Tim Walz abandoned his soldiers when they deployed to Iraq

[RF667799]

In regards to your first statement, I believe that is the smear you are trying to suggest.

In regards to your second statement, why would I take your idiotic assumption and pass it on to anyone when we have you to do that?

Your posts at this point are genius in content

No, the first statement is the argument some are trying to use to avoid the fact he was reduced in rank for not meeting the obligations he incurred when he accepted that rank. They didn't take it away. They just wouldn't let him keep it.

 

[RF667799]

No you did not. I never provided you evidence Walz knew when his troops would be deployed only certain info as to when he announced he would run for office. The rest you fabricate.

Where's the falsehood? I used two dates. Which is a lie? The one you provided or the one that has been posted numerous times. A press release direct from Walz’s long-ago campaign.

 

[Mika-El]

Do you understand that since you are intent on making your claim one of universality, I only need provide one counter example?

Probably not, since you make the nonsensical demand I provide you with the names, ranks, branch and unit of all service members who have been in combat.

Do yourself a favor and just Google MOH recipients and see if they don't include some senior ranks in their number.

Wow just wow. You understand what the difference in rank and role is in the different branches? Start there. Then as I said since you made the claim go provide the name and age of Sgt. in the National Guard at Walz's level let alone age who fought in an active combat role in Iraq. Stop giggling and deflecting with bull shit.

 

[RF667799]

Someone else can explain to RF the difference between an NCO in the Army, Marines, Guard, Airforce.

What is that difference and how is it relevant to any of this?

 

[Mika-El]

No, the first statement is the argument some are trying to use to avoid the fact he was reduced in rank for not meeting the obligations he incurred when he accepted that rank. They didn't take it away. They just wouldn't let him keep it.

He was not reduced in rank for refusing to write the test. He didn't refuse to write the test. Refusal means he was ordered and then disobeyed an order and so was demoted as a disciplinary action. He exercised his discretionary right NOT to write the test and therefore volunteered to be demoted.

You know at this point your attempts to twist and misrepresent are pointless.

 

[Mika-El]

What is that difference and how is it relevant to any of this?

No that tactic won't work either. If you do not know the difference of the roles of NCO's in the various branches of the military so think they all are the same in role and age that is your problem but what it demonstrates is you have no phacking clue about the military you claimed to serve and just how old certain ranking soldiers would be in the Guard and why that age would predict their rank and/or likelihood of actually being in active hot zone combat.

Pretending you do not know the relevance at this point shows the games you are playing.

 

[RF667799]

Wow just wow. You understand what the difference in rank and role is in the different branches? Start there. Then as I said since you made the claim go provide the name and age of Sgt. in the National Guard at Walz's level let alone age who fought in an active combat role in Iraq. Stop giggling and deflecting with bull shit.

Oh..now it's "in Iraq". Maybe senior NCOs stayed in safety as their troops engaged in combat "in Iraq" as a general rule. Maybe there's that chance to salvage your ludicrous notion that senior enlisted and officers are exempt from combat, you figure.

You should put down the shovel. You've went across the line into marginalizing the service of senior leadership in general.

 

[RF667799]

He was not reduced in rank for refusing to write the test. He didn't refuse to write the test. Refusal means he was ordered and then disobeyed an order and so was demoted as a disciplinary action. He exercised his discretionary right NOT to write the test and therefore volunteered to be demoted.

You know at this point your attempts to twist and misrepresent are pointless.

"Write the test"?? "Refusing to write the test"??

Again, wtf are you talking about?

 

[JMB1911A1]

Wow just wow. You understand what the difference in rank and role is in the different branches? Start there. Then as I said since you made the claim go provide the name and age of Sgt. in the National Guard at Walz's level let alone age who fought in an active combat role in Iraq. Stop giggling and deflecting with bull shit.

Oh..now it's "in Iraq". Maybe senior NCOs stayed in safety as their troops engaged in combat "in Iraq" as a general rule. Maybe there's that chance to salvage your ludicrous notion that senior enlisted and officers are exempt from combat, you figure.

You should put down the shovel. You've went across the line into marginalizing the service of senior leadership.

The CSM who replaced Walz went on missions. In my unit, the O-6 in charge and E-9 senior enlisted went out the wire regularly.

Thread by @SRAlsultani on Thread Reader App

@SRAlsultani: I served with the BN that Gov Walz was slotted in as it’s CSM. I was attached to the MN NG 1-125 FA BN as part of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry Division...

threadreaderapp.com

I was going on an intelligence reconnaissance mission in an area from which the terrorist group had attacked our small base several times, via indirect fire (mortars and katusha rockets), based on intel from HUMINT sources.

The mission entailed dropping a small team off in this area. There were only four people on this mission, by design. CSM Behrends, our armed American Citizen Iraqi translator, a squad designated marksman, and me.
…
CSM Behrends did not have to be on this mission. It was irregular for such a senior enlisted soldier to go on missions like this.

But CSM Behrends was not going to have his soldiers go on such a mission without him being right there with us.

This is the kind of man CSM Behrends is.

 

[RF667799]

No that tactic won't work either. If you do not know the difference of the roles of NCO's in the various branches of the military so think they all are the same in role and age that is your problem but what it demonstrates is you have no phacking clue about the military you claimed to serve and just how old certain ranking soldiers would be in the Guard and why that age would predict their rank and/or likelihood of actually being in active hot zone combat.

Pretending you do not know the relevance at this point shows the games you are playing.

He was 41. No that's not too old to be in combat. He was a Sergeant Major. No, that doesn't exempt him from the hazards of combat. He wasn't in the Coast Guard. If he had shown up in Iraq, he would have been on active duty, no different than any other Sergeant Major.

Like CSM Steven Faulkenburg.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Someone else can explain to RF the difference between an NCO in the Army, Marines, Guard, Airforce.

Not really that much of a difference. Based on branch. NCO/SNCOs are similar between all branches.

WW

 

[RF667799]

Not really that much of a difference. Based on branch. NCO/SNCOs are similar between all branches.

WW

And there's no exemption from combat for NCOs noted in regulations, or in the NCO Creed, or anything like that, right?

Whew. CSM Plumley would be relieved to know he wasn't doing something wrong.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And there's no exemption from combat for NCOs noted in regulations, or in the NCO Creed, or anything like that, right?

Whew. CSM Plumley would be relieved to know he wasn't doing something wrong.

Now you are just getting silly.

Have a good evening.

WW
.
.
.

Army to Keep Infantry Icon's Awards Unchanged Despite 'Discrepancies'

A military researcher alleges that Vietnam War veteran Basil Plumley wore unauthorized combat and valor awards.

www.military.com

 

[RF667799]

Now you are just getting silly.

Have a good evening.

WW
.
.
.

Army to Keep Infantry Icon's Awards Unchanged Despite 'Discrepancies'

A military researcher alleges that Vietnam War veteran Basil Plumley wore unauthorized combat and valor awards.

www.military.com

It's a little silly. But it's warranted with the intense sillness of a ranting argument that would have it that NCOs are exempt from combat.

Besides, I don't think it even supports much of a narrative useful for the Harris/Walz campaign.

"He didn't fear danger! He would have just stayed in his office anyway!"

 

[braindrain]

The only thing that makes military service honorable is a willingness to risk your life to advance the interests of your country. Walz was not willing to do that. And people who aren’t deployed to war aren’t serving anything other than their own interests.

That is simply idiotic.
So the countless hours that I have been away from my family either training for war or doing non-combat operations is fulfilling my own self interest.
How is that exactly.

 

[braindrain]

All of this ^ is shameful.

Veterans don’t attack, belittle, or misrepresent other veterans honorable service.

Dan Hollaway’s (author of the Newsweek opinion piece) 1 year combat service in Iraq doesn’t give him the right to talk shit about anyone else’s service, or worse, to judge their character.

And the 2 retired Command Sergeants Major of the Minnesota National Guard do not speak for/represent the views of the dozens of other MN NG Command Sergeants Major.

If only that 2nd sentence were actually true. Sadly it happens all the time. And from both sides.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

If only that 2nd sentence were actually true. Sadly it happens all the time. And from both sides.

Yeah, you’re right.

I should’ve said loyal veterans don’t attack, belittle, or misrepresent other veterans honorable service.

 

[braindrain]

Yeah, you’re right.

I should’ve said loyal veterans don’t attack, belittle, or misrepresent other veterans honorable service.

Agreed

 

[braindrain]

Your suggestion he deliberately avoided combat is bullshit and you know it is. You know damn well even if Walz had been sent to Iraq he was too old and too high a rank to be put in combat. Enough with the bull shit.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/09/politics/video/jd-vance-tim-walz-military-jesse-ventura-lcl-digvid

Speaking of BS Where did you get the idea that E9s are not put into combat.

ARSOF Fallen: SGM Bradly D. Conner

SGM Bradly D. Conner: ARSOF Fallen from the War on Terrorism

arsof-history.org

 

[braindrain]

You now explain to everyone how someone his age and rank even at the lower level would NOT have ever been placed in a combat role. Do not pretend you do not know this and are fully aware at best he would have had a nom combat desk job had he gone,

The above statement by you is disgusting in that you know what I just said being a vet but because of the above statement misrepresent that he would have been sent om combat missions.

You don’t have experience with the military do you?

Please show me the regulation that determines if someone is a certain age they won’t be placed in a combat role.
Or that E9s are not allowed to be placed in a combat role.

 

[jnug]

You guys are still at this nonsense.

I had a nice long nap.

I will repeat though....this will go nowhere with the electorate......Vance is left as the standard-bearer for this argument and it is too full of intricacies and minutia to have any effect. I am not even convinced that jack rabbit could deliver it effectively. I am rather sure he can't.

All Americans will remember is that Walz served honorably for 24 years and retired honorably. Expecting people to understand the level of minutia tossed back and forth in this thread is laughably absurd.

 

[braindrain]

I have never known a vet to do such a thing in front of non service people to humiliate a fellow service person.

There is a popular ex Seal who has a you tube site for exposing people who engage in stolen valor. He carefully researches before he makes any accusations.

Apparently you don’t pay much attention.

I guess you forgot all the attacks on George W.
Or the whole General Petraeus and the whole bit about General Betray Us that was started by a mainstream left wing organization.

 

[braindrain]

Once again you are dishonest. How do you not know with his age and rank even the lower once yes like 41 or 42, he would not have been sent into combat. How do you not know that and giggle at it? Next he did not promote himself others did. Your response suggests he promoted himself. Then you fabricated his motives and intent as being selfish with no proof just your subjective projections and you deliberately ignore he did exactly what he said he would do in Congress. Why? At this point the more you respond the more you dig a whole of inconsistencies and falsehoods.

You are just making shit up.
Plenty of people older then him are still serving at the tactical level and conducting combat operations.

 

[jnug]

Apparently you don’t pay much attention.

I guess you forgot all the attacks on George W.
Or the whole General Petraeus and the whole bit about General Betray Us that was started by a mainstream left wing organization.

Why would we remember the attacks about military service on Bush. He won.....DIDN'T HE

That is my point....the R's are going to be left with their twisty turny arguments full of minutia and intricacies and the D's will just blow that all away with pinpoint simple advertising.

For a forum titled DebatePolitics we sure have a good many members that don't know the first thing about politics.

 

[RF667799]

Why would we remember the attacks about military service on Bush. He won.....DIDN'T HE

That is my point....the R's are going to be left with their twisty turny arguments full of minutia and intricacies and the D's will just blow that all away with pinpoint simple advertising.

For a forum titled DebatePolitics we sure have a good many members that don't know the first thing about politics.

I don't like politics much. But I can see where someone is trying to back and fill.