Fuck you, Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor!

[FinnAgain]

@Mr. Moto

Not semantics at all. If I wanted to kill someone for sure, I’d shoot them in the head with a rifle bullet. They’ll be filling a hole soon enough then.

Absolutely semantics. Sound and fury, etc, etc…
If the government wanted to kill people, and were training a force to do it, and wanted to maximize kills per bullets fired, and had a populace which were not made up of expert marcksmen…
where would they train their soldiers to shoot?

What is the chance of a wound to the upper chest being non-fatal? What is the chance of a gutwound being, ultimately, non-fatal?

@Mr. Moto

The head is a lot easier to miss, though.

This is the point though, right? If the military wants to train its soldiers to hit its enemies with letal ammunition (which causes death), they want the statisticaly best ratio of bullets hitting targets to bullets fired.

Snipers are trained to aim for the head, the average soldier is trained to aim for the area that, statistically, most will hit most often.

@Mr. Moto

And even if someone is merely wounded by hitting them elsewhere, they may well then be in a position not to be shooting at you any more.

And, the goal of shooting at the other guys is to somehow make sure that they’re not “shooting at you any more” right? Do you know any other way to do that with lethal ammunition than disabling an opponent with (most likely) lethal effects?

@Mr. Moto

And all this nitpicking with me is missing a pretty important point. I gave Bosda a chance to clarify or retract his remarks, to state definitively that he wasn’t slandering the military with his posts. He passed on that opportunity quite explicitly, which is why I started this thread.

Okay, I will say this then: If Bosda was saying that serving in the military turns you into a killer monster, I think he went over the line. If he said that saying that mercs would suffer after-battle-effects (perhaps in greater numbers) than military service people might, then I think he was mostly correct.

@Mr. Moto

Now, you may be charitable and read into his remarks a more conciliatory attitude. I think the attitude shown by Bosda overall demonstrates that this is wishful thinking.

I haven’t had a chance to read over the whole thread as I figured you’d provided all the relevant info in your OP. I will look it over later this evening. However, I will point out before hand that a non-conciliatory attitude does not, in and of itself, indicate that he was saying what you implied. Sometimes people sorta imply “I won’t dignify your accusation with a response.”

But of course, I won’t know in full context without reading over the whole thread. Whee. Check back in this thread around four a.m.

[Zoe]

Mr. Moto: (From your link to what appears to be a United Way site): National studies have found that about 23% of all homeless persons are veterans, compared to about 13% of the general population. However, when studying just men, 33% of homeless men are veterans compared to 31% of all American men.

Mr. Moto: When you study just the male homeless, veteran status tracks closely with that of the population at large.

According to an examinination of homelessness among U.S. veterans published by the National Coalition for the Homeless in January 2004:

Approximately 33% of homeless men are veterans, although veterans comprise only 23% of the general adult male population.

That differs considerably from your figures and shows an over representation of veterans among the homeless. And this particular website lists quite a few sources and resources.

May I ask if you distinguish between comments made about veterans and comments made about mercenaries? Did you acknowledge Bosda’s concession or did you overlook it or just choose to ignore it?

I’m trying to determine if you really want to be fair.

Thank you for your service to our country.

[Zoe]

For anyone interested in information about incarceration rates, the percentage of veterans in state prisons is lower than that of the general population. But for crimes of violence, especially beginning with Vietnam Vets, those figures change dramatically.

If you read the first three pages of this report, you will get a reasonably good idea of what it’s about:

No Way To Treat a Hero

[FinnAgain]

@Bosda in the thread he's being pitted for

I concede, most veterans make the adjustment back to a normal life. Some, however, do not.

This was before you pitted him.
He made the qualified statement that I did, and you agreed to it in post 28.

Sorry, after reading the thread my opinions have not changed. You were wrong to Pit him.

[Mr.Moto]

Also before I pitted him, and after he made the statement you quote.

@Bosda

The young people you mentioned chose to join the actual military. Although, given a certain prison, & what went on there, perhaps I’m drawing too much of a distinction.

@Bosda

I cannot retract the truth.

Mr. Moto, you are a Nationalist, rather than a Patriot.

So he backed away from one instance of accusing military members of general brutality, only to imply the same mere posts later with this. His concession doesn’t strike me as at all sincere.

[FinnAgain]

The first statement you’ve just refrenced does not state that the entire military or all soldiers are flawed, simply that due to horrors like Abu Graib that there isn’t such a sharp distinction between the military and mercs. 'least in Bosda’s view.

The second statement I read as him blowing you off. I think you’re a bit sensitive due to your time in the military, and Bosda is probably throwing around rhetoric too freely, but I don’t think he’s saying what you claim he is.

It’s a Pit thread, and you two were (IMO) talking past each other, angrily.

[Mr.Moto]

@Zoe

According to an examinination of homelessness among U.S. veterans published by the National Coalition for the Homeless in January 2004:

Approximately 33% of homeless men are veterans, although veterans comprise only 23% of the general adult male population.

That differs considerably from your figures and shows an over representation of veterans among the homeless. And this particular website lists quite a few sources and resources.

Zoe, my statistics came from the United States government, including agencies devoted to helping the veterans directly. Yours came from an advocacy group quoting another advocacy group.

If you can find corroboration of that statistic from another source, I’d like to see it, since it is at variance with the figure I have quoted and seen in several publications.

I’m not asking to be difficult. I’d really like to know which one of us is in error.

Thanks very much for your kind words about my service.

[FinnAgain]

Mr. Moto: Just google “33% of homeless men are veterans, although veterans comprise only 23% of the general adult male population.” you’ll get many many hits, it appears Zoe was right.

"You know we already have the statistics: Vets comprise 23% of overall and 33% of male homeless in this country. 40% report mental health problem, 49% alcohol abuse, 31% drug use and 52% chronic medical condition most as a result of combat or military relatedness. "

Although to be fair, I am unable to find the original research study, so this may simply be a ‘bad meme’…

[Mr.Moto]

Thanks, FinnAgain. I looked into it a bit and found that the older census data has been supplanted.

From this VA document, we learn that the proportion of veterans among all adult men fell from 29% in 1990 to 24% in 2000. That’s one source of the discrepancy.

The rest of the number discrepancies may be a result of the continuing problem actually counting the homeless. The same document, using 1990 census data, shows a rate of use of homeless ahelters by male veterans of 149 per 100,000. By comparison, the rate is 126 per 100,000 among all adult males.

It is clear that veterans have a higher risk of homelessness. The totality of the data, however, shows that veterans in general are more successful by most measures than those who have never served.

[Zoe]

Thanks, FinnAgain.

Mr. Moto, if FinnAgain’s suggestion is not satisfactory, I will provide you with other links.

Mr. Moto: Zoe, my statistics came from the United States government, including agencies devoted to helping the veterans directly. Yours came from an advocacy group quoting another advocacy group.

Actually, that particular statistic when you quoted it did not come from a government source and I mistakenly thought that it came from a United Way source. That is not the United Way logo and the logo that is used is hand drawn. There is other absurd information in that particular link such as the notion that people hold a common misconception that homeless people are generally happy go-lucky. Do you know of anyone who thinks that the homeless are just really happy people?

Yours came from an advocacy group quoting another advocacy group.

Yes, my source is an advocacy group made up of veterans. They quote from the National Coalition for the Homeless. They can hardly be considered a controversial group! (Well, maybe to some of you.) Advocacy is not a dirty word, Moto. It does not imply bias or a lack of integrity.

Further, if you have read the report that I linked to, you will also find that they also quote government sources and that some of their information jives with yours. Shall we discredit that too?

Your pitting of Bosda has failed miserably. Next time you pit someone, make sure you don’t have to twist and distort the truth.

[Mr.Moto]

You might want to read my subsequent post, Zoe, and decide whether I’m being dishonest or distorting the truth.

I suspect you just missed it.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Mr. Moto, I lack a dog in this fight (I gotta stop using that expression before my employer finds out). But I’m wondering about whether using mean data is hiding the true picture.

Is it possible that veterans are overrepresented both at the high and at the low end of the success scale? That is, more veterans than average go on to very successful positions; more veterans than average also drop out of society in one way or another?

I also wonder whether there’s a difference between officers and privates.

Daniel

[Mtgman]

It should be noted that the context of Bosda’s original remarks were those who engaged in acts of unprovoked aggression against young men walking along the road or ran over cars bearing small chlidren because the cars were in the way. Limiting the assertion of problems re-adjusting to society to these individuals doesn’t seem very outrageous to me.

Enjoy,
Steven

[furt]

@FinnAgain

True enough. But, as Bush reminded us, a soldier’s job is to fight and win wars. In other words, to kill.

No, no, a thousand times no.

This is the Ralph124c school of military thought; It has been in eclipse since the time of Sun Tzu. A soldier’s job is to win; killing may be a means to that end, but it is never the end in itself. If it is, he is nearly by definition no longer a “soldier.” The most admired generals are the ones who, in the end, win with the least amount of casualties on both sides.

[Mr.Moto]

@Mtgman

It should be noted that the context of Bosda’s original remarks were those who engaged in acts of unprovoked aggression against young men walking along the road or ran over cars bearing small chlidren because the cars were in the way. Limiting the assertion of problems re-adjusting to society to these individuals doesn’t seem very outrageous to me.

Enjoy,
Steven

Sure. But I askedBosda explicitly not to paint the entire military or veteran population as such, and he took a pass.

[Zoe]

What Moto claims: I asked Bosda explicitly not to paint the entire military or veteran population as such, and he took a pass.

What Bosda said:

[quote]
Most veterans make the adjustment back to a normal life.

It is your continued insistence on ignoring that statement from Bosda that leaves me with no alternative but to think that you are either dishonest and twisting the truth, incapable of admitting that you were mistaken, or having a problem with reading comprehension.

Bosda certainly retracted anything that “painted the entire military or veteran population” with one broad brush before you began this pitting.

You are not just beating a dead horse; you have saddled him up and are attempting to ride him full-speed out of the glue factory.