Rescued U.S. soldier put up fierce fight - Wash Post

Reuters | 4/03/03

[bimbo]

You picked the username, not me.

Indeed, I did ... let me tell you why: The username draws the attention of posters, like you, who have no intelligent criticism to offer; they resort to attacking my username. You fell for the bait.

[bimbo]

The reports are already out ...

Thanks, but I'll read the reports before I comment.

[bimbo]

One more time: are you accusing serving US Army officers of lying, or suborning false statements from PFC Lynch?

No one (except maybe you) is accusing anyone of anything... we're commenting on possibilities.

[FreedomPoster]

here

You more than proved yourself on your original post. I'm done.

[FreedomPoster]

Keep digging.

[Poohbah]

No one (except maybe you) is accusing anyone of anything... we're commenting on possibilities.

A remarkably Clintonian answer, and one that doesn't hold up with the record.

Are you saying you didn't write the post I'm quoting below, over here?

Officials told the newspaper that the precise sequence of events was still being determined and further information would emerge as Lynch is debriefed.

Translation: “We are still concocting this story for maximum heroism, and Lynch still doesn’t have it straight.”

Now that I've refreshed your memory, are you accusing serving officers in the US Army of lying about the actions of PFC Lynch, or attempting to extract false statements from PFC Lynch?

[William Terrell]

But you agree, then, that placing women in line of fire is a liberal/socialist policy. I couldn't care less if you think I was a Marine or not.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

No, I disagree. Women can serve, as proven, with distinction, and leaving the armed forces open to people who want and can serve their nation in a fighting capacity is neither socialist nor liberal.

[William Terrell]

No, I disagree. Women can serve, as proven, with distinction, and leaving the armed forces open to people who want and can serve their nation in a fighting capacity is neither socialist nor liberal.

Women have served in history as clerical/support, not in line of fire or other front line roles. Also this has been found in all other civilizations (that were healthy). Not putting women in dangerous front line roles is conservative, that is, to conserve ways that have proved to be compatable with the way men and women are, as proved time and time again throughout history.

Therefore putting women in harm's way in armed conflict, especially when there are so many men available, is a liberal position. The fact that socialism and it's more intense progeny, communism, are built on such as that make it a socialist position.

If you support that idea, which you do, you must be a liberal/socialist.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Therefore putting women in harm's way in armed conflict, especially when there are so many men available, is a liberal position. The fact that socialism and it's more intense progeny, communism, are built on such as that make it a socialist position.

If you support that idea, which you do, you must be a liberal/socialist.

That might be the most moronic slippery slope argument I've seen yet.

Besides, "General", nothing in your trick bag makes you an expert, and according to a friend of mine I just got off the phone with, a female reserve major and veteran of GW1 (who incidentally participated in combat), she could likely kick your butt (fighting woman to weasel). The lady was unimpressed by your statements or credentials, in fact, kinda laughed.

[homeschool mama]

My 'argument', as you call it, is that your comments fit your screen name well. Bimbo style comments coming from a Bimbo screen name. Do you know what a bimbo is?

Have a delightful day.

[William Terrell]

Bark, bark. No need to be an "expert" when logic and history is on one's side.

[thepitts]

STFU, paleo moron.

FU a-hole.

[thepitts]

Some people fall for anything, you idiots never learn.

[xsysmgr]

I've read this whole thread, and you two seem to be the only ones making sensible arguments based on the article. The rest either have a real problem with basic reading comprehension, or know they have nothing to rebut you with, so they resort to ad hominem attacks.

Of course, there are those who manage to combine both, such as asking such idiotic questions as: "...are you accusing serving officers in the US Army of lying about this event?"

You two have made this thread an interesting read.

[VMI70]

Bumpity Bump

It seems as if somebody has tainted these peoples water supply. Looks like more and more sheeple are gracing FR, blindly knee jerking as they follow the rest of the flock.

[Missouri]

From what I'm hearing now is that some of the Washington Post story is suspect. I'll save my judgement for latter.

[Humal]

Bill O'Reilly has a link to just such a fund. Try http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/community/contactcenter.jsp (Hope this works.)