JimH,
Harry must have taken you out of his bozo bin

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 10:37:37 -0400, "Harry.Krause"
wrote:


NOYB wrote:

Do you have any of the Marine re-enlistment statistics?

Marine recruiting is down, too. Apparently the message is getting
through even the thickest of skulls.

I thought we had agreed to lay off the wise ass Marine comments.

Later,

Tom



Krause has always been ungrateful to those who serve our Country. His
hatred of the military includes all branches. Pretty pathetic.


You're just plain wrong. I have great respect for many of the individuals
who have served, and for some of the military's accomplishments. I have
little respect, however, for the military as an institution.

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 10:37:37 -0400, "Harry.Krause"
wrote:


NOYB wrote:

Do you have any of the Marine re-enlistment statistics?

Marine recruiting is down, too. Apparently the message is getting
through even the thickest of skulls.

I thought we had agreed to lay off the wise ass Marine comments.

Later,

Tom



Krause has always been ungrateful to those who serve our Country. His
hatred of the military includes all branches. Pretty pathetic.


You're just plain wrong. I have great respect for many of the individuals
who have served, and for some of the military's accomplishments. I have
little respect, however, for the military as an institution.



Then why do you make the comments that you do, such as "Marine recruiting is
down, too. Apparently the message is getting through even the thickest of
skulls"?

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 11:55:15 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Do you have any of the Marine re-enlistment statistics?


http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f...925-886734.php
--

That site says nothing about "re-enlistment".

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 11:55:15 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Do you have any of the Marine re-enlistment statistics?

They are down also according to the local Marine recruiters.


I'm not talking about new recruits. I'm talking about re-enlistees.

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...

Online at: http://politicalaffairs.net/article/...iew/1213/1/99/


Dying in Iraq is not a career choice

By Bud Deraps

6-01-05,9:44am

Completely unknown to these young people, and never discussed by
recruiters, is the fact that of the 580,000 U.S. troops who served in the
six-week 1991 Gulf War, 11,000 are now dead, and by the year 2000,
325,000 were on permanent medical disability from the depleted uranium
weaponry and the many other toxic and horrifying conditions they were
exposed to.


Wrong,

Wrong? You mean the stats are lies?

Or, wrong, you don't like the stats?

Both. The stats are lies, and I don't like lies. Ergo, I don't like the
stats.

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
Do you have any of the Marine re-enlistment statistics?




Marine recruiting is down, too. Apparently the message is getting through
even the thickest of skulls.

I asked about re-enlistment...not new recruits.


BTW--recruitment contracts are down right now, but the number of marine
recruits showing up to boot camp hasn't fallen.

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...

Online at: http://politicalaffairs.net/article/...iew/1213/1/99/


Dying in Iraq is not a career choice

By Bud Deraps

6-01-05,9:44am

Completely unknown to these young people, and never discussed by
recruiters, is the fact that of the 580,000 U.S. troops who served in
the six-week 1991 Gulf War, 11,000 are now dead, and by the year 2000,
325,000 were on permanent medical disability from the depleted uranium
weaponry and the many other toxic and horrifying conditions they were
exposed to.


Wrong,

Wrong? You mean the stats are lies?

Or, wrong, you don't like the stats?

Both. The stats are lies, and I don't like lies. Ergo, I don't like the
stats.

He's just following the liebral playbook, tell a lie enough times and
hope it becomes "fact":

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearc...ons_home.shtml

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...

Online at: http://politicalaffairs.net/article/...iew/1213/1/99/


Dying in Iraq is not a career choice

By Bud Deraps

6-01-05,9:44am

Completely unknown to these young people, and never discussed by
recruiters, is the fact that of the 580,000 U.S. troops who served in
the six-week 1991 Gulf War, 11,000 are now dead, and by the year 2000,
325,000 were on permanent medical disability from the depleted uranium
weaponry and the many other toxic and horrifying conditions they were
exposed to.


Wrong,

Wrong? You mean the stats are lies?

Or, wrong, you don't like the stats?

Both. The stats are lies, and I don't like lies. Ergo, I don't like the
stats.

He's just following the liebral playbook, tell a lie enough times and
hope it becomes "fact":

Sort of like your president's fairy tales about what the invasion would
achieve, right?

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:16:03 -0400, "Jeff Rigby" wrote:


"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Online at: http://politicalaffairs.net/article/...iew/1213/1/99/


Dying in Iraq is not a career choice

By Bud Deraps

6-01-05,9:44am

Completely unknown to these young people, and never discussed by
recruiters, is the fact that of the 580,000 U.S. troops who served in the
six-week 1991 Gulf War, 11,000 are now dead, and by the year 2000, 325,000
were on permanent medical disability from the depleted uranium weaponry
and the many other toxic and horrifying conditions they were exposed to.

Wrong, according to The New England Medical journal in a study, the veterans
were healthier than the US general population of the same age with a LOWER
mortality rate than expected.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/335/20/1498

There was a higher accident rate of 9/1000 than the national average.
Returning veterans that experienced stressful combat conditions have a
higher accident rate. One may speculate that they hold live cheaper having
seen so much death. They take fewer precautions and don't think that
falling from a ladder can kill one as much as a bullet fired by the enemy,
the ladder isn't trying to kill me right?

Also unknown is the fact that over half of those who served in that war
are now parenting children who are born with some birth defect when
previous children were born normal.

Wrong, there is a 2 times increase in infant birth defects as reported by
vets. So if there are 3/1000 in the general population there are 6/1000
among gulf war vets. This fact is not documented by an independant study
and may be much lower.

The person who wrote this article is either an idiot who can't read or a
lier who has no regard for the truth.



Most probably both. But Harry's cut'n'paste is living proof that some folks will
believe anything, as long as it's anti-military.

--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:36:41 -0400, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Online at: http://politicalaffairs.net/article/...iew/1213/1/99/


Dying in Iraq is not a career choice

By Bud Deraps

6-01-05,9:44am

Completely unknown to these young people, and never discussed by
recruiters, is the fact that of the 580,000 U.S. troops who served in the
six-week 1991 Gulf War, 11,000 are now dead, and by the year 2000,
325,000 were on permanent medical disability from the depleted uranium
weaponry and the many other toxic and horrifying conditions they were
exposed to.

Wrong, according to The New England Medical journal in a study, the
veterans were healthier than the US general population of the same age
with a LOWER mortality rate than expected.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/335/20/1498

There was a higher accident rate of 9/1000 than the national average.
Returning veterans that experienced stressful combat conditions have a
higher accident rate. One may speculate that they hold live cheaper
having seen so much death. They take fewer precautions and don't think
that falling from a ladder can kill one as much as a bullet fired by the
enemy, the ladder isn't trying to kill me right?

Also unknown is the fact that over half of those who served in that war
are now parenting children who are born with some birth defect when
previous children were born normal.

Wrong, there is a 2 times increase in infant birth defects as reported by
vets. So if there are 3/1000 in the general population there are 6/1000
among gulf war vets. This fact is not documented by an independant study
and may be much lower.



http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/deploy...ts/DoD1C.shtml




The person who wrote this article is either an idiot who can't read or a
lier who has no regard for the truth.

Most likely both.........but it is not surprising harry would use such a
source

Great minds...etc. Should have read your post before writing mine.

--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)