Ruby Ridge-style standoff? Bundy says he is prepared to Die

[BDKJMU]

I just looked in a reference book I have and saw that they say 95,000 people served at the height.

See, there you go again, interchanging "served" with "fought."

And honestly, it's an insignificant fact. Nobody cares what % of the population fought."

True, then why did you start the arguement in the middle of the last page.

Are you telling me that if you met a medic from the Iraq War or WW2 you'd tell them that their service didn't count b/c they didn't fight? Approx. 9% of the US population served during WW2. No, you wouldn't. It's bullshit. 80% of the jobs in today's military are non-combat. Are you telling me that their service isn't valued?

According to you, military SERVICE only exists if you are part of the 20% of the military in a combat MOS.

Also, Don't forget those that served between wars. Their time in the military doesn't matter you to either.

Never said that or even implied that. You obviously fail at reading comprehension. Of course all of their service counts and should be valued. And that service is valuable, because it enables the Combat MOS's and others to fight. Doesn't change the fact that a rear echelon type who never saw combat "served" but didn't "fight". If 6.6% "fought" then a much % would have had to have served. Whatever percent "fought" then a higher percent "served". Whatever percents you want to use. That's every single war in US history. Served in the insert war here but didn't see combat is a pretty common thing.

BDK- Worst. Conk. Ever.

Ibanez- Starts stupid arguements and puts words into others mouths.

[Ibanez]

I just looked in a reference book I have and saw that they say 95,000 people served at the height.

See, there you go again, interchanging "served" with "fought."

And honestly, it's an insignificant fact. Nobody cares what % of the population fought."

True, then why did you start the arguement in the middle of the last page.

Are you telling me that if you met a medic from the Iraq War or WW2 you'd tell them that their service didn't count b/c they didn't fight? Approx. 9% of the US population served during WW2. No, you wouldn't. It's bullshit. 80% of the jobs in today's military are non-combat. Are you telling me that their service isn't valued?

According to you, military SERVICE only exists if you are part of the 20% of the military in a combat MOS.

Also, Don't forget those that served between wars. Their time in the military doesn't matter you to either.

Never said that or even implied that. You obviously fail at reading comprehension. Of course all of their service counts and should be valued. And that service is valuable, because it enables the Combat MOS's and others to fight. Doesn't change the fact that a rear echelon type who never saw combat "served" but didn't "fight". If 6.6% "fought" then a much % would have had to have served. Whatever percent "fought" then a higher percent "served". Whatever percents you want to use. That's every single war in US history. Served in the insert war here but didn't see combat is a pretty common thing.

BDK- Worst. Conk. Ever.

Ibanez- Starts stupid arguements and puts words into others mouths.

You're the guy you thinks people that don't fight don't matter. Face it, you're wrong. You have ZERO proof that 3% of colonials FOUGHT. There is no evidence to back it up. We have estimates as to how many served, and keep in mind the fighting force was larger than those in reserves due to the era. Most supplies are taken locally.

Most people did multiple jobs. Gen. Gates was both aQuartermaster and a general in the field. Lafayette was an aide de camp and also fought ( wounded at some battle). Like the marines , everyone is combat first and dishwasher second.


And who gives a fuck where I stated a fact. It's a fact. And thanks for agreeing with me that most of the military doesn't fight.

But still, all I get from you is:

Blah blah blah blah blah.

That's all you're saying.


Blah.



Yes, I've been drinking.

[Ibanez]

I may have a lot to drink but you get the jist.


Namaste.

[BDKJMU]

See, there you go again, interchanging "served" with "fought."


True, then why did you start the arguement in the middle of the last page.



Never said that or even implied that. You obviously fail at reading comprehension. Of course all of their service counts and should be valued. And that service is valuable, because it enables the Combat MOS's and others to fight. Doesn't change the fact that a rear echelon type who never saw combat "served" but didn't "fight". If 6.6% "fought" then a much % would have had to have served. Whatever percent "fought" then a higher percent "served". Whatever percents you want to use. That's every single war in US history. Served in the insert war here but didn't see combat is a pretty common thing.


Ibanez- Starts stupid arguements and puts words into others mouths.

You're the guy you thinks people that don't fight don't matter.

You AGAIN are STILL stuck on stupid making a claim of of something I NEVER said or even implied.

Face it, you're wrong. You have ZERO proof that 3% of colonials FOUGHT.

I DON"T GIVE A FUCK WHATEVER % FOUGHT unlike YOU who started the argument and obviously cares so much about what the percentage is. I am correct in that a higher % served than actually fought. As far as what each percentage is, I don't care.

Yes, I've been drinking

No shit..

[Ibanez]

You AGAIN are STILL stuck on stupid making a claim of of something I NEVER said or even implied.

Face it, you're wrong. You have ZERO proof that 3% of colonials FOUGHT.

I DON"T GIVE A FUCK WHATEVER % FOUGHT unlike YOU who started the argument and obviously cares so much about what the percentage is. I am correct in that a higher % served than actually fought. As far as what each percentage is, I don't care.

Yes, I've been drinking

No shit..

I didn't say you claimed it, numbnuts. It was I that stated that 6.6% of the population served (you just agreed with me) and then you made a comment saying that people who serve don't necessarily fight. Well no fucking shit.

I made a statement that the 3% number isn't true b/c it's unverifiable, which made you start an argument b/c I said "served" instead of "fought" even though you have no facts to verify any number of actually fought overall. YOU are the one implying i'm wrong, however you have no evidence to prove me wrong.


I work with a good number of JMU grads, they aren't this difficult or ignorant.

[BDKJMU]

You AGAIN are STILL stuck on stupid making a claim of of something I NEVER said or even implied.



I DON"T GIVE A **** WHATEVER % FOUGHT unlike YOU who started the argument and obviously cares so much about what the percentage is. I am correct in that a higher % served than actually fought. As far as what each percentage is, I don't care.



No ****..

I didn't say you claimed it, numbnuts.

Yeah you did. Go back and re read what you wrote.

According to you, military SERVICE only exists if you are part of the 20% of the military in a combat MOS.

You're the guy you thinks people that don't fight don't matter

Never said or implied what you claimed..

[BDKJMU]

I made a statement that the 3% number isn't true b/c it's unverifiable, which made you start an argument b/c I said "served" instead of "fought" even though you have no facts to verify any number of actually fought overall. YOU are the one implying i'm wrong, however you have no evidence to prove me wrong.

You can't make a statement that something definitively isn't true because as you said, its unverifiable. It might be true. It might not be. We don't know what % fought. All we know is whatever percent actually fought it is smaller than whatever % served, and you cited stats showing around 6.6% served.

[Ibanez]

I made a statement that the 3% number isn't true b/c it's unverifiable, which made you start an argument b/c I said "served" instead of "fought" even though you have no facts to verify any number of actually fought overall. YOU are the one implying i'm wrong, however you have no evidence to prove me wrong.

You can't make a statement that something definitively isn't true because as you said, its unverifiable. It might be true. It might not be. We don't know what % fought. All we know is whatever percent actually fought it is smaller than whatever % served, and you cited stats showing around 6.6% served.

I can say, as I have, that there's no way to prove the accuracy of the 3% number. However, we have best ESTIMATES that give us a number nearing 6.6%. Estimates.

[Ibanez]

I didn't say you claimed it, numbnuts.

Yeah you did. Go back and re read what you wrote.

According to you, military SERVICE only exists if you are part of the 20% of the military in a combat MOS.

You're the guy you thinks people that don't fight don't matter

Never said or implied what you claimed..

You implied it by saying served doesn't equal fought. In my opinion, Stating such belittles those that weren't in combat roles.

And of course, I just exaggerated it. Partly because your an easy target and watching you get pissy is fun.