posted 12-23-2003 12:25 AM               

But the fact remains...I lived in Schweinfurt Germany as a kid, and I can still spell it correctly. You've got a fully grown adult who's been stationed at Vincenza and gets it pretty wrong (Vindanza?).

Then you've got a fully trained combat paratrooper who refers to his entry in Iraq as a "combat landing"....the C-17s and C-130s didn't start landing at Bashur Airfield until more than 24 hours after the 173rd was DROPPED in, and at that point, they were bringing in equipment mostly, not actual troops. My grandfather was a paratrooper, and he referred to all his combat drops as JUMPS, not "combat landings".

Plus the timeline stinks. Mr. Prysner says he was on an airplane the day after he heard Mr. Moore's speech. Europe is just as news saavy as the US is (maybe more so), and Mr. Moore's speech was probably big news over there just as it was here. However, the 173rd didn't leave for Iraq until 3 days later. I doubt Mr. Prysner never knew about the speech until two to three days later.

Next, he refers to northern Iraq as "uncharted territory". Perhaps this is just a metaphor, but certainly northern Iraq is well mapped and charted. That's what NIMA is for.

He also says the only light in the back of the C-17 came from a red bulb. The C-17 is particularly well lit...it's not a WWII C-47 Skytrain. They keep it dim, for sure (to help with night vision), but it's lit. Otherwise those troops in the back would be tripping over each other on the way out the doors.

I dunno....I was enlisted in the Army. I'm not saying there aren't any enlisted folks out there who can write such a letter, but it almost reads like a script from the Michael Moore web page. The guy barely mentions any details about the Army, the mission, his fellow soldiers...all things most of us would inevitably mention. The few references to anything related to the military are inaccurate, at best.

Obviously, there is no proof we can post one way or the other. I'm just saying, from my vantage point from 12 years of service and 4 years being enlisted in the Army...I'd say chances are better than 50/50 that this is a staged letter, author unknown.

One parting thought:

Mr. Moore's website attempts to convince folks that soldiers and airmen in Iraq are against the war, and that the numbers of those who oppose the war and believe in Mr. Moore's anti-Bush rhetoric is in the majority.

I was there all summer...in Iraq, in southwest Asia in general. I talked to a large number of people. I ran into folks of all walks of life...officers, enlisted, infantry, pilots, cooks, you name it. The general consensus over there is the war was the right thing to do, and while there may have been folks who didn't like Bush, they weren't angrily anti-Bush. But most folks at least respected Bush and many support him.

Whether you like Bush or not is irrelevant to the topic...Moore is presenting an untruthful view of how it really is, and he's using the troops to further his political agenda. He devotes long segments to "support the troops" bluster, then in a seperate statement denounces the "indiscriminate" shooting and bombing from US forces. One sentence, we're the poor pitiful victims that need Moore's rescue, then he turns and essentially says we're all murderers in the end.

posted 12-23-2003 12:31 AM            

I for one am glad people who have some influence are speaking up about the Iraq war.

I think we should have never made dirty deals with Saddam in the first place.

Be as it may...you may not like what Mooore has to say but..

Its called free speech.

posted 12-23-2003 12:36 AM               

The fact is the military is among the most respected institutions in the country. So it's pretty powerful imagery if one can present the idea that the military, of all people, is against Bush and the war.

For anti-Bushies, it'd be a dream come true if it were real. But it's not and it's a major obstacle...the public will put the military's opinion over that of overpaid Hollywood zealots any day, and to counter that, those same bags of hot air twist the facts to their advantage. It's called "propaganda".

posted 12-23-2003 12:43 AM            

C-21A huh. Basically a Lear 35 with a Military Designation?

posted 12-23-2003 01:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PacerLJ35:
The fact is the military is among the most respected institutions in the country. So it's pretty powerful imagery if one can present the idea that the military, of all people, is against Bush and the war.

For anti-Bushies, it'd be a dream come true if it were real. But it's not and it's a major obstacle...the public will put the military's opinion over that of overpaid Hollywood zealots any day, and to counter that, those same bags of hot air twist the facts to their advantage. It's called "propaganda".

Parroting propaganda may be legal and a God-given right, but it's not honest.

---

Sorry, Pacer, what you are saying sounds like Pro-War, Pro-Bush Propaganda.

Stalemate..As usual..

But have a Good Holiday anyway

posted 12-23-2003 01:25 AM            

He even stated that he doesnt always agree with the Bush administration.

posted 12-23-2003 02:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
He even stated that he doesnt always agree with the Bush administration.

---

That's the litmus test? If someone disagrees with the Bush administration sometimes then he earns your respect?

Kind of a wishy washy litmus test but by that standard I should have your respect since I don't always agree with Bush (or anyone) all the time.

posted 12-23-2003 02:03 AM            

NO..Pacer has my respect because he is a dedicated, career military serviceman who took a Constitutional oath.

posted 12-23-2003 10:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
Pacer is not the enemy Swamp. He does what his Military contract states.He's dedicated.

---

Personally, Pacer has never done anything to me.

He just states his case, then leaves.

But, when he calls Mike Moore an idiot, he has to relaize that it just his opinion, and from my POV, his Boss is a bumbling, brain damaged idiot also.

The difference with you and him is this, you realized you were protecting rich elite more than The Constitution, and Pacer thinks he protecting the common person, while the Constitution is being burned alive.

You are truer to the original Militiamen of the 1700's, where I see him more like one on the Contras in Central America.

Just my 3 cents.

posted 12-23-2003 02:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
NO..Pacer has my respect because he is a dedicated, career military serviceman who took a Constitutional oath.

---

So if I had served in the military and taken a constitutional oath you would automatically respect me? I doubt it.

While I respect members of the military in their professional capacity, that doesn't mean I respect each and every one of them personally. Participating in a respectable career does not automatically make someone respectable.

quote:

---

Respect is earned Lex.

---

Agreed. And, for example, BoomerChick already has earned my respect. Even though she's on your "side," she's rational and calm. And while others, such as Shatoga, have started to debate me on issues you seem content to answer with little snippy replies that ridicule the poster rather than the issue.

I wonder: Do the conspiracists here sympathize with you because a) You agree with them. b) You are very vocal and probably post more messages than anyone, even though they're usually very short and devoid of content (except when they are copy/pasted from news sites). c) Perhaps at some point in the past you actually made an effort to debate rather than post little mini-messages that just ask for links and/or ridicule the poster.

Perhaps you generated enough goodwill among conspiracists in the past that now you can "coast" on that reputation. But unlike Shatoga and BoomerChick, I have seen you contribute absolutely nothing valuable to the debate in the time I've been here.

posted 12-23-2003 02:39 PM            

Did you notice Mech is now a moderator?

posted 12-23-2003 03:09 PM            

quote:

---

Did you notice Mech is now a moderator?

---

posted 12-23-2003 03:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
As such, BoomerChick has already earned my respect and Shatoga is in the process of earning it and while I disagree with them I've seen them both contribute to the discussion. I wish I could say the same for you.

---

posted 12-23-2003 03:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by swamp gas:
Did you notice Mech is now a moderator?

---

That's awesome! I did not notice! When did that happen? Today? ha, ha.

posted 12-23-2003 04:09 PM            

Congratulations Mech.

Your pragmatic nature will be VERY appreciated.

posted 12-23-2003 04:16 PM            

"Nothing to contribute" huh Lex?

I definately disagree.You are just one man with an opinion. I think I have LOTS to contribute..and judging by some of the PM's ive had over the past year here...I think i'm doing okay.

posted 12-23-2003 05:51 PM            

You have threatened Me, Swamp gas and now the Webmaster Thermit.

posted 12-23-2003 11:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
[B]Thanks JBE, and Swamp.
"Nothing to contribute" huh Lex? I definately disagree.You are just one man with an opinion. I think I have LOTS to contribute..and judging by some of the PM's ive had over the past year here...I think i'm doing okay.

---

You mean the fact that you are moderator means you are contributing? Hopefully you've received positive private messages and are now moderator because you contributed something in the past, but I haven't seen it in the month and a half I've been here. Again, perhaps your contributions were before I got here. I also only monitor the "Other Trails" thread so perhaps I'm missing valuable contributions you make to other sections of the site.

Interestingly, many forums that are concerned with fairness require that moderators not participate in the threads they moderate. For example, if Mech is moderator he shouldn't be able to moderate or close a thread he is participating in (although another moderator would be free to do so). That's just logical fairness. I run a technical website and while I obviously moderate the forum, I seldom participate in it. Participation in a given thread makes it very difficult to moderate in a fair or moderate manner--which is the definition of "moderator."

I wonder if any "coincidentalists" are moderators? If not, one wonders how the forums can be "moderated" when the supposed moderators are not moderate.

posted 12-23-2003 11:33 PM            

No..When a thread turns into a flamefest or "bait and troll" argument..the moderator reserves the right to close the topic.

But you can't please everyone.

posted 12-24-2003 03:39 AM            

I really don't understand the antiwar perspective, I mean who can say at this late date the bush doctrine and the afagan and iraqi conflicts have not been a good thing for the world

taliban removed from power in afganistan as well as the train camps for terrorism

23 million iraqi's are not subject to rape rooms,torture and imprisonment if you don't tow the baath party line

Khadafi is now allowing unconditional spot suprise inspections