Tim Walz abandoned his soldiers when they deployed to Iraq

[RF667799]

Nope.

What a crippled rebuttal to go along with lame ad hominems.

 

[RF667799]

The quoted illustrates your lack of credibility.

The quoted what? An accusation like that should be accompanied by credible evidence.

 

[RF667799]

There is nothing to criticize. And what Walz did was NOTHING compared to Trump.

Bullshit false equivalency....another reason why you have no credibility.

Then why do you cry that I don't criticize Vance? Is there something I missed in his service record? Did he fail to complete a mandated service school and so was subsequently reduced in rank?

Yeah, Trump doesn't have a service record....because he was a Vietnam draft dodger. But somehow this is equivalent to what Walz "did" in your eyes. What a joke.

I didn't say that. That's a lie you're trying to tell. I said he doesn't have a service record. Someone familiar with communicating in English might understand that means his service record can't be criticized. Do you think your service record can be criticized?

You are more upset about what Walz did than Trump ridiculing John McCain for getting captured in Vietnam. Or Trump calling dead soldiers "suckers".

"Trump Trump Trump", went the drum.

Again, you have no credibility.

Point out a lie.

 

[jaeger19]

What we do know is he didn't complete the course before he retired. So he was reduced in rank.


How could I forget it? Virtually every page or so, someone comes in squawking 24 years! 24 years! 24 years! I'm focused on the end of his career here. Not if he didn't mop the First Sergeant's office when he was CQ runner or something.


I posted the complete definition.


Arguing it as if it is impossible, is struggling with it. Because the concept is valid.


2a works. : something (such as a formal contract, a promise, or the demands of conscience or custom) that obligates one to a course of action



Correct, except that he actually volunteered for like 26 years. When he accepted his promotion, he also accepted a commitment to satisfactorily complete the Sergeant Major Course. He failed to satisfy that commitment. That's why he was reduced in rank. You keep saying it, but you don't seem to accept it. Walz accepted it.

1. Yep . That's what happens when you retire before taking the course for your promotion.
2. Exactly. Logical objective people consider the value of 24 years of service.
Not simply what courses a retiree didn't take after retiring.
3. Yep. You posted the complete definition and ignored it.
4. Accepted a commitment?
How is it a " commitment" if the military's own rules ALLOWED him to retire WITHOUT fulfilling this " commitment"?.

It wasn't a commitment. It was simply a requirement for the promotion.
The mimitary's own rules allowed Walz to decide when to retire either before taking the course or after.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Tim Walz is a coward. He did the safe deployments to Italy and Norway, but when his unit was activated to go to Iraq, he suddenly “retired” when still having 2 years left on his commitment.

To Veterans Like Me, Tim Walz's Abandonment of His Unit I...

Here's the truth about Tim Walz: When his men needed him before what would have been his only combat deployment, he was nowhere to be found.

www.newsweek.com

Paid letter: The Truth About Tim Walz

Tim Walz has embellished and selectively omitted facts and circumstances of his military career for years.

www.wctrib.com

In early 2005, a warning order was issued to the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion, which included the position he was serving in, to prepare to be mobilized for active duty for a deployment to Iraq.

On May 16th, 2005 he quit, leaving the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion and its Soldiers hanging; without its senior Non-Commissioned Officer, as the battalion prepared for war. His excuse to other leaders was that he needed to retire in order to run for congress. Which is false, according to a Department of Defense Directive, he could have run and requested permission from the Secretary of Defense before entering active duty; as many reservists have. If he had retired normally and respectfully, you would think he would have ensured his retirement documents were correctly filled out and signed, and that he would have ensured he was reduced to Master Sergeant for dropping out of the academy. Instead he waited for the paperwork to catch up to him. His official retirement document states, SOLDIER NOT AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE.
…

The bottom line in all of this is gut wrenching and sad to explain. When the nation called, he quit. He failed to complete the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy. He failed to serve for two years following completion of the academy, which he dropped out of. He failed to serve two years after the conditional promotion to Command Sergeant Major. He failed to fulfill the full six years of the enlistment he signed on September 18th, 2001. He failed his country. He failed his state. He failed the Minnesota Army National Guard, the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion, and his fellow Soldiers. And he failed to lead by example. Shameful.

This is actually OK with me.

You see....I only like the soldiers that DON'T deploy to Iraq.

 

[braindrain]

How is

How is a tactical level live combat?

You pose on this thread as being a smarter than you know it all asking stupid questions and I provided sources for your idiotic questions and you want to twist that and suggest I initiated those questions? No I am not playing phacking games with you. You wanted answers I answered them and provided sources because you do not and your entire exercise now is to try suggest I make up what I say,

You again prove what I said. You can't provide a damn example of a Master St. in Iraq of any phacking age being asked to engage in hostile fire because you know they do not exist. Take your "tactical" reference and play it does not deflect from your pathetic to deflect from your failed attempt to attack me personally when you can't counter-debat6e what I said with specific references to provide your point.

Want to try and rephrase that and have it make at least little sense at least.

Please point out the single stupid question I have asked in this thread. Meanwhile I can point out a whole lot of bs you have posted.
I have asked questions because you post a lot of bs that makes zero sense and to help demonstrate you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Which you clearly don’t.
Like claiming his age made him to old to be put in combat.

Really because I already posted a link to a SGM killed while conducting operations in Afghanistan. Would you like a few others. And by the way an army Sergeant is SGT is abbreviated as SGT not ST. And a Master Sergeant is MSG. You would know that if you had even a clue what you are talking about.

MSG Michael McNulty - Airborne Ranger in the Sky

362, 2387, MSG Michael McNulty

arits.org

Sorry but you seem like you are getting pretty irrational and are struggling to put coherent sentences together.

Maybe talk a break and just stick to topics you are not so clueless on.

 

[braindrain]

There have been enough examples of senior personnel engaging in combat to completely trash your screeching insistence that such a thing never happens.

You're attempting to defend Walz from facts, by marginalizing the entire senior leadership of the services.

It’s so funny watching him try and argue with people who have decades of service while he clearly has no clue.

Hell every maneuver element in my organization is headed by a E8 and they are as involved in actual combat as anyone else in the unit.

 

[braindrain]

No I am not. The deflection I address were not about stolen valor claims or accusing Bush of lying about his service or being a coward. If this is your attempt to try defend the pathetic smears on this thread against Walz by deflecting from their falsehoods and irrational conclusions then you are doing a pathetic job. Move on tactical expert.,

Uhm yes you are.
I said the attacks on George W and General Petraus. Neither of them served in WW2.

But yes the attacks ain’t George W did involve attacks on his service.

You probably should just leave this thread. You are only embarrassing yourself.

 

[braindrain]

More bullshit. I asked you to provide an example of an E-8 or E-9 sent to Iraq to engage in hostile or hot zone or fire on fire action. I asked this because YOU not I advance and support the smear that Walz did not serve in Iraq because he was afraid to engage in combat. Now you do 2 thinsg: 1-you deliberatel deflect from the ranks of E-8 and E-9 to the words "senior personnel". I clearly stated other ranks of Sgt. or officers were a different story. You weasel out and change the rank reference because you have no proof of any E8 or E9 in Iraq engaging in hostile hand to hand or live fire missions. Your colleague also engaged in the same tactic by trying to hide behind the word "tactical" to falsely suggest I argued E8's and E9's do not engage in tactical roles. I in fact quoted the military source for their roles.The term "tactical" does not necessarily mean live fire combat as I clearly showed in my answer that E8's and E9's do in fact engage in tactical work which I never denied.

2. I never marginalized the entire senior leadership of the services ever. My words could not be more clear.

At this point I will say this-you are deliberately lying about what I have actually stated and have not repudiated my points. You in fact try deflect with personal comments or changing the allegation you support and I am showing is false.

All I have done is back up further with specific reference and detail as to what Jesse Ventura said in defence of Walz. You have never once provided an example of anyone sent in Walz's place asked to take direct fire as an E8 or E9.

When you want to join a cluster phack smear campaign I say this-I will call out what you say, carefully explain why.

How about you look up what the rank is for a Special Forces Team SGT is. And because I know you have no idea what that is, it is the senior NCO on each ODA which is the combat element for all Special Forces. The MSG will be every bit as involved as anyone else in the team.

Part of your problem is you have no clue what you are talking about but want to not only pretend you do but are getting emotional that anyone would dare correct your bs and you are getting all irrational.
Honestly it is kind of funny.

 

[RF667799]

1. Yep . That's what happens when you retire before taking the course for your promotion.

Before successfully finishing.

2. Exactly. Logical objective people consider the value of 24 years of service.

Yeah? What was the objective value?

Not simply what courses a retiree didn't take after retiring.

Trying the "after retiring" gambit again?

3. Yep. You posted the complete definition and ignored it.
4. Accepted a commitment?
How is it a " commitment" if the military's own rules ALLOWED him to retire WITHOUT fulfilling this " commitment"?.

It wasn't a commitment. It was simply a requirement for the promotion.
The mimitary's own rules allowed Walz to decide when to retire either before taking the course or after.

He was reduced in grade, and you're reduced to a private language in trying to refute facts.

 

[hooligan]

In order to ask that, you must think that completing directed training and complying with requirements are optional in the Army (That's the part you edited out of my post). Wanna bet that his enrollment in the SMA was also accompanied by orders? I know I was given orders to attend both PLDC and BNCOC. I bet the regulations outlining the obligations for accepting his promotion indicate that the service member "will" successfully complete the Sergeant Major Course. Not "might so long as he feels like it."

Failure to comply with regulations is covered under Article 92 and others.

In Walz's case, the regulation he didn't comply with already included the prescribed penalty for failing to comply. And that was executed, effective the day before he retired.

Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1)
violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2)
having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3)
is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


What punishment did the court-martial direct for Walz?

 

[Jack2aTee]

Trump's dad had a doctor friend lie to the draft board that Donald had bonespurs when he didn't to dodge going to Vietnam. Which is more cowardly?

 

[RF667799]

Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1)
violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2)
having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3)
is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


What punishment did the court-martial direct for Walz?

Selective quote and an unwitting reveal.

Good argument.

 

[hooligan]

Selective quote and an unwitting reveal.

Good argument.

What "selective quote"?

So, we agree that no court-martial directed any punishment for Walz?

 

[RF667799]

What "selective quote"?

So, we agree that no court-martial directed any punishment for Walz?

Your selective quote of an Army regulation.

He wasn't brought before a court martial that I know of.

 

[hooligan]

Your selective quote of an Army regulation.

Feel free to add any context that I failed to capture.

 

[jaeger19]

Before successfully finishing.


Yeah? What was the objective value?


Trying the "after retiring" gambit again?


He was reduced in grade, and you're reduced to a private language in trying to refute facts.

1. Before starting even.
2. Increased security of the united states of course.
3. What gambit? Wtf..? He retired before the time frame to finish his course was
up. Yes?
4. Refute what? Yes. He did not finish the requirement to take this course for promotion so he lost tge rank.
So what?
The Army obviously had a process by which he could retire even though he hadn't completed the requirement.
Obviously the Army didn't see completing the course as a commitment.

Otherwise why have a process to allow him to retire without fulfilling that supposed commitment. ?

No private language...just facts.

You just can't get around tge fact that for 24 years he volunteered to wear a uniform..risking potentially his life..did his duty and the military retired him with an honorable discharge and retirement benefits.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Trump's dad had a doctor friend lie to the draft board that Donald had bonespurs when he didn't to dodge going to Vietnam. Which is more cowardly?

Feel free to start a new thread abot Dinal Trump and Vietnam.

In the meantime, thank for agreeing that Tim Walz’s actions were cowardly.

 

[RF667799]

1. Before starting even.

Really? You have some proof of that? His obligation began when he accepted his promotion.

2. Increased security of the united states of course.

What was the objective measurement?

3. What gambit? Wtf..? He retired before the time frame to finish his course was
up. Yes?

Yes. What he does after retiring is irrelevant.

4. Refute what? Yes. He did not finish the requirement to take this course for promotion so he lost tge rank.
So what?
The Army obviously had a process by which he could retire even though he hadn't completed the requirement.
Obviously the Army didn't see completing the course as a commitment.

Yes they did. Thus reducing him in grade. That's the consequence provided for by regulation when someone doesn't successfully complete the Sergeant Major Course. They don't get to be a Sergeant Major.

Otherwise why have a process to allow him to retire without fulfilling that supposed commitment. ?

They didn't allow him to retire with the rank he was holding, which would be the normal course of things. They reduced him so that he couldn't retire as an E-9. Again, that is the provision provided for in the relevant regulation. It's really irrelevant to his retirement.

No private language...just facts.

You just can't get around tge fact that for 24 years he volunteered to wear a uniform..risking potentially his life..did his duty and the military retired him with an honorable discharge and retirement benefits.

He did all that and also had time to fail to satisfy an obligation to complete the Sergeant Major Course, and so was reduced to E-8.

 

[Mika-El]

How about you look up what the rank is for a Special Forces Team SGT is. And because I know you have no idea what that is, it is the senior NCO on each ODA which is the combat element for all Special Forces. The MSG will be every bit as involved as anyone else in the team.

Part of your problem is you have no clue what you are talking about but want to not only pretend you do but are getting emotional that anyone would dare correct your bs and you are getting all irrational.
Honestly it is kind of funny.

Stop being dishonest. You are now trying to argue Walz was only being sent to Iraq to be a Special Forces Tea, SGT which is absolutely and utterly false. You have no clue what his role could have been had he gone. More to the point stop deliberately deflecting.

The more you writer and try attack me the more phony you show you are. How do you not know Walz would never have been a Special services Sgt. He asked not was he ordered to attend the Special Forces Qualification Course at Fort Bragg, N.C., which you know lasts up to two years depending on the MOS.

You have zero proof he was going to be asked to do special services and be part of ODA.

Stop with the bullshit. Respond to someone else. The more you write me the more you show you try deflect from what Walz's rank was had he be sent to Iraq and try push him into another category so you can advance the smear he was a coward of combat. Its weak, its pathetic and when you pose as an expert you leave blatant inconsistencies behind.

 

[Mika-El]

Your selective quote of an Army regulation.

He wasn't brought before a court martial that I know of.

Exactly. He retired honourably. So for you to suggest he engaged in stolen valor and was a coward of combat is false and your claim he was demoted as if it was a penalty for disobeying a mandatory order is bull shit.

 

[RF667799]

Stop being dishonest. You are now trying to argue Walz was only being sent to Iraq to be a Special Forces Tea, SGT which is absolutely and utterly false. You have no clue what his role could have been had he gone. More to the point stop deliberately deflecting.

The more you writer and try attack me the more phony you show you are. How do you not know Walz would never have been a Special services Sgt. He asked not was he ordered to attend the Special Forces Qualification Course at Fort Bragg, N.C., which you know lasts up to two years depending on the MOS.

You have zero proof he was going to be asked to do special services and be part of ODA.

Stop with the bullshit. Respond to someone else. The more you write me the more you show you try deflect from what Walz's rank was had he be sent to Iraq and try push him into another category so you can advance the smear he was a coward of combat. Its weak, its pathetic and when you pose as an expert you leave blatant inconsistencies behind.

That isn't what he said in any manner. You entirely fabricated the whole thing.

 

[RF667799]

Exactly. He retired honourably. So for you to suggest he engaged in stolen valor and was a coward of combat is false and your claim he was demoted as if it was a penalty for disobeying a mandatory order is bull shit.

It was mandatory he successfully complete the Sergeant Major Course, and the penalty for failing to accomplish that was the reduction in grade he suffered.

Wanna bet his promotion didn't come with orders?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Feel free to start a new thread abot Dinal Trump and Vietnam.

In the meantime, thank for agreeing that Tim Walz’s actions were cowardly.

The were not. He chose to retire. There is nothing cowardly about that.

 

[RF667799]

The were not. He chose to retire. There is nothing cowardly about that.

Yeah. Myself, I think it's just that his interest in chasing his political ambitions outweighed his interest in fulfilling his military obligations.