Middle East, people will congregate towards the groups that shows strength. It doesn't matter if this strength is a benefit to the world or not. If the bad guys are the ones showing strength and momentum, they're going to gain a bunch of people.

Violence of action/force, through brute strength, is what the enemy over there understands. If they are consistently subjected to it, they would bend. If the only way to do that is to reintroduce US military forces, so be it. Should that happen, we should not make the same mistakes we made at the end of 2011.

Glenn Beck: Our days of being the world's policemen, our days of interventionists is over.

That's not how the real world works. If the United States were to disappear overnight, another country will step in and do exactly what we're doing.

The cold hard reality is that every nation on the planet is doing some form of intervention beyond its borders. This could be economic, political, or military. What the United States is doing on a global scale, other countries are doing on a continental and regional scale.

What if the United States were to "stop" and do what Glenn Beck wanted it to do? In reality, another country will step in and do exactly what we're doing right now.

This is happening now, this has happened in the past, and this will happen long into the future. We're doomed to this cycle by the major fact that we are human beings. It's our nature to pursue our individual and collective interests.

Maybe we should have rejected the idea of being the world's "policemen" in the 1940s. After all, it was the perceived notion that the US was going to jump into the war that contributed to the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor. Taking such action required us to be the world's "policemen".

Perhaps if there was no argument, in the United States, to break isolation, the Japanese would not have seen us as a threat? By logical extension, they would not have attacked us in Pearl Harbor?

We remain engaged in the world now for similar reasons for engaging it during the 1940s.

It was our interventions that played a role in preventing World War III from happening. Also, our collective consumer habits have contributed to the United States doing what it does overseas.

In order to have a stable economy back in the United States and elsewhere, we have to secure the trade routes, and areas where resources are extracted. We have to contribute to stability and security to allow economies to thrive.

Maybe we should just come back and not be the world's "policemen". I hope you can enjoy just a fraction of what the economy could provide today. We would be lucky to get that if we were to take your suggestion.

Perhaps you might say that we don't need to be strategically engaged throughout the world to have secure trading routes. 

Ask our forefathers how that worked out. Hint, "Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute." Oh yeah, what was one of our complaints that got us into the war of 1812? Something about harassing American shipping, and pressing American sailors into British service? 

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

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, 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. 

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.