Proof of Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier's lies, photo attached... Ladies Beware!

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier's discharge order from the Texas State Guard.

Dennis (Denny) tried to claim that he was still in the Texas State Guard. Reality? He got a general discharge from the Texas State Guard effective May 3, 2014. 

A photo that Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier posted in a Craigslist advertisement in the "midlands" part of the Dallas Fort-Worth area. He covers enough state guard identifiers in the shot for unsuspecting women to think that he's in the Regular Army. 

You're still in the Texas State Guard? The photo proves otherwise. But first...

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier: Whatever your problems are go elsewhere

Nope, the problems are not with me but with you. You have control, anger management, stress management, self-esteem, narcissism, etc. issues. This has been pointed out to you on and off throughout your participation a different message boards.

You want me to go elsewhere don't you?

If only those of us exposing you were to go away, you could continue to lie to other people wouldn't you? Word has it that you continue to lie to people about being in the Air Force, being SWAT, etc. Never mind that on "This Ain't Hell," it was proven that you didn't do those things.

Sorry, I'm having too much fun doing this. The more we get your name on the Internet, the more women can investigate you. The more women that we could get, to see your true nature, the better the chances they will refuse to risk their lives dating you. 

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier: (I think this is his ex writing these).

Dennis, you could quit talking about yourself in the "third person." You pulled the same stunt on "This Ain't Hell." It didn't fool us over there, it won't fool us over here.

No, I'm not one of the "EXs". I'm one of the guys that posted on the comments section of "This Ain't Hell". Although one or more of your "EXs" notified TAH that you were posting on Craigslist, they are not making these posts.

You keep stealing military valor to attract women, then you put them in a situation to where they're fearing for their lives. You're praying on women's appreciation of the military, and what the military provides for the country, for your own gains.

As long as you keep stealing valor from the military, expect us to "stay on your six". 

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier: Anyone can google this guy and the state of texas says he was a cop, http://www.tcole.texas.gov/

There you go again Denny, going out of your way to prove something that's not being challenged. My previous posts did not challenge the fact that you were a reserve cop. According to more than one of your ex-wives, you've flashed your reserve police officer badge numerous times to get out of driving tickets. 

I simply pointed out that you were not a member of SWAT. That part is a fact, you were never a member of SWAT. You served a few short stints with different police departments. You were not a long-term police officer. The "recommendations" from these police departments, that you displayed on your blog, show you as "average".

You need to quit telling people that you were a member of SWAT.

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier: The library of congress says he wrote a dissertation for a phd (you don't have these if all you do is purchase a lab coat and fake it

There you go again, Denny, trying to spin this as if you wrote a dissertation for a "PhD". You worked with Kennedy Western University to get this "PhD." Kennedy Western University was a non-accredited university.

Meaning, the "PhD" that you got from this "university" was not even worth the paper that your PhD certificate was printed on.

Kennedy Western University was a diploma mill. You might as well received your diploma as a result of a coupon from a cereal box. That "diploma" was no different from the certificates people can order on the Internet listing these people as "Navy SEALs." 

On TAH, or on your blog, you tried to argue that it was "licensed" in order to bolster your argument. It's being licensed as a business is not exactly the same thing as it being accredited. It tried to get accredited, but it failed.

The "PhD" that you think you have holds no water. I could generate a certificate designating me as a "certified space shuttle door gunner". That certificate would be equivalent in "credibility" to the "PhD" certificate that you have.

Meaning, your "PhD" certificate is worthless, has no credibility, and you are in no way, shape, or form a "PhD" holder. 

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier: Chevalier, D. H. (2002). An objective guideline for consistancy in profiling violent serial sexual offenders. from http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=chevalier+dennis&Search_Code=NALL&PID=jEZvaAgI8m4ibMCofyoU5TA-&SEQ=20100421100907&CNT=25&HIST=1

First, the Library of Congress says, "What?" 

Type of Work: Entry not found.

Second, the Library of Congress accepts copyright deposits. If your work was there, it was because of such "deposit." The presence of that "deposit" does not necessarily indicate if the author holds a PhD or not. It does not necessarily indicate if the author wrote a dissertation or thesis or not.

What this indicates is that you wrote something and had it "copyrighted."

Dennis Howard Chevalier, do you ever get tired of lying? 

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier: The State guard says he is still in the guard as a Corporal so....

This is one of the reasons to why TAH posters, what you call "The Cadre," label you as ChevaLIAR. In the post that you responded to, one of the links led to Scotty's "stolen valor" site. I know that you are familiar with his blog, because you created a spoof Facebook page imitating his Facebook page.

You'll notice, if you look at his entry involving you, a photo of your discharge order, signed by your regiment commander. I've included a photo of that discharge order for your convenience and review. Here's what it says: 

CPL Chevalier: 

You are discharged under General conditions, and are permanently barred from reenlistment in the Texas State Guard. A copy of this letter will accompany your discharge and become a part of your permanent profile. 

Your past actions, which the "This Ain't Hell" blog has brought to light, have cast an unfavorable light on the Fourth Regiment in particular, and the Texas State Guard in general. They have exacerbated more out problems within your Battalion, and negatively affected the good order and discipline within its ranks. 

As the Regimental Commander, I am charged with taking all actions necessary to protect the regiment's reputation, and that of the Texas State Guard. 

I accept the resignation you sent by text message. The effective date is 03MAY14. Again, the type of discharge is General. Based on comments of your NCOs, and the advice of the Regimental Command Sergeant Major, I am permanently barring you from reenlisting in the Texas State Guard. 

I wish you luck in whatever venue for future service you find, /Regimental Commander/ - May 3, 2014

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier: take your meds

First, the only one in this exchange that should be taking his meds is the one that's insisting that he's in the Texas State Guard when it is clear that he was discharged almost a year ago.

Second, you love to "force" people that disagree with you to "take meds," don't you?

According to at least two of your EXs, you spiked their drinks with Valium or some other medication in an attempt to restrain them. You do realize that this is illegal, do you?

One woman suspected that you were doing it, because she felt like she was "dying" and that you were behind it. As soon as she left you, she started feeling better. Fast forward to your next relation, your other EX caught you spiking her drink with Valium.

You did that without understanding, or knowing, what kind of impact that medication would have on these women given the medication they may have required to take at that time. You did not even bother researching to find out if what you were putting into their drinks would have a fatal interaction with the other medication they were taking. You didn't even care if these women's bodies would interact well with what you were spiking into their drinks.

No, you were far more interested in that aspect of "control" then you were in the health of these women.

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier: and leave this guy alone

As long as you are going around stealing military valor, I'm going to be right there hammering you. Also, given that you've been a physical and mental threat towards many women, I'm going to keep giving your name exposure on the Internet. 

On TAH, we advised you to get help for your anger, stress, self-esteem, control, narcissistic etc. issues. We didn't just advise you to do those things for your own good. We also did it for the good of the people around you, especially for the women that you'd come across. 

The women that were with you have had a primal fear for their lives. Given that you are becoming more unstable, and also given that you love to wave a loaded weapon around and pretend to shoot things when you're mad, you're bound to permanently/negatively impact a woman's life. 

 If you don't get help for your issues, the next woman that goes out with you could end up in the emergency room or in the morgue... by your hand.

Stop stealing military valor before you tell people to "leave you alone." 

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier: and go get another boyfriend

Sorry, I only do women. 

At the rate you're going; however, you'll one day end up in a situation where that's all you're going to have are boyfriends. Your future, if you don't get help for your problems, would involve a "Bubba" and a "Thor." 

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier: and then pray he doesn't kill you

This gives us an insight on what's going on your mind. On more than one occasion, you've probably fantasized or wished that you could just take your gun over to the person that's angering you and "shoot him/her." 

On the SETI message board, in 2005, you insinuated that someone would one day anger the wrong person and get their head shot. You threatened your most recent EX with a "round to her head."

Hmmmm, you love to wave your loaded guns around in the house when you're mad. At the same time you're doing that, you pretend that you're shooting things. You even pointed a gun at one of your ex-wives and your son.

You have that much of a control issue. 

But, I'm having fun destroying your arguments. The women on this forum are seeing you for what you are. The more of their friends, in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, that they warn of you, the better.

Go to this link and scroll down to see a full-blown picture of your discharge orders from the Texas State Guard:

http://scotty-stolenvaloroffendersexposed.blogspot.com/2014/02/dennis-chevalier-retired-lt-col-us-air.html

Internet Trolls- Written by Dennis Howard Chevalier on Dallas Rants and Raves

"This Ain't Hell Wanted for Ridicule/Shaming" poster on Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier.

The man that wrote "Internet Trolls" is the same man that wrote the "Andra Lorenz" posts in the Dallas Craigslist Rants and Raves forum. In the post, "Internet Trolls," Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier directs his anger at TAH. 

Why does he do this?

Prior to his coming to our attention on February 14, 2014, Dennis lied to women and others about being a retired USAF Lt. Col. He also lied about flying C-130 compass call missions where he "hammered" the "Taliban" in "Iraq" during the Gulf War.

He also lied about getting cancer as a result of his "exposure" in the combat theater during the Gulf War. He talked about being close to "dying."

He used these lies to get women to date him, to get clients for his business, to get jobs, to impress friends and family of the women that he dated or married. He also tried to use the stories to impress his concealed carry class students.

In addition to those claims, he also claimed that he was a SWAT team member of the Wilmer Police Department.

He also claimed that he had a PhD. He purchased himself a white lab coat and had a picture of himself in it. He identified himself in a lot of message boards as "Doc Chevy."

From February 2014 to August 2014, the "This Aint Hell" community destroyed Dennis's phony military claims. A freedom of information request, and Dennis's own blog, did not support Dennis's claims to being a retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. 

He did not fly C-130s. 

According to someone that knew him during the Gulf War, Dennis Howard Chevalier did not leave the state of Texas during that conflict.

His claims of having a doctorate degree were also proven false. Dennis obtained that degree from a now defunct diploma mill that was not accredited.

Dennis jumped on "This Aint Hell" and claimed that he did not make those military claims. He said this despite plenty of evidence on the Internet that he did. In fact, on a "SETI" message board, he did not correct other posters when they identified him as being in the "Air Force."

Dennis Howard Chevalier was in the Civil Air Patrol. He parlayed that to make people believe that he was in the Air Force.

Dennis blamed a "Jim Parker" for going around the Internet and making these wild military claims while pretending to be Dennis Chevalier himself.

Denny doctored a bunch of documents and posted them on his blog to support his argument. One of these doctored documents was a criminal complaint that Denny filed last decade. It alleged that Jim Parker made up those military claims, as Dennis (Denny) Chevalier, on the Internet.

It was obvious that the part blaming Jim Parker for making those claims were recently added onto that document. Denny Chevalier denied it. Dennis insisted that the part that he circled, blaming Jim Parker for making up those military claims, was made at the same time he filed a lawsuit.

Jim Parker jumped into the thread and destroyed that claim. He received that same lawsuit, but without the part that Denny Chevalier circled.

Now, what was Dennis's beef with Jim Parker?

Last decade, Jim Parker investigated Dennis's academic credentials and found many to be false: 

"For one thing, the "complaint" he posted appears to be altered (as some have clearly noticed.) That last sentence he circled has been added recently. I'm sure I have the original complaint filed away somewhere and it didn't have that part on it, and there's no reason it would have, as the site I dedicated to him only addressed his phony academic credentials --I hadn't even touched on his military (or lack thereof) credential yet..." -- Jim Parker post on "This Ain't Hell" talking about 53 (Euless)

Calls to the Wilmer Police Department verified that Dennis was not a member of a SWAT team. According to the person that answered the call at the department, the Wilmer Police Department is too small to have a SWAT team.

Again, Dennis has a BOLO out on him for impersonating a police officer. He was identified as being "armed". 

Now, the Texas State Guard (STG), not to be confused with the National Guard, got wind of those posts on "This Ain't Hell." Dennis was in the Texas State Guard when all this was happening. The TSG learned that Dennis falsified a training document he sent to them.

What was he doing during the period that he claimed he was doing training?

He was eloping with a woman that was not his wife. He was doing no training related to what the Texas State Guard would do in a disaster related to the zoo. Apparently, Dennis's nasty attitude created a hostile environment for his TSG unit. 

This led to him seeing the writing on the wall, and to him submitting his resignation. His Texas State Guard commander accepted his resignation. Based on the recommendation of the senior NCOs above Dennis Howard Chevalier, Denny received a general discharge with a bar to reenlistment.

All this information being added on "This Ain't Hell" made it harder for Dennis to make his claims. The women that saw his personal advertisements started to investigate him. These women started to reject him after seeing these "This Aint Hell" posts.

His screed on the Dallas Craigslist Rants and Raves forum, and on his blog, are attempts to delegitimize arguments against his claims and against his character.

Legally, he is in hot water right now for potentially violating state and local laws with one of the women he dated. One of the things he did was threaten to "put a round (bullet) in her head."

Ladies, Dennis's personal advertisements are 90% lies. If you come across his advertisements, just think the opposite; you'll be close to seeing what he's really like.

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier has control, anger, stress, narcissism, etc. issues. One or more of these characteristics were pointed out to him in previous forums.

He calls "This Aint Hell" posters as Internet trolls, bullies, terrorists, etc., because we exposed him. We made it more difficult for him to fool women into believing his claims.

What he says about TAH and his ex-wives/ex-girlfriend's is a very good description of how his ex-wives/ex-girlfriend's describe him. If you read his "Internet Trolls" post, you get a good description of who he is. He is what he describes us in that post.

Here are some links related to him:

On his phony military claims: 

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=39855

Here's a "wanted" poster created on him: 

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=40322

Police BOLO on Dennis: 

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=54447

Dennis spent 20 days in the National Guard waiting to be discharged for fraudulent enlistment. This is the only time he has in the military: 

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=56903

"A phony who outs other phonies... What's next???" -- Don Shipley

Here, you'll see Dennis featured on the stolen valor website. SEAL verifier retired Senior Chief Don Shipley describes Dennis at the bottom of the blog: 

http://scotty-stolenvaloroffendersexposed.blogspot.com/2014/02/dennis-chevalier-retired-lt-col-us-air.html

The Hans Fallada interview, the "Cliff Notes" narrative of the TAH and Dennis interaction. Read this and the posts following it: 

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=40322&cpage=8#comment-1248182

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.