New ads pitch Marine Corps' kinder, gentler side

Associated Press ^ | March 8, 2012 | PAULINE JELINEK

[Free ThinkerNY]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Marines are highlighting a kinder, gentler side in a new ad campaign.

Known more for its war-fighting skills, the Marine Corps is launching new ads about its humanitarian missions and help with other crises around the world.

[wally_bert]

I found this old commerical that might counter this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4bf_BeYsb8

[fortheDeclaration]

Oh brother!

[DoughtyOne]

This was addressed directly to you, at the very top of Post 50, this thread.

This is what I was addressing:  WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Marines are highlighting a kinder, gentler side in a new ad campaign.

Is this confusing to you?

To me this implied that our Marines needed to be more touchy-feely overseas.  I wasn't buying it.  I want our guys to use the best tactics that get the job done, and ensure them coming home.

You're not able to understand what I said up to this point?  Was this anti-Marine?

Here's the link:  LINK

- - - - - - -

Then you wrote this to Gibsosa in Post 56, this thread.

There is clearly some social-engineering mischief going on with the Marines (and other traditionally war-waging arms of the US military) and it looks like the Doughboy is saying that doesn’t matter as long as they do what... survive to get home to their families?

I’d rather think that Doughboy was being turgid and impenetrable than that he would not care about this mischief! It strikes at the heart of more than just the military.

Here is the link.  LINK

- - - - - - -

I will allow you to address me one more time on this topic.  When you do, you better provide a place in this thread where I directly made a statement to the effect that I didn't care if social engineering tactics were forced on any of our troops in our armed services, or were forced on the citizens of the United States.  This is a clear misrepresentation of my views.

If you respond failing that, my next post will be to the moderator, addressing the issue of you lying about my beliefs.

I have never supported social engineering in our armed services, and have never supported it on U. S. soil either. Many times I have addressed these types of issue on the forum, and I have always opposed them.

I have tried to work this out with you, and you have escalated it every step of the way.

You either point out where I said these things on this thread, appologize, or shut up.  I don't really care which.

[HiTech RedNeck]

and sister, too

[HiTech RedNeck]

I won’t “appologize” (surely your spell checker caught that?) for calling you to task for making “getting home safely” the touchstone of wise military policy.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I also will not “appologize” for refusal to view military policy in a self contained vacuum.

[SevenofNine]

No more this in US marines LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m_1hglRkPk&feature=fvwrel

[DoughtyOne]

I have made my views perfectly clear to you. You have chosen to continue on without consideration of my request that you stop misrepresenting my views.

I have reported your actions to the moderator. It was my hope that I wouldn’t have to.

Hi-Teck RedNeck, this was completely unnecessary. You could have returned to cordiality any step of the way.

You chose to make things worse at every turn.

[DoughtyOne]

Okay, then you can’t comprehend how a person would want policies that contributed the most to our troops returning safely, in deference to kindler/gentler policies that would be more likely get them killed.

This is but one more concept you’re having a hard time comprehending.

[DoughtyOne]

It’s up to me what topics I choose to address at any given time.

This doesn’t mean that I don’t care about other policies, whether in combat or home settings.

I addressed the topic of kindler/gentler. You have misconstrued that to mean I don’t care about other things.

This is the same as giving me a hard time for not addressing license fees, when I address Boehner’s ineffective rule.

It’s not unreasoned to address an issue favorably, even if a person does leave other topics on the table.

And it’s not unreasoned to address one aspect of a much larger problem either. As long as the comments concerning the issue are sound, that’s all that matters. And at this point, I have gone to great lengths to explain my views to you.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I could get equally condescending towards you, but let me simply state instead that for something to be on a list of desiderata does not make it the chief touchstone. There would be lots of ways to get a gay Navy out and back safely, but they would be rather feckless on the world scene and encourage Americans in general to be more cowardly. World War II saw a LOT of sacrifice, but the Axis was overturned as a result. Was it worth not making safe return of troops the touchstone? You tell me.

[HiTech RedNeck]

You have certainly missed that FR is about catching these larger issues. Not about politically comfortable announcements of policy (are you running for an office now?)

[FourPeas]

Of courthe not. The Mawines have unthormths. Men tho like men in unithormths.

*gag*

[DoughtyOne]

I could get equally condescending towards you,

Okay, then in your convoluted moral code of ethics, it's okay to misrepresent people's views, and that isn't condescending towards them at all.

...but let me simply state instead that for something to be on a list of desiderata does not make it the chief touchstone.

It deosn't matter if something is the chief touchstone at all.  I get to chose the issue I want to address.  And I chose to address the topic of 'kindler/gentler'.  It's not up to you to micromanage what I choose to address.  I chose that topic, because it does cover a myriad of issues.  I didn't care to list every single issue that might come under that heading.  I don't agree with any of it, and a reasoned person would naturally come to that conclusion.  I supported nothing unseemly.  I didn't come close ot infering that I did.

There would be lots of ways to get a gay Navy out and back safely, but they would be rather feckless on the world scene and encourage Americans in general to be more cowardly. World War II saw a LOT of sacrifice, but the Axis was overturned as a result. Was it worth not making safe return of troops the touchstone? You tell me.

I stated that I did not support 'kindler/gentler' policies for the Marines.  I did not say it was okay for 'kindler/gentler polices to be implemented as long as Marines came home safely.  I said I DID NOT approve of 'kindler/gentler' policies.  As for homosexuals in the Navy, the extrapolation of meaning across issues was another issue you have misconstured.  You misrepresented my beliefs on the original topic, then tried to transfer that misperception across to another one.  Neither are justified by my contributions to this thread.

You're making this stuff up as you go, and there's no rational basis for it.

[DoughtyOne]

You have certainly missed that FR is about catching these larger issues. Not about politically comfortable announcements of policy (are you running for an office now?)

Free Republic is focused on reasoned discussion of issues of a political nature.  It is not focused on folks having to address the larger picture every time they touch on an issue.

It is not focused on misrepresenting other people's views, and refusing to acknowledge it, and move on.

I addressed an issue with the proper emphasis.  That's all you need to be made aware of.

[HiTech RedNeck]

It certainly seems your thrust, at least now, is not in stating anything useful that furthers the discussion and enlarges its useful scope, but about protecting the ego of Doughboy.

[HiTech RedNeck]

My response was geared to address the issues that I want them coming home alive, enjoying their family, and vise versa.

(taken from an earlier post)

And this is a blinkered point of view, as measured in many ways. Of course I am not advocating for taking it off the list of desiderata, but it sure sounds like something an ego bound politician might say.

[DoughtyOne]

To me this implied that our Marines needed to be more touchy-feely overseas. 

I wasn't buying it.

What part of I wasn't buying it (for any reason) do you not understand?  Did I provide a carve out where I could sign on to new "kinder/gentler" polices?  No.

I want our guys to use the best tactics that get the job done, and ensure them coming home.  Did I suggest "kinder/Gentler" tactics that could also bring our men home safely?  No. I rejected "kindler/gentler" implementations without exception.

My response was geared to address the issues that I want them coming home alive, enjoying their family, and vise versa.

LINK

[DoughtyOne]

No, I have no interest whatsoever in expanding my focus here.

You haven’t demonstrated an ability to focus on what has been said on a very narrow topic. Why would I expand that topic?

[HiTech RedNeck]

and ensure them coming home

NOT the touchstone, Mr. Big Print. I do not have to accuse you of WANTING a gay Navy (YOU read that into my words), in order to refute the idea of treating "ensuring their coming home" as the point worthy of emphasis by pointing out that a gay Navy could easily meet that criterion.