NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, now don't get your panties in a bunch. Let me explain myself.

The reason I think that the United States needs to be attacked is so that all these clueless kids growing up today can know what it means to be without a military.

EDIT- Please note, I do not wish to see the U.S. attacked, nor do I want ANY innocent people hurt. This was designed to be a tongue in cheek remark that has been misinterpreted (rightly so) and I apologize to anyone who thought otherwise.

I should have said that there are those in society who will never value our military until it is too late.

I'm frankly getting sick of the Iraq war clouding peoples minds as to how immensely important Americas military is. I'm sick of the little fucks in colleges across America saying that the Military shouldn't be glorified for "killing people", yet they have no idea why the killing is done, and the fact that 99% of the Military would die happy never firing a shot in anger.

The kids in America are spoiled to a dangerous degree. They are too stupid to see that the Military is the reason they can sit in their cosy classrooms and learn how to hate the Troops.

What has happened in America? How can so many young people hate the very institution that has protected them, their parents, their grandparents, and beyond.

Um ... brainwashing? "Poltically correct" speech? Far left parents? It's a conundrum.

WTF? As Americans we support our troops. I don't really know anybody who doesn't appreciate the sacrifices our military personnel make for us on a daily basis.

Weren't we just attacked? Five years ago about?

Not the soldiers in the military, but the military itself. It is used as a tool to perpetrate senseless killings and war.

Not the soldiers in the military, but the military itself. It is used as a tool to perpetrate senseless killings and war.
Exhibit A :rolleyes:

I can see where you're coming from. People are starting to doubt whether the government really is a benevolent overlord that protects us and an attack would allow it to save us and regain our favor. To be blunt, though, if the US is attacked, it will probably be because of something the government did.

So innocent people should potentially get hurt/die to teach some kids a lesson? Wisky tango foxtrot over...

the very institution that has protected them...

against the grenadan menace.

Weren't we just attacked? Five years ago about?

Not good enough for NYC apparently.

Oh yeah, brilliant idea. The military is important because it defends the nation, i.e preventing it from coming to harm. But since it's not as recognized as you would like, your solution is to have the nation attacked, i.e come to harm. :rolleyes:

People recognizing the military's importance to your satisfaction is apparently more important to you than actually defending the nation.

This is little more than your bitterness and ego taking precedent over the safety of the nation. Way to set the example, dickwad.

hmmmmm let's see. we had foreign troops on our soil in ....1814? and that didnt stop us from the texas war of independance, the mexican american war, the civil war, the various indian wars, the spanish american war, and ww1. we were attacked by the japanese in 1941 (plus various american territories in the pacific) and since then we have gone into korea, vietnam, grenada, panama, gulf one, somalia, former yugoslavia, afghanistan and iraq. (plus other smaller excursions)

i dont think we have a problem with lack of militarism. the problem is that the men at the top dont have any military experience so they are willing to waste american lives on political lies.


so who are you proposing should bit the bullet and attack us? what country in the world can we do without?

WTF? As Americans we support our troops. I don't really know anybody who doesn't appreciate the sacrifices our military personnel make for us on a daily basis.

what sacrifices for me are those?

What difference does it make if kids respect the military? It's not like they have any control over it.

Exhibit A :rolleyes:

Nah, I agree with you. We need to be attacked, but for an entirely different reason.

against the grenadan menace.

Exactly. For every dictator the US stops, it also kills civilians, devastates economies and cultures, and so on. The US is like any other state and not everything it does is as nice as you make it out to be.

Weren't we just attacked? Five years ago about?
Yes, we were. Most people have already forgotten that though. They don't realize that it was more than just Bin Laden that killed those 3000 people that day.

They seem to think that if we get him, all will be well, and people won't plot to blow up our families.

I can see where you're coming from. People are starting to doubt whether the government really is a benevolent overlord that protects us and an attack would allow it to save us and regain our favor. To be blunt, though, if the US is attacked, it will probably be because of something the government did.
In this case, exist and allow it's citizens to follow something other than shari'a law.

Out of interest who are you expecting to attack the US for you? The Canadians? The Mexicans? Cuba?

so who are you proposing should bit the bullet and attack us? what country in the world can we do without?

shit, they could all gang up on the u.s. military juggernaut and it could still probably take 'em. cut it down to 20% it's current size (in terms of cost), and it would still be the biggest in the world.

Oh yeah, brilliant idea. The military is important because it defends the nation, i.e preventing it from coming to harm. But since it's not as recognized as you would like, your solution is to have the nation attacked, i.e come to harm. :rolleyes:

People recognizing the military's importance to your satisfaction is apparently more important to you than actually defending the nation.

This is little more than your bitterness and ego taking precedent over the safety of the nation. Way to set the example, dickwad.
First, I think you know exactly what I meant. You aren't as stupid as you pretend to be when it suits you.

Second, watch your fucking mouth.

What has happened in America? How can so many young people hate the very institution that has protected them, their parents, their grandparents, and beyond.

Yes, "protected" them from all those Iraqi WMD. Such nice "protection" that was!

Anyway, there is already a much more efficient weapon against anti-military attitudes. TV. Without reality shows, celebrity gossip, et al, I guarantee there'd be more kids trying to get in the way of military action.

Second, watch your fucking mouth.

Quoted for irony.

Yes, "protected" them from all those Iraqi WMD. Such nice "protection" that was!

It's almost as if they were'nt even there.

Yes, we were. Most people have already forgotten that though. They don't realize that it was more than just Bin Laden that killed those 3000 people that day.

They seem to think that if we get him, all will be well, and people won't plot to blow up our families.
What are you suggesting actually? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Anyhow, how can we not remember? The administration, fire-fighter unions, and other groups remind us almost everyday!

Yes, "protected" them from all those Iraqi WMD. Such nice "protection" that was!

No, no, no, we were liberating the Iraqis. Look how happy they are now, running around with guns and shooting at US troops.

WTF? As Americans we support our troops. I don't really know anybody who doesn't appreciate the sacrifices our military personnel make for us on a daily basis.

what sacrifices for me are those? (location = Wisconsin)

Answer your question ,DCD?

what sacrifices for me are those?
Losing limbs and lives in Afghanistan, being away from family and friends for extended periods of time, those are pretty big sacrifices.

Second, watch your fucking mouth.

Or what, exactly? I'd like to know what you're going to do if he continues to insult you.

First, I think you know exactly what I meant. You aren't as stupid as you pretend to be when it suits you.

Second, watch your fucking mouth.


Yes, I know what you meant. You and Islamic Fascists have the same overall goal: attack America to make some kind of point to get agreement with your political/social view.

Of course, if it was one of the "college fucks" who made a thread advocating an attack on America, you'd be among the first going "AHA! See, anti-American SCUM just want to destroy the nation!"

Lastly, I'm awful sorry I called you a dickwad. I meant only to say that you would rather see more Americans dead, than have "college fucks" not worshipping the military. Maybe you can tell me how that's a GOOD thing.

No, no, no, we were liberating the Iraqis. Look how happy they are now, running around with guns and shooting at US troops.

Here those explosions? That's the sound of freedom.

*nods sagely*

shit, they could all gang up on the u.s. military juggernaut and it could still probably take 'em. cut it down to 20% it's current size (in terms of cost), and it would still be the biggest in the world.
yeah but id hate to have to nuke ireland. i havent even been there yet.

perhaps a randy newman quote is appropriate here now...


Well, boom goes London,
And boom Paris.
More room for you
And more room for me.
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town.
Oh, how peaceful it'll be;
We'll set everybody free;
You'll have Japanese kimonos, baby,
There'll be Italian shoes for me.
They all hate us anyhow,
So let's drop the big one now.
Let's drop the big one now.

so who are you proposing should bit the bullet and attack us? what country in the world can we do without?
I have a few suggestions. :D

Yes, we were. Most people have already forgotten that though. They don't realize that it was more than just Bin Laden that killed those 3000 people that day.

They seem to think that if we get him, all will be well, and people won't plot to blow up our families.

Bin Laden didn't kill anyone that day. Unless of course it was him on those planes, which would explain why Shrub has had such a job finding him.

(1) Al Quaida is - mostly - an illusion. Several small groups of terrorists with vague political links sharing logistical and financial support does not a world wide web of conspiracy make.
(2) as the worlds number one (and possibly only remaining) superpower, with all the technological advantage that gives you, the american government and sadly by extension people (as long as said government seeks to exert an influence in line with it's power) will always be the subject of terrorism. End of. You cannot kill terrorism, because you will always have groups thinking "well, they have the Apache helicopter...luckily, we have a pipe bomb"

However, it's neither the threat nor big deal that is made out. Bin Ladens associates lucked out on September 11. How many attacks on American soil have you had since?

And finally, why on earth should people respect the institution of the military IF THAT INSTITUTION BRINGS ITSELF INTO DISGRACE OR IS USED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT BECOMES DISGRACED?

Sorry, i kinda believed the American way wasn't about complete unconditional kowtowing before icons. Rugged individualism, free thinking and all that. Was i wrong?

No, no, no, we were liberating the Iraqis. Look how happy they are now, running around with guns and shooting at US troops.

A very small minority.

Heh, yeah, them military are ALL perfect beings who fight for purely noble reasons and should be treated as gods on earth.

If you want to fellate the military, that's your problem. Don't force everyone else to.

Why, oh why do we have to keep relearning the same old lessons? The world is a dangerous place. There are people out there who will happily kill you because of precieved slights, or because they want something you have, or because they're jealous, or because they don't like your religion, or for no reason at all. Yet it seems as though every generation has to relearn this. Does no one study history anymore? :(

Canada City']A very small minority.

If it were so small, we would have beaten them it now.

Heh, yeah, them military are ALL perfect beings who fight for purely noble reasons and should be treated as gods on earth.

If you want to fellate the military, that's your problem. Don't force everyone else to.

And certainly don't call for the deaths of thousands of Americans so that more people will think the same way that you do.

Heh, yeah, them military are ALL perfect beings who fight for purely noble reasons and should be treated as gods on earth.

If you want to fellate the military, that's your problem. Don't force everyone else to.
And where did I state any of that? Once again, someone putting words in my mouth so they can discredit them. :rolleyes:

Ok, now don't get your panties in a bunch. Let me explain myself.

The reason I think that the United States needs to be attacked is so that all these clueless kids growing up today can know what it means to be without a military.

I'm frankly getting sick of the Iraq war clouding peoples minds as to how immensely important Americas military is. I'm sick of the little fucks in colleges across America saying that the Military shouldn't be glorified for "killing people", yet they have no idea why the killing is done, and the fact that 99% of the Military would die happy never firing a shot in anger.

The kids in America are spoiled to a dangerous degree. They are too stupid to see that the Military is the reason they can sit in their cosy classrooms and learn how to hate the Troops.

What has happened in America? How can so many young people hate the very institution that has protected them, their parents, their grandparents, and beyond.


EDIT - For all the "slow" people in here, this was a tongue in cheek remark about us needing to be attacked, but obviously your vitriol gets in the way of any rational thought. Anyone who says they truly think I want the U.S. attacked, I call them liars, because you all know my views, and your lack of interpretive skills shows too well in your ignorance.

I happen to love the military.

Everyone with their panties in a wad, read my edit in the OP. I didn't realize I had to explain everything I write as if I was speaking to 6 year olds.

Heh, yeah, them military are ALL perfect beings who fight for purely noble reasons and should be treated as gods on earth.

If you want to fellate the military, that's your problem. Don't force everyone else to.
Don't worry. Like most soldiers, I wouldn't want your dirty mouth on my clean pecker. :p

Everyone with their panties in a wad, read my edit in the OP. I didn't realize I had to explain everything I write as if I was speaking to 6 year olds.

Yes, yes. It's "tongue in cheek" now. I wonder if that would work for Iran's president?

"We actually only meant, we were going to publish maps that don't show Israel. God, you're all acting like babies! Grow up!"

And I'm still not sure of what your point here is exactly - other than whining that not everyone loves the military as much as you do? If you don't actually advocate another attack, then what? You say it takes us getting attacked to make people love the military? So how come that didn't work on 9/11?

Don't worry. Like most soldiers, I wouldn't want your dirty mouth on my clean pecker. :p

Nah, they prefer Iraqi POWs to do that for them ;)

I kid.

Don't worry. Like most soldiers, I wouldn't want your dirty mouth on my clean pecker. :p
Classic! :p

I still think distracting people with dumbed-down TV will be far more cost-effective than having an attack on the nation.

Everyone with their panties in a wad, read my edit in the OP. I didn't realize I had to explain everything I write as if I was speaking to 6 year olds.

You can edit your fucking posts all you want and pretend it's because we're all stupid, but the fact remains that you stated you think it would be better if more American students held the military in higher regard, and to achieve that goal you'd like to see this nation go to war. You want Americans to die so that more people think the same as you. You're crying because not everyone thinks the same as you, and you want to punish those who have "incorrect" opinions. Grow up.

Yes, yes. It's "tongue in cheek" now. I wonder if that would work for Iran's president?

"We actually only meant, we were going to publish maps that don't show Israel. God, you're all acting like babies! Grow up!"
I don't run a country, and I'm not pursuing nuclear weapons.
And I'm still not sure of what your point here is exactly - other than whining that not everyone loves the military as much as you do? If you don't actually advocate another attack, then what? You say it takes us getting attacked to make people love the military? So how come that didn't work on 9/11?
I don't care who "loves the military" What I DO care about is not seeing them kicked out of college campuses, blocked from putting ships to port as memorials to their service, denegrated by twerps who don't know what it's like to fight for your country, and come home to be spit on, called murderers and babykillers, discriminated against on campuses across the nation, and things of that nature.

Basically, it boils down to a lesson we all learn in pre-school. If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all.

And before the "free speech" crowd starts whining, it is MY right of free speech to say that.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but we've already been attacked. We're also in two conflicts.

I got this crazy idea that instead of the U.S. needing to be attacked to show the effectiveness of the military... now hold on cuz it's wacky crazy coo coo bananas time... that the U.S. thwarts attacks thru the use of the military, the intelligence agencies and thru a better foreign policy where we don't piss off people by tryign to prove we have the biggest dick and we can stick it wherever we want to anytime and any place we want to.

I imagine that living without fear would be a much better alternative, but what do I know? I'm just some stupid liberal that doesn't think violence is the answer to everything.

And before the "free speech" crowd starts whining, it is MY right of free speech to say that.

And it is our free speech to call you a ignorant fuck for calling for the death of Americans because you don't like their point of views. Without you telling us to watch our fucking mouths.

You can edit your fucking posts all you want and pretend it's because we're all stupid, but the fact remains that you stated you think it would be better if more American students held the military in higher regard, and to achieve that goal you'd like to see this nation go to war. You want Americans to die so that more people think the same as you. You're crying because not everyone thinks the same as you, and you want to punish those who have "incorrect" opinions. Grow up.
That's funny. After explaining myself TWICE now, you still choose to interpret my comments as you see them, and not as they are intended.

Well, you seem to be a lost cause, and next time I address you, I'll make sure I spell out everything simply, so you can understand.

That's funny. After explaining myself TWICE now, you still choose to interpret my comments as you see them, and not as they are intended.

Well, you seem to be a lost cause, and next time I address you, I'll make sure I spell out everything simply, so you can understand.

I don't care how you intended them. I interpreted nothing. You said you wished this country would be attacked so that more Americans could learn what sacrifices the military makes. What you meant by that is irrelevant. What you said is that you want the US to be attacked and people to die. Perhaps the next time you address me, you could actually say things clearly and concisely and exhibit a grasp of the English language, since apparently you are incapable of articulating what you actually mean.

I've always wondered about this perceived relationship between a strong military and civil freedoms.

The idea, as I understand it, is this: A strong military is necessary for safeguarding civil freedoms.

Bullshit.

Canada does not have a military strong enough to defend its borders, but it is one of the highest ranking countries in the world in terms of civil liberties.

Chile had one of the most oppresive MILITARY dictatorships of the late 20th century. Civil freedoms were outlawed BECAUSE of the strong military.

Singapore has no military at all. Human rights do not seem to be an issue there.

Now, history also shows us where armies have protected nations from other countries that are trying to invade them. But in every case, the invading force that was trying to take away the freedom of the defending nation did so through MILITARY force.

So, armed forces are a tool that can be used to oppress people, liberate people, or operate without any relationship whatsoever to civil liberties.

Man in Black, I think the reason many people do not agree with your idea of the military being necessary for their freedom is because your idea makes very little sense.

That's funny. After explaining myself TWICE now, you still choose to interpret my comments as you see them, and not as they are intended.

Well, you seem to be a lost cause, and next time I address you, I'll make sure I spell out everything simply, so you can understand.

Face it mate - you got pwned. You loose at life.

Face it mate - you got pwned. You loose at life.
Face it mate, your use of the word "pnwed" makes you look stupid, and you LOSE at spelling.

Seriously, I still don't see why it matters what "little fucks in colleges" think. It's not as if their anti-war protests achieve anything.

I got this crazy idea that instead of the U.S. needing to be attacked to show the effectiveness of the military... now hold on cuz it's wacky crazy coo coo bananas time... that the U.S. thwarts attacks thru the use of the military, the intelligence agencies and thru a better foreign policy where we don't piss off people by tryign to prove we have the biggest dick and we can stick it wherever we want to anytime and any place we want to.

I imagine that living without fear would be a much better alternative, but what do I know? I'm just some stupid liberal that doesn't think violence is the answer to everything.

Hey, watch your fucking mouth!

There are 6 year olds present!

The reason I think that the United States needs to be attacked is so that all these clueless kids growing up today can know what it means to be without a military.


r u saying u want innocent (possibly stupid) ppl to get killed so that theyr not so stupid?

Face it mate, your use of the word "pnwed" makes you look stupid, and you LOSE at spelling.

Face it mate, your mispelling of the slang term "PWNED" makes you look stupid especially as you could have copied it from his quote, in conclusion I win at life and you all lose so there.

:headbang: I don't care how you intended them. I interpreted nothing. You said you wished this country would be attacked so that more Americans could learn what sacrifices the military makes. What you meant by that is irrelevant. What you said is that you want the US to be attacked and people to die. Perhaps the next time you address me, you could actually say things clearly and concisely and exhibit a grasp of the English language, since apparently you are incapable of articulating what you actually mean.

And apparently you are an idiot for lacking the ability to realize when someone is IMPLYING something. Psycologists say this is a skill normal people learn before the 3rd grade!:rolleyes: :headbang:

I think most people seem to be missing the point and lumping "The Military" in with "The Government"

Lets face it, a soldier cannot be blamed for an iffy conflict if he is ordered to go. Dont blame the soldiers when the government makes bad calls.

You will be at it for eternity if you do.

:headbang:

And apparently you are an idiot for lacking the ability to realize when someone is IMPLYING something. Psycologists say this is a skill normal people learn before the 3rd grade!:rolleyes: :headbang:

I appreciate the irony of being called an idiot by someone who feels the need to include three smiley face icons in their response. At any rate, what he's IMPLYING is that he's upset over the fact that not everyone respects the military as much as he does. I get that. What he said is that he wishes people could die so that other people would respect the military as much as he does.

Losing limbs and lives in Afghanistan, being away from family and friends for extended periods of time, those are pretty big sacrifices.

i neither asked for nor want such sacrifices

Face it mate, your use of the word "pnwed" makes you look stupid, and you LOSE at spelling.

Ho ho ho.

Quoted for comedy effect. For the record - I use the word 'pwned' in a satirical sense.

I appreciate the irony of being called an idiot by someone who feels the need to include three smiley face icons in their response. At any rate, what he's IMPLYING is that he's upset over the fact that not everyone respects the military as much as he does. I get that. What he said is that he wishes people could die so that other people would respect the military as much as he does.

I like smileys. so sue me.

What he said is what he believed would be necessary to pop the bubble Americans are living in.

I never say quite what I mean.
I never mean quite what I say.
How did that get out of me?
What the hell did I mean to say?

Hey, watch your fucking mouth!

There are 6 year olds present!


They have dirtier moouths than I ever did too!! :p

Wait that was a crack at the OP wasn't it? :eek:

Oh, right, the military is here to protect our freedoms. That's why it helped coups that started dictatorships in all South America, including my country, with the help of those "freedom-loving" Americans. And, of course, more people need to die so that the murderers are more respected. You're no different from Al Qaeda, wanting innocent people dead so you can make a point. Al Qaeda wants the deaths of lots of people, including you, so they can make THEIR point. And you just copied them. Moron.

Any chance we can stop with the name calling and useless rhetoric (from me as well as others) and actually debate the issue I've now made abundantly clear?

They have dirtier moouths than I ever did too!! :p

and where do you think they got them from?:rolleyes:

and where do you think they got them from?:rolleyes:

Not me, I avoid those foul mouthed little brats.

sit in their cosy classrooms and learn how to hate the Troops.

I must have missed that one in the catalogue.

Any chance we can stop with the name calling and useless rhetoric (from me as well as others) and actually debate the issue I've now made abundantly clear?

The reason that the military in the US is less respected than in years past is because it hasn't been used to fight a war like WWII since, well, WWII. The military has since been used to advance US interests across the world, and a lot of people don't find that to be a noble purpose for a military.

i support our troops, its Bush i don't:)

What is going on in iraq is wrong, but its not the troops fault were in there, it Bush's fault

Answer your question ,DCD?

widely believed fact - free soviets is an anarchist that favors the abolition of the state and its military. which, last time he checked, was such a minor viewpoint in the u.s. that it doesn't even get mentioned in surveys of public opinion.

it would be nice if more people in the u.s. favored drastically reducing the military and that it should get less glorification than it currently does, but that just does not seem to be a common stance.

War in itself is meant to be a last resort, much like any physical resolvement. Pacifism is a laughable idealistic concept but the war hawks need to die in the worst way possible. One should not propagate war but one should not declare it unnecessary either.

Any chance we can stop with the name calling and useless rhetoric (from me as well as others) and actually debate the issue I've now made abundantly clear?


So what is the issue?

That a couple of college students have made dumb-assed statements (not to mention a number of adults), and you have extended this to conflate anti-war sentiment against the current Iraq situation to there being a general anti-military sentiment ( a dubious conclusion at best), and that you think that they need to be shook up to respect all things military.

Frankly, I think MOST people do respect the military.

I think MOST people can differentiate between the bad apples and the average soldier. The bad apple, of course, gets the bulk of the press - including public reaction to said bad-apple which often gets erroneously presented as general anti-militaryism.

And I think that MOST people can differentiate between dissafection with military campaigns defined by government and those people tasked to carry it out. Hey, I think Walmart managment treats it's people like shit and involves itself in somevery dirty business practices. That makes me dislike Walmart and speak poorly of it, the service I get there, and their crap Chineese products. Doesn't mean that I stop by and kick the greeter in the groin.


And frankly I think that the notion that the populace NEEDS to live in fear simply to satisfy a desire for a more grateful opinion of the military is specious logic.

The reason that the military in the US is less respected than in years past is because it hasn't been used to fight a war like WWII since, well, WWII. The military has since been used to advance US interests across the world, and a lot of people don't find that to be a noble purpose for a military.

Then again, followers of realpolitik would claim thats the only purpose FOR a military...

I must have missed that one in the catalogue.

it was a great class. took it down at overactive rightwing imagination tech. go fifth columnists!

Any chance we can stop with the name calling and useless rhetoric (from me as well as others) and actually debate the issue I've now made abundantly clear?

By all means, let's. Defining paradoxical thoughts is my line of work, so, shall we?

1-The Military doesn't protect freedoms. In the vast majority of cases, it was used to take them away. Quod erat demonstrandum, at several different points in history: Chile, Brazil, Portugal, Greece, Burma, North Korea, China, Cuba, USSR, Germany, Nicaragua, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the list goes on. Several of those examples were taken to power by the US military. Nice going for freedom.
2-Wanting people to die so your (lack of a) point can be made is opposite to the freedoms you claim to hold so dear.
3-Wanting people to "respect an institution" by force is ALSO against these so-called freedoms. They do that in North Korea, they do that in Burma and they do that in Iran.
4-Respecting an institution has nothing to do with being it's "yes-person". That's also part of the freedom you claim the Military is there to protect.
5-I don't think anyone here wants you or your family to die so our points can get across.

So, is there anything lacking in my argument?

The reason that the military in the US is less respected than in years past is because it hasn't been used to fight a war like WWII since, well, WWII. The military has since been used to advance US interests across the world, and a lot of people don't find that to be a noble purpose for a military.
That is the point I was trying to get accross, but apparently I didn't state it as clearly as I should have.

I have been told I have an odd way of expressing myself, but I assumed that most people in here knew me well enough by now to know my views of innocent people being killed.

I apologize for the confusing way I state my views, but I don't apologize for those who mistake them on purpose.

And frankly I think that the notion that the populace NEEDS to live in fear simply to satisfy a desire for a more grateful opinion of the military is specious logic.
I don't want people to live in fear. I just want them to remeber why they don't have to.

I don't want people to live in fear. I just want them to remeber why they don't have to.

because while other countries engage in a policy of not pissing off too many people, the united states figures it can do whatever the hell it likes because it spends more on its military than essentially the rest of the world combined?

I don't want people to live in fear. I just want them to remeber why they don't have to.

Curious. Brazil hasn't much of a military after 1984, and could be invaded by several countries. Yet we don't live in fear, but that MAY be because we try to live in peace with all peoples and don't attack people that didn't attack us for our interests.

Kids should repspect these soldiers who die for the great american lies, shure they should...
Prepare your graves for Iran, times are for serious business, now.

By all means, let's. Defining paradoxical thoughts is my line of work, so, shall we?

1-The Military doesn't protect freedoms. In the vast majority of cases, it was used to take them away. Quod erat demonstrandum, at several different points in history: Chile, Brazil, Portugal, Greece, Burma, North Korea, China, Cuba, USSR, Germany, Nicaragua, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the list goes on. Several of those examples were taken to power by the US military. Nice going for freedom.
I am not speaking as to what the military has been made to do. I am speaking to the original and most important reason for having one.
2-Wanting people to die so your (lack of a) point can be made is opposite to the freedoms you claim to hold so dear.
STILL can't grasp my explanation for my post? I've said it 4 times now. I am not going to repeat myself again.

3-Wanting people to "respect an institution" by force is ALSO against these so-called freedoms. They do that in North Korea, they do that in Burma and they do that in Iran.I never said forcing people was my goal. I would state it as opening peoples eyes as to the reasons they have the freedoms they hold so dear. (including misinterpreting me)

4-Respecting an institution has nothing to do with being it's "yes-person". That's also part of the freedom you claim the Military is there to protect.Respect shouldn't be forced. I never stated it should be. I only stated that perhaps more people would respect the military if they suddenly needed it for their survival, as countless others have found out.

5-I don't think anyone here wants you or your family to die so our points can get across.

So, is there anything lacking in my argument? Again, misinterpretation is your major flaw.

What the military has been "made to do"? What, do people sell their souls and their ethics when they sign that piece of paper? They still have free will. What, then, if they started a war and nobody came?

Also, no, I'm not misinterpreting you. The name you chose for the TOPIC of this thread is "the US needs to be attacked".

I am not speaking as to what the military has been made to do. I am speaking to the original and most important reason for having one.

to kick the crap out of people and extract tribute for the nascent ruling class?

I daresay you are : male
overtly masculine (cf; insecure)
intellectually challenged
scared of the world beyond the good ol' US of A

Since your assertions, and no, I assure you, I am not misinterpreting them, imply that you harbour an intrinsic affinity for violence and the martial facets of your nation that satiate an insecurity over your personal masculinity, an insecurity you similarly allay through opposing and deploring those "whiny kids" who dare to harbour sentiments contrary to those dictated by the generic red blooded, masculine American. Moreover, you fail to proffer any evidence as to why the "whiny kids" are wrong, yet deplore them nonetheless, whilst your obsession with the military, and compulsion to utilise it, imply a fear of all cultures contrary to, if not overtly hostile to, the US.

I don't want people to live in fear. I just want them to remeber why they don't have to.


Well, as long as the election strategy of a certain party shall continue to be based primarily on reminding the citizens that they need to be afraid, and sell themselves as the people who are gona protect them - I think you are going to have a tough time telling people that they DON'T need to be afraid because they have a military.


After all, having a military is only one part of the equation. Having leaders who use it SMARTLY is far more important.

to kick the crap out of people and extract tribute for the nascent ruling class?
Yeah, that's it. everyone signs up for the Military so they can serve their ruling class. We fought the Germans and Japanese to appease our masters. :rolleyes:

I think people have incorrectly assumed I agree with every action our military has taken over the past 50 years. I don't. And if people want to debate our militaries role in the world, by all means, have at it.

I am speaking of the ones who seem to think the military is useless.

Learn to Hate the Troops=Learn to Love Freedom

Standing armies are dangerous, unpredictable things. If it was up to me no soldier would even be allowed to vote until he was retired or discharged. That's a better way to protect and promote freedom than attacking America.

How many people out there can actually speak badly about the common soldier? It is the politicians in Washington who use our troops that we have to despise. Iraq should never have happened but again it is not the military's fault. They do what the President tells them to do. So despite being repetative, it is Bush and his cronies we can attack but leave the troops out of it.

If it were so small, we would have beaten them it now.

Please explain the logic behind this sentence.

How many people out there can actually speak badly about the common soldier? It is the politicians in Washington who use our troops that we have to despise. Iraq should never have happened but again it is not the military's fault. They do what the President tells them to do. So despite being repetative, it is Bush and his cronies we can attack but leave the troops out of it.

Do people install an obedience chip in the soldier's heads or something, that makes them fight and kill people whenever told to, regardless of the ethics behind it? They could choose NOT TO ACT in an unethical way when told to act in an unethical way.

I daresay you are : male
overtly masculine (cf; insecure)
intellectually challenged
scared of the world beyond the good ol' US of A

Since your assertions, and no, I assure you, I am not misinterpreting them, imply that you harbour an intrinsic affinity for violence and the martial facets of your nation that satiate an insecurity over your personal masculinity, an insecurity you similarly allay through opposing and deploring those "whiny kids" who dare to harbour sentiments contrary to those dictated by the generic red blooded, masculine American. Moreover, you fail to proffer any evidence as to why the "whiny kids" are wrong, yet deplore them nonetheless, whilst your obsession with the military, and compulsion to utilise it, imply a fear of all cultures contrary to, if not overtly hostile to, the US.


That, my friends, is Grade-A, USDA approved, pure angus pwned.

Yeah, that's it. everyone signs up for the Military so they can serve their ruling class. We fought the Germans and Japanese to appease our masters. :rolleyes:

i'm sorry, i thought that when you said "I am speaking to the original and most important reason for having one", you intended to talk about the original and most important reason for having a military. which is obviously to create and support a system of elite power.

you'll have to forgive me if i find it odd that you think that the "original and most important reason" for the existence of militaries was to fight world war two. the very name of the conflict tends to conflict with that interpretation.

Do people install an obedience chip in the soldier's heads or something, that makes them fight and kill people whenever told to, regardless of the ethics behind it? They could choose NOT TO ACT in an unethical way when told to act in an unethical way.

Despite the U.S. reputation lately it is not as if we slaughter civilians as dictatorships have done in the past. There are certainly some unethical things that have been done recently but it takes someone with great courage to stand up and say "No, I won't do it." The military requires one to follow orders and how many are going to hesitate when it is simply crossing a blurry line? It doesn't make it right but that is how it is.

So that the other point I made doesn't get vanquished by mere irresponsiveness, I'll repeat:

Brazil, Canada, and other countries, have fairly small militaries or none at all. Yet, somehow, they don't need to live in fear. Kindly explain that, Man in Black?

Standing armies are dangerous, unpredictable things.

bah, all those coups and invasions and crushings of dissent are just the military's way of saying hello

So that the other point I made doesn't get vanquished by mere irresponsiveness, I'll repeat:

Brazil, Canada, and other countries, have fairly small militaries or none at all. Yet, somehow, they don't need to live in fear. Kindly explain that, Man in Black?

I rather think I've done that for him:)

what sacrifices for me are those?

are you kidding?

people die or are injured to keep you safe.

let's see here:

9/11 terrorists... we're after Al Qaeda now, killing/capturing terrorists probably every day or at least con mucho frecuencia

if we didn't have a military, we'd find out how important it is to have one... the absence of military bravado wouldn't make the bad guys think, "Gee, they're not after us anymore, so let's just leave them alone."

Despite the U.S. reputation lately it is not as if we slaughter civilians as dictatorships have done in the past. There are certainly some unethical things that have been done recently but it takes someone with great courage to stand up and say "No, I won't do it." The military requires one to follow orders and how many are going to hesitate when it is simply crossing a blurry line? It doesn't make it right but that is how it is.

Like the dictatorships that THE US HELPED GET INTO POWER, which you forgot to mention. Plus, if the higher-ups refused an unethical order, who would follow? Or the higher-ups, that are higher-ups exactly for their alleged courage, are that kind of yellow-bellies?

Ok, now don't get your panties in a bunch. Let me explain myself.

The reason I think that the United States needs to be attacked is so that all these clueless kids growing up today can know what it means to be without a military.

I'm frankly getting sick of the Iraq war clouding peoples minds as to how immensely important Americas military is. I'm sick of the little fucks in colleges across America saying that the Military shouldn't be glorified for "killing people", yet they have no idea why the killing is done, and the fact that 99% of the Military would die happy never firing a shot in anger.

The kids in America are spoiled to a dangerous degree. They are too stupid to see that the Military is the reason they can sit in their cosy classrooms and learn how to hate the Troops.

What has happened in America? How can so many young people hate the very institution that has protected them, their parents, their grandparents, and beyond.


EDIT - For all the "slow" people in here, this was a tongue in cheek remark about us needing to be attacked, but obviously your vitriol gets in the way of any rational thought. Anyone who says they truly think I want the U.S. attacked, I call them liars, because you all know my views, and your lack of interpretive skills shows too well in your ignorance.
Very good points all around. It pisses me to end end how people sit around their a/c houses bad mouthing the very people that allow them to have such a nice lifestyle, while having no idea of the sacifrices the military makes. I've made this point clear in other posts and yet people still want to disagree.

I daresay you are : male
overtly masculine (cf; insecure)
intellectually challenged
scared of the world beyond the good ol' US of A

Since your assertions, and no, I assure you, I am not misinterpreting them, imply that you harbour an intrinsic affinity for violence and the martial facets of your nation that satiate an insecurity over your personal masculinity, an insecurity you similarly allay through opposing and deploring those "whiny kids" who dare to harbour sentiments contrary to those dictated by the generic red blooded, masculine American. Moreover, you fail to proffer any evidence as to why the "whiny kids" are wrong, yet deplore them nonetheless, whilst your obsession with the military, and compulsion to utilise it, imply a fear of all cultures contrary to, if not overtly hostile to, the US.
*applauds*

Way to play phychiatrist! Boy, you sure do know me! /sarcasm

Yes, I'm white. Yes, I've been known to be overly masculine at times.

But if you think Im insecure in my masculinity, you just don't know anything about it. I sew, cook, clean the house, vaccuum, and have been known to giggle like a schoolgirl on occasion.

I don't get mad at my wife for having male friends, I don't think she should "stay in the kitchen", and I'm proud to admit she makes more than I do.

So how, exactly do I fit into your mold of the "insecure redblooded male American?"

*applauds*

Way to play phychiatrist! Boy, you sure do know me! /sarcasm

Yes, I'm white. Yes, I've been known to be overly masculine at times.

But if you think Im insecure in my masculinity, you just don't know anything about it. I sew, cook, clean the house, vaccuum, and have been known to giggle like a schoolgirl on occasion.

I don't get mad at my wife for having male friends, I don't think she should "stay in the kitchen", and I'm proud to admit she makes more than I do.

So how, exactly do I fit into your mold of the "insecure redblooded male American?"

I would much rather you proffered a complete, not merely half baked, counter assertion.

i'm sorry, i thought that when you said "I am speaking to the original and most important reason for having one", you intended to talk about the original and most important reason for having a military. which is obviously to create and support a system of elite power.

you'll have to forgive me if i find it odd that you think that the "original and most important reason" for the existence of militaries was to fight world war two. the very name of the conflict tends to conflict with that interpretation.

*hands you a cookie for having typed what I was just about to type, you damned thought thief*

Man in Black has brought up an interesting point. What is the original purpose of having a military, and secondly, is this an honourable thing to respect?

Another question: should institutions be respected according to what they were originally designed to do, or for what they actually do?

Now that I think about it, I think institutions should earn or lose respect based on what they actually do. But if I do that, how does the individual in the institution wind up in the equation. i.e. the soldier in the military?

That, my friends, is Grade-A, USDA approved, pure angus pwned.
Sure is, except for the fact that he is dead wrong. I could call you murderous terrorist, and continue by saying you're insecure because you are a Muslim. I could go into detail why you are less than a man because of your beliefs.

It certainly wouldn't be "pwnage" though, because it isn't true. It's generalization by a person who doesn't know anything about someone, so takes it upon themselves to assume.

I'm disappointed in you K, I thought you had better values than to cheer on someone who generalizes people without basis.

*hands you a cookie for having typed what I was just about to type, you damned thought thief*

Furthermore, would there be a WWII if it weren't for German and Japanese (at that time) militarism and love for all things military? *Makes an affected thinking pose* Mmm...

To me the one of the most serious problem facing the US is its view of its military; it is foreign to the majority of the country.

A large part of the military is made up of poor people who wanted to get money for school etc, this means that the majority of the country can support a war because for all intents and purposes they are not affected by it; Just the lower class. Another effect is that big wigs in Washington don’t have a kid in the military at all, its a lot harder to send your own son to war then someone else’s. An all volunteer army, may be more professional and effective but it’s also more dangerous to the nation as a whole. The Citizen Soldier is replaced by a mercenary whose loyalties and views are created and fostered in a completely different environment.

Not to say that people in the Army are only in it for the money or that they are disloyal, but think of the consequences Rome faced because of a professional army. It was always easy for Romans to go to war, so they did, men like Julius Caesar eventually had soldiers who were under his command so long away from Rome that they became for all intents and purposes a foreign army.

The solution that I believe would be best is that America keeps a large standing Army that is made of mostly of people drafted from the general population. No matter how rich or poor a HS graduates is they can be and will be drafted. This should both include both men and women. The military would no longer be foreign and war would have far more consequences for the people who start them

So that the other point I made doesn't get vanquished by mere irresponsiveness, I'll repeat:

Brazil, Canada, and other countries, have fairly small militaries or none at all. Yet, somehow, they don't need to live in fear. Kindly explain that, Man in Black?


Okay, MIB, last chance, either you counter this point I just made or I (and the others) will assume you conceded it.

I would much rather you proffered a complete, not merely half baked, counter assertion.
I believe I've made myself quite clear. You pretend you can read me like a book, but considering you're dead wrong on most of your points, I believe it is you who should explain yourself.

To me the one of the most serious problem facing the US is its view of its military; it is foreign to the majority of the country.

A large part of the military is made up of poor people who wanted to get money for school etc, this means that the majority of the country can support a war because for all intents and purposes they are not affected by it; Just the lower class. Another effect is that big wigs in Washington don’t have a kid in the military at all, its a lot harder to send your own son to war then someone else’s. An all volunteer army, may be more professional and effective but it’s also more dangerous to the nation as a whole. The Citizen Soldier is replaced by a mercenary whose loyalties and views are created and fostered in a completely different environment.

Not to say that people in the Army are only in it for the money or that they are disloyal, but think of the consequences Rome faced because of a professional army. It was always easy for Romans to go to war, so they did, men like Julius Caesar eventually had soldiers who were under his command so long away from Rome that they became for all intents and purposes a foreign army.

The solution that I believe would be best is that America keeps a large standing Army that is made of mostly of people drafted from the general population. No matter how rich or poor a HS graduates is they can be and will be drafted. This should both include both men and women. The military would no longer be foreign and war would have far more consequences for the people who start them

GIVE ME THE V!
GIVE ME THE I!
GIVE ME THE E!
GIVE ME THE T!
GIVE ME THE N!
GIVE ME THE A!
GIVE ME THE M!

WHAT DO YOU GET? V-I-E-T-N-A-M!

I'm disappointed in you K[eruvalia]

Oh, noes. How ever shall he go on?

Many countries don't posses large militaries because of their positive relations with nations that have them, or there is a complete lack in the region of any other great military power. Monaco does not have an Army because other countries will protect them, just like the Vatican. Canada is not going to be the target of anyone’s aggression because of the simple fact their best next door neighbor has a few thousand nukes.

Many countries don't posses large militaries because of their positive relations with nations that have them, or there is a complete lack in the region of any other great military power. Monaco does not have an Army because other countries will protect them, just like the Vatican. Canada is not going to be the target of anyone’s aggression because of the simple fact their best next door neighbor has a few thousand nukes.

That worked very well for the US, which actually HAS a few thousand nukes, and was attacked by morons with jack-knives in planes. Canada doesn't piss people off...

Okay, MIB, last chance, either you counter this point I just made or I (and the others) will assume you conceded it.
Jeez, give me a freakin minute. Posting here isn't the only thing I do during the day. Some people have more on their plate. :rolleyes:


Here is your response:

The reason that those nations don't live in fear is because they live under the protection of nations more capable of fighting a conflict. Do you REALLY believe Canada would be the nation it is today if it weren't for NATO?

Do you honestly think Canada would be what it is today if it didn't have it's Uncle Sam looking out for it?

Vietnam was a war where the draft was mostly of poor lower income men, not rich or college bound. Vietnam is more evidence in favor of my argument.

"How can so many young people hate the very institution that has protected them, their parents, their grandparents, and beyond."

I'll support a war with Iraq the day they actually pose a threat to us, and not a day before.

Oh, noes. How ever shall he go on?
You, however, I expect it from, so I'm not disappointed a bit.

Jeez, give me a freakin minute. Posting here isn't the only thing I do during the day. Some people have more on their plate. :rolleyes:


Here is your response:

The reason that those nations don't live in fear is because they live under the protection of nations more capable of fighting a conflict. Do you REALLY believe Canada would be the nation it is today if it weren't for NATO?

Do you honestly think Canada would be what it is today if it didn't have it's Uncle Sam looking out for it?

Considering that Uncle Sam looked for HIMSELF and, today, is a nation cowering in fear of "turrorists" and that Canada has the best life quality in the world? Quite possible, yes. Or being the big guy's NEIGHBOR is better than being the big guy? If you say so, you're claiming that the important thing isn't having a military, but neighboring someone that does. For that matter, the South American militaries aren't all that good, yet we don't live in fear of foreign powers...

I hate the police and the military 'cause without them I could shoot that danish cartoonist and get my reward.

Curious. Brazil hasn't much of a military after 1984, and could be invaded by several countries. Yet we don't live in fear, but that MAY be because we try to live in peace with all peoples and don't attack people that didn't attack us for our interests.

Exactly, I mean when the US decided that preventing genocide in Bosnia was in its interests it attacked the country without provocation

When it felt that Iraq invading another Middle-Eastern country was not in its interests it attacked the country without provocation.

When it felt that preventing Yugoslavia from falling into total chaos and ethnic warfare was not in its interests it intervened.

When it felt that in the 20th century the existence of the brutal, tyrannical, terrorist regime of the Taleban was not in its interests, it attacked the country.

Quite frankly I think the world would be a far better place if the U.S had simply told the respective citizens of these regimes to go fuck themselves rather than the fundamentally selfish pursuit of upholding the fundamentally selfish American interests of democracy, human liberty and life.

So how, exactly do I fit into your mold of the "insecure redblooded male American?"[/QUOTE]


You know better :D
Relax. It's not a sin.

Vietnam was a war where the draft was mostly of poor lower income men, not rich or college bound. Vietnam is more evidence in favor of my argument.

I see. So, let me get this straight: You're saying you want smart people to be recruited against their will to enforce the law of the jungle?

Very good points all around. It pisses me to end end how people sit around their a/c houses bad mouthing the very people that allow them to have such a nice lifestyle, while having no idea of the sacifrices the military makes. I've made this point clear in other posts and yet people still want to disagree.

I have not heard anyone bad mouth the founding fathers who wrote the constitution and the Bill of rights or the free market industrial geniuses who invented the modern house and air conditioning. Those are the people we should be thanking not the jackasses who join the military and choose to become part of this military becuase they are unable to make in the real world.

Exactly, I mean when the US decided that preventing genocide in Bosnia was in its interests it attacked the country without provocation

When it felt that Iraq invading another Middle-Eastern country was not in its interests it attacked the country without provocation.

When it felt that preventing Yugoslavia from falling into total chaos and ethnic warfare was not in its interests it intervened.

When it felt that in the 20th century the existence of the brutal, tyrannical, terrorist regime of the Taleban was not in its interests, it attacked the country.

Quite frankly I think the world would be a far better place if the U.S had simply told the respective citizens of these regimes to go fuck themselves rather than the fundamentally selfish pursuit of upholding the fundamentally selfish American interests of democracy, human liberty and life.

When it felt installing dictatorships in about 30 or 40 countries, including Afghanistan, was in its interests, it did so, with no regard for democracy, human liberty and life. And those that were tortured in the dictatorships the US installed could go fuck themselves.

I have not heard anyone bad mouth the founding fathers who wrote the constitution and the Bill of rights or the free market industrial geniuses who invented the modern house and air conditioning. Those are the people we should be thanking not the jackasses who join the military and choose to become part of this military becuase they are unable to make in the real world.
Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit D.

Yay, that's fun! I can label anything I disagree with as evidence to my points!

Its important that when a nation decides to go to war that the nation fights together. If someone is so dead set against fighting then they can become conscientious objector, but short of that, if they receive the benefits of a nation they should be willing to defend it.

When it felt installing dictatorships in about 30 or 40 countries, including Afghanistan, was in its interests, it did so, with no regard for democracy, human liberty and life. And those that were tortured in the dictatorships the US installed could go fuck themselves.

All countries have done things in their past that they are not proud of, in this case the concerns of the US over communism outweighed their concerns toward human rights. This was wrong and recent administrations have effectively admitted so by shifting their stance accordingly.

Out of interest - does the US get any credit for intervening in any of the examples I gave? Or were they merely examples of tyrannical imperialism with a mask?

Its important that when a nation decides to go to war that the nation fights together. If someone is so dead set against fighting then they can become conscientious objector, but short of that, if they receive the benefits of a nation they should be willing to defend it.

Oh, right. Yet Vietnam was a costly, unprovoked bloodbath. If that's "defending" your country, then that's what Al Qaeda was doing in 9/11...

Exhibit B

So the military is the reason for our standard of living and the free market had nothiing to do with it?

I'm not hear arguing the merit of Vietnam, i'm arguing that a nations military should be mand up of the whole population not the poor or the powerless. Vietnam is an example of the powerless having to fight the powerfuls war, are you listening to anything i'm saying?

i will be back later today

All countries have done things in their past that they are not proud of, in this case the concerns of the US over communism outweighed their concerns toward human rights. This was wrong and recent administrations have effectively admitted so by shifting their stance accordingly.

So that's supposed to make these facts disappear?

Out of interest - does the US get any credit for intervening in any of the examples I gave? Or were they merely examples of tyrannical imperialism with a mask?

The "freedom fight" in Iraq? Do you want me to comment on that? Also, if the Balkans weren't on the USian interests, why let Burma, Turkmenistan and other ruthless dictatorships stay as such? Why handpick it?

I may be mistaken though. Here is yet another example (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060217/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/philippines_us_military)of how useless our military is.

Here is your response:

The reason that those nations don't live in fear is because they live under the protection of nations more capable of fighting a conflict. Do you REALLY believe Canada would be the nation it is today if it weren't for NATO?

Do you honestly think Canada would be what it is today if it didn't have it's Uncle Sam looking out for it?

Before the USA was a superpower, Canada was defenseless, by your reasoning. Now, how many countries attacked it?

Only one. The USA.

Your theory does not hold water.


Now, I have some questions for you: what about countries where civil freedoms have been curtailed by the military dictatorship? Should people support the military for protecting their civil freedoms in those cases?

Two: what is the original purpose of a military?

spectacularly failing to see the world from other possible perspectives

Ok, now don't get your panties in a bunch. Let me explain myself.

The reason I think that the United States needs to be attacked is so that all these clueless kids growing up today can know what it means to be without a military.

I'm frankly getting sick of the Iraq war clouding peoples minds as to how immensely important Americas military is. I'm sick of the little fucks in colleges across America saying that the Military shouldn't be glorified for "killing people", yet they have no idea why the killing is done, and the fact that 99% of the Military would die happy never firing a shot in anger.

The kids in America are spoiled to a dangerous degree. They are too stupid to see that the Military is the reason they can sit in their cosy classrooms and learn how to hate the Troops.

What has happened in America? How can so many young people hate the very institution that has protected them, their parents, their grandparents, and beyond.


EDIT - For all the "slow" people in here, this was a tongue in cheek remark about us needing to be attacked, but obviously your vitriol gets in the way of any rational thought. Anyone who says they truly think I want the U.S. attacked, I call them liars, because you all know my views, and your lack of interpretive skills shows too well in your ignorance.

Ever heard of 9/11?

Oh, right. Yet Vietnam was a costly, unprovoked bloodbath. If that's "defending" your country, then that's what Al Qaeda was doing in 9/11...

unprovoked?

aren't we supposed to make the world safe for democracy? didn't a democrat president say that?

So when the Viet Cong decided to take over South Vietnam and subject them to their oppressive Communist regime, what part of that wasn't reason enough to help the South Vietnamese?

we can't fight every war (wasn't a war anyway, it was offically a "conflict"), of course, but if there's a just cause to fight for, like saving millions of helpless people from the oppression of Communism, it's a bit easier for Average Joe to swallow/understand/get behind (or should be, imo).

Ever heard of 9/11?

yes, that terrorist attack that might have been prevented if Clinton had nabbed Usama when he was there for the taking.

But let's say 9/11 was nobody's fault...

Our armed forces, CIA (etc.) are trotting the globe looking to nab or kill terrorists. They're doing what they can given the present state of ready resources. (nothing like stating the obvious. hehe)

unprovoked?

aren't we supposed to make the world safe for democracy? didn't a democrat president say that?

which nicely explains why the u.s. sided with the half of vietnam that didn't hold the agreed upon ballot in 1956...

I don't run a country, and I'm not pursuing nuclear weapons.

I don't care who "loves the military" What I DO care about is not seeing them kicked out of college campuses, blocked from putting ships to port as memorials to their service, denegrated by twerps who don't know what it's like to fight for your country, and come home to be spit on, called murderers and babykillers, discriminated against on campuses across the nation, and things of that nature.

Basically, it boils down to a lesson we all learn in pre-school. If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all.

And before the "free speech" crowd starts whining, it is MY right of free speech to say that.



I would like to point out that if we couldn't speak our minds, then why would we be fighting for freedom in the first place? Isn't that the basis of free speech anyway? I believe so.

Ok, now don't get your panties in a bunch. Let me explain myself.

The reason I think that the United States needs to be attacked is so that all these clueless kids growing up today can know what it means to be without a military.

I'm frankly getting sick of the Iraq war clouding peoples minds as to how immensely important Americas military is. I'm sick of the little fucks in colleges across America saying that the Military shouldn't be glorified for "killing people", yet they have no idea why the killing is done, and the fact that 99% of the Military would die happy never firing a shot in anger.

The kids in America are spoiled to a dangerous degree. They are too stupid to see that the Military is the reason they can sit in their cosy classrooms and learn how to hate the Troops.

What has happened in America? How can so many young people hate the very institution that has protected them, their parents, their grandparents, and beyond.


EDIT - For all the "slow" people in here, this was a tongue in cheek remark about us needing to be attacked, but obviously your vitriol gets in the way of any rational thought. Anyone who says they truly think I want the U.S. attacked, I call them liars, because you all know my views, and your lack of interpretive skills shows too well in your ignorance.

I'm in college. I support the troops. Right now, I do not support the military. The military should not be glorified for killing people. That is a horiffic thing. But (and this is a big but) it is part of the job. Should a garbage man be glorified for picking up the trash? no. It is part of the job.
Are there alot of troops currently over there who do not support the war, who do not want to be reminded that they had to kill someone, who want to push a woman off the Staten Island ferry when some bitch comes up and says "Thanks for killing those fucking muslims!"? Damn right. How do I know? Because he is one of my good friends. And is over there right now. I also understand, in better detail than most, EXACTLY why many of these killings are happening. I defy you to say that I do not support the troops just because I don't support the military.

When was the last time you were in a college class? You have no idea what happens in one of them, let alone the thousands of classes occuring every week. But oh no, the media told me they were liberal pinko commies trying to indoctrinate our kids! Guess what? I know the political stances of 2 professors at my school. One was die hard conservative. The other was a die hard liberal. Both made the effort to keep their politics out of their lectures, and the one time the liberal one slipped, he apologized to the class within five minutes. The conservative slipped a few times, but hey, it happens. Did I mention that I am in school in the "Liberal New England intellectual elite" capital of the world, Boston? Yeah...perhaps this liberal indoctrination isn't quite so bad. And while I can't speak for every school, My friends agree that my school has little or no bias in classes.
We do not learn to "hate the military".

How can we hate the military that defends us? Because they aren't really. The wars the US has fought since World War II have not been wars of protection.

Also, many many countries survive without a military. Canada has a small one. Costa Rica, Brazil, most of the South Pacific, etc. Many is strategically important places.

*hands you a cookie for having typed what I was just about to type, you damned thought thief*

my time travelling ability strikes once again! i merely travelled into the future, copied your post, went back in time, and posted it before you had a chance to write yours in the first place.

take that, temporal paradoxes!

I am glad that America does have the world's most powerful military. I respect those that wish to protect me in my home, so that I can have peace of mind. However, because I respect these brave souls, I am angered over the fact that America's military is being used as a political sword in the Middle East.

The only reason that a direct attack on America even WOULD make people prouder of a military, is because the military would finally be used properly! To protect the lands of the United States. A pre-emptive strike on Iraq (which is why everyone is upset), is not protecting American soil, it is attacking another nation. There was no way in hell a piss-poor, mismanaged, oppressed state like Iraq could have ever damaged the United States in a way that would have prompted the complete invasion of them. If the U.S. is going to continue fighting terrorists by toppling governments instead of going after terrorist organizations, it will be shocked to find the conquered, battered populations of these lands will find themselve wishing to only become "terrorists."

I find it quite offensive that some people might want blind acceptence of anything America's military were to undertake just because their goal is protecting America's soil. Well, I will be proud to support them when they are ACUTALLY pursuing that goal, but fighting unjust wars of "liberation" on the other side of the world is hardly what I call defending Americans. What if, in the interest of American security, the government commanded the marines to assault an anti-war protest inside of America? What if, in the interest of American security, the Bush Administration ordered American soldiers to detain all Arabic immigrants in detention facilities like they did with the Japanese in World War Two? What if, in the interest of protecting the United States, the U.S. military were ordered to eradicate the Democratic Party and establish George Bush as emperor? Extreme circumstances, yes, but just because the military is in place to protect America does not mean we, as Americans, should no question what they do.

Hey, if British citizens never questioned the Regulars stationed in the colonies. THERE WOULD NOT BE A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

So that's supposed to make these facts disappear?



The "freedom fight" in Iraq? Do you want me to comment on that? Also, if the Balkans weren't on the USian interests, why let Burma, Turkmenistan and other ruthless dictatorships stay as such? Why handpick it?

No, it is not supposed to make the facts disappear which is why I didn't say that or anything remotely amounting to that.

Because military intervention remains a relatively crude and problematic tool for promoting human rights, especially when it is the national institutions of a given state who are the perpetrators and who need replacing, and because the US probably realises that waging a global war in the name of human freedoms is a particularly stupid policy.

It pisses me to end end how people sit around their a/c houses bad mouthing the very people that allow them to have such a nice lifestyle

yeah, fuck people putting down the workers of the world

I really doubt anyone is angry at our individual troops, poster-guy. Unless it's one of those videos of American soldiers killing an unarmed guy or whatnot, they're mostly pissed at our stupidly corrupt (and, at least linguistically, stupidly stupid) leaders for putting them IN Iraq.

Also, way to throw a nice stereotype over American kids. I'm sure none of them know their military protects them.

maybe a good question would be:

Should we have a proactive military that is willing to help people of other countries when they're oppressed and cannot defeat said oppression without aid?

Should we make the world safe for democracy or scrap that general directive?

maybe a good question would be:

Should we have a proactive military that is willing to help people of other countries when they're oppressed and cannot defeat said oppression without aid?

Should we make the world safe for democracy or scrap that general directive?

A proactive military is a reasonable request. But some people in Iraq fight for the old governments return. Why lose lives fighting for the liberation of a country that doesnt want to be liberated?

People keep saying "but they dont attack canada and it doesnt have a big army!" I'm sorry.. but what does canada really have that attacking countries would want? not to insult canada but to those who would wish to attack us, america is a huge target. we emphasize freedoms that they would repress and they dont like that.

I am glad that America does have the world's most powerful military. I respect those that wish to protect me in my home, so that I can have peace of mind. However, because I respect these brave souls, I am angered over the fact that America's military is being used as a political sword in the Middle East.

The only reason that a direct attack on America even WOULD make people prouder of a military, is because the military would finally be used properly! To protect the lands of the United States. A pre-emptive strike on Iraq (which is why everyone is upset), is not protecting American soil, it is attacking another nation. There was no way in hell a piss-poor, mismanaged, oppressed state like Iraq could have ever damaged the United States in a way that would have prompted the complete invasion of them. If the U.S. is going to continue fighting terrorists by toppling governments instead of going after terrorist organizations, it will be shocked to find the conquered, battered populations of these lands will find themselve wishing to only become "terrorists."

I find it quite offensive that some people might want blind acceptence of anything America's military were to undertake just because their goal is protecting America's soil. Well, I will be proud to support them when they are ACUTALLY pursuing that goal, but fighting unjust wars of "liberation" on the other side of the world is hardly what I call defending Americans. What if, in the interest of American security, the government commanded the marines to assault an anti-war protest inside of America? What if, in the interest of American security, the Bush Administration ordered American soldiers to detain all Arabic immigrants in detention facilities like they did with the Japanese in World War Two? What if, in the interest of protecting the United States, the U.S. military were ordered to eradicate the Democratic Party and establish George Bush as emperor? Extreme circumstances, yes, but just because the military is in place to protect America does not mean we, as Americans, should no question what they do.

I agree, an attack on our soil would show those who bash the military exactly what they are good for. personally I think that an easier solution would be to just send them to a country where they dont have the freedoms that are protected by our military and laws. then they would see what good it does.

As for going to Iraq and fighting the war there. Believe it or not there was a good amount of evidence before the war that he posessed the weapons and the capibility to produce more. before you say "well we didnt find any" He had months of forwarning before we attacked to simply ship what he had to another country. like syria or iran where.. big surprise.. they are starting nuclear enrichment. Of course the Iraqi people are all fighting back against us now that we have removed saddam... except for the majority of iraqi citizens work with us and are willing to risk torture or death by the hands of terrorists for doing so. look at how many iraqi police and soldiers have been killed by insurgents. as for the insurgents themselves most of them are not from iraq itself but from neighboring countries like syria, jordan and iran. locking down the border has always been a problem for us there as they dont have borders like we do in america, its more like a rough line the people can easily cross.
"but the soldiers kill innocent people and children!"
I'm sorry, in war deaths happen. its sad to see children and innocents die BUT when the child is holding a gun and has been tought to shoot, or those that we fight against dont wear any kind of identifying markings (armed and unidentifyable.. counts as a spy KOS) these things cant be helped. yes, we have blown up mosques.. why? because terrorists were hiding explosives and weapons in them. Yes, we have accidentaly shot innocents.. it happens. even in non war zones but for every case of that happening there are dozens more being done by the terrorists when they blow up children who are getting candy http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162356,00.html or people simply attending a wedding http://www.natashatynes.org/newswire/2005/11/zarqawi_tape_mu.html

I've long sense digressed from what i was trying to say.. and because i'm running on about 3 hours sleep i cant quite remember what it was now.. but instead of bashing troops and insulting them where they stand. at least try and give them some respect for the fact that they put their lives on the line to protect and bring freedoms not only to americans but to other countries where they have never existed.

which nicely explains why the u.s. sided with the half of vietnam that didn't hold the agreed upon ballot in 1956...

Exactly. Not only did Vietnam have a traditional folklore which glorified pushing foreign invaders out of the country (so the US was doomed from the start), but most Vietnamese were peasant farmers, effectively under feudalism, and wanted communism. I mean, if you're earning just enough to survive under one system, why not take the other? It wouldn't have being any worse for them. Besides, under 'democracy' Ngo Diem opressed 90% of the population - buddhists, built a load of Catholic churches from tax payers money and gave government positions to his friends and relations. It was notoriously corrupt.

People keep saying "but they dont attack canada and it doesnt have a big army!" I'm sorry.. but what does canada really have that attacking countries would want? not to insult canada but to those who would wish to attack us, america is a huge target. we emphasize freedoms that they would repress and they dont like that.

you do know what canada is, yeah?

People keep saying "but they dont attack canada and it doesnt have a big army!" I'm sorry.. but what does canada really have that attacking countries would want? not to insult canada but to those who would wish to attack us, america is a huge target. we emphasize freedoms that they would repress and they dont like that.



I agree, an attack on our soil would show those who bash the military exactly what they are good for. personally I think that an easier solution would be to just send them to a country where they dont have the freedoms that are protected by our military and laws. then they would see what good it does.

As for going to Iraq and fighting the war there. Believe it or not there was a good amount of evidence before the war that he posessed the weapons and the capibility to produce more. before you say "well we didnt find any" He had months of forwarning before we attacked to simply ship what he had to another country. like syria or iran where.. big surprise.. they are starting nuclear enrichment. Of course the Iraqi people are all fighting back against us now that we have removed saddam... except for the majority of iraqi citizens work with us and are willing to risk torture or death by the hands of terrorists for doing so. look at how many iraqi police and soldiers have been killed by insurgents. as for the insurgents themselves most of them are not from iraq itself but from neighboring countries like syria, jordan and iran. locking down the border has always been a problem for us there as they dont have borders like we do in america, its more like a rough line the people can easily cross.
"but the soldiers kill innocent people and children!"
I'm sorry, in war deaths happen. its sad to see children and innocents die BUT when the child is holding a gun and has been tought to shoot, or those that we fight against dont wear any kind of identifying markings (armed and unidentifyable.. counts as a spy KOS) these things cant be helped. yes, we have blown up mosques.. why? because terrorists were hiding explosives and weapons in them. Yes, we have accidentaly shot innocents.. it happens. even in non war zones but for every case of that happening there are dozens more being done by the terrorists when they blow up children who are getting candy http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162356,00.html or people simply attending a wedding http://www.natashatynes.org/newswire/2005/11/zarqawi_tape_mu.html

I've long sense digressed from what i was trying to say.. and because i'm running on about 3 hours sleep i cant quite remember what it was now.. but instead of bashing troops and insulting them where they stand. at least try and give them some respect for the fact that they put their lives on the line to protect and bring freedoms not only to americans but to other countries where they have never existed.

If the terrorists hated freedom, they would attack the Netherlands. They're the whore-mongering, pot-smoking bastards with all the freedom. The reason they attacked the US is because the US is an economic juggernaut that supports corrupt regimes and Israel.

yeah, fuck people putting down the workers of the world
Gods I love you.

I'm disappointed in you K, I thought you had better values than to cheer on someone who generalizes people without basis.

Don't be. I just thought it was funny.

Now don't go burning embassies over it or nothin'.

Don't be. I just thought it was funny.

Now don't go burning embassies over it or nothin'.
I would, but i left my lighter in my tuxedo. ;)

Don't be. I just thought it was funny.

Now don't go burning embassies over it or nothin'.

There are some left? :p

I think alot of you are fucked in the head. I agree with man in black, not that america should be attacked but that most of you are selfish liberal pricks. I'm sorry I don't want to put words in man in blacks mouth, those are my thoughts. Yes! lets blame the military and the US government! If you people hate the thought of the US military terrorizing poor defenceless countries as most of you imply, why don't you get off your asses and do something about it. That is one of the benefits we have in this great country that most of you take in vain.

God bless America and the UK.

yeah, fuck people putting down the workers of the world
You know ... I've often wondered just who these "workers" are. Care to enlighten me?

I think alot of you are fucked in the head. I agree with man in black, not that america should be attacked but that most of you are selfish liberal pricks. I'm sorry I don't want to put words in man in blacks mouth, those are my thoughts. Yes! lets blame the military and the US government! If you people hate the thought of the US military terrorizing poor defenceless countries as most of you imply, why don't you get off your asses and do something about it. That is one of the benefits we have in this great country that most of you take in vain.

God bless America and the UK.


I forget where we are now... is it Exhibit P, R, I C or K?

People keep saying "but they dont attack canada and it doesnt have a big army!" I'm sorry.. but what does canada really have that attacking countries would want?

Beavers, lots and lots of beavers. Oh ... and maple syrup.

Beavers, lots and lots of beavers. Oh ... and maple syrup.
But if you were just nice to us, we'd lend you our beavers...no need to invade...

why don't you get off your asses and do something about it. That is one of the benefits we have in this great country that most of you take in vain.

Do what about it? One defect of this great country is that a stupid majority can control a minority.

you do know what canada is, yeah?

Yea
Canada
GDP: $ 1,023,000,000,000
Pop 32,805,041
Mixed ethnicities


USA
GDP: $ 11,750,000,000,000
Pop 295,734,134
Predominantly white
Largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world
Leading industrial power in the world
Up front about our beliefs and worldview.

If you were a terrorist group trying to make a point.. which one would you seek to harm through violent acts? the ones who dont really get in the way or fight about things, or the ones who make it clear where they stand on what your fighting for?

If the terrorists hated freedom, they would attack the Netherlands. They're the whore-mongering, pot-smoking bastards with all the freedom. The reason they attacked the US is because the US is an economic juggernaut that supports corrupt regimes and Israel.

Yes. we have suported some corrupt regimes.. pretty much all of the superpowers in the world have.

Russia suported Korea during the korean war and has been known to "loose" weapons and tech.

France sold weapons and technology to Iraq, Iran and Korea.

Germany.. i'm not going there

UK.. i dont know enough brittish history for this one.

As for supporting Israel. Yes, we support and recognize a declared country. It may be primarily Jewish (another reason for them to hate us) but if they were truly peace loving people as so many of the high clerics have tried to claim.. then they would not call out for its destruction and deny its existance.

*edit : changed some wording to make it more clear.. <--3 hours sleep

But if you were just nice to us, we'd lend you our beavers...no need to invade...

Oh my ... someone really should capitalize on that innuendo immediately! :D

:headbang:

And apparently you are an idiot for lacking the ability to realize when someone is IMPLYING something. Psycologists say this is a skill normal people learn before the 3rd grade!:rolleyes: :headbang:
You know what else people learn around then? How to spell.
I can't believe this thread ain't locked yet.

You know ... I've often wondered just who these "workers" are. Care to enlighten me?
*waves hand*
Mr. Eutrusca, I'd like you to meet my husband, my father, my brother, my aunts, my uncles, my cousins, my in-laws...

What has happened in America? How can so many young people hate the very institution that has protected them, their parents, their grandparents, and beyond.
Same way they can hate welfare, healthcare or any other government institution. The military is not much different.

I also think you should re-assess your view or their opinions. I doubt that many people hate the military. Many are very emotional in their opposition to particular wars, but few want to get rid of the military. Think about it!


I understand how you feel though. Sometimes I think that Europe in general needs a few years of fundamentalist Islamic dictatorship in order to eliminate pandering attitudes that are too widespread, and even more, to eliminate these alarming levels of political apathy.

I like smileys. so sue me.

What he said is what he believed would be necessary to pop the bubble Americans are living in.
It occurred to me ...
there's a faction of the populace that, in finding they have no intellectual superiority, have instead resorted to an attitude of ignorant superiority.
You really, truly think you got an angle other people don't notice, yet you don't even know how to spell the words you use nor an understanding of the "facts" you cite nor the circumstances and context required to make a good argument.
Not just you but a great many miscreants.

which one would you seek to humble through violent acts?

wait, do you think countries decide who to attack based on who would be "humbled"?

Any chance we can stop with the name calling and useless rhetoric (from me as well as others) and actually debate the issue I've now made abundantly clear?
You have to admit, Honky in Black, that with your second, third, and a few other posts, you haven't exactly inspired people to be civil in the whole "name-calling" context.

Oh ... and maple syrup.

i heard that vermont was not technically part of canada

wait, do you think countries decide who to attack based on who would be "humbled"?
countries dont, terrorist group would look for the highest profile target.

Example.. if you were street racing would you try and race a van or a mustang? Which one could you brag about more if you won.


You have to admit, Honky in Black, that with your second, third, and a few other posts, you haven't exactly inspired people to be civil in the whole "name-calling" context.

wow. not going to add any more directed insults.. but it seems to me that the entire "name calling" thing has gotten to be like a bunch of children trying to get the last insult in during a school yard fight. be the better man. drop it and get back on topic.

i heard that vermont was not technically part of canada
No, but Quebec (http://www.maplesyrupstore.com/) is, and it produces 75% of the world's supply of Maple Syrup. Vermont shmermont.

Yea
Canada
GDP: $ 1,023,000,000,000
Pop 32,805,041
Mixed ethnicities


USA
GDP: $ 11,750,000,000,000
Pop 295,734,134
Predominantly white
Largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world
Leading industrial power in the world
Up front about our beliefs and worldview.

If you were a terrorist group trying to make a point.. which one would you seek to harm through violent acts? the ones who dont really get in the way or fight about things, or the ones who make it clear where they stand on what your fighting for?


The one who keeps fucking with us.

countries dont, terrorist group would look for the highest profile target.

so what are we to make of the fact that most terrorist attacks occur in poor countries?

widely believed fact - free soviets is an anarchist that favors the abolition of the state and its military. which, last time he checked, was such a minor viewpoint in the u.s. that it doesn't even get mentioned in surveys of public opinion.

it would be nice if more people in the u.s. favored drastically reducing the military and that it should get less glorification than it currently does, but that just does not seem to be a common stance.

It's not that minor of a belief. Anarchism is pretty popular, it just doesn't recieve any attention on the media because it opposes corporations that thrive on manipulation (i.e. the fucking media).

That worked very well for the US, which actually HAS a few thousand nukes, and was attacked by morons with jack-knives in planes. Canada doesn't piss people off...
Actually, it would appear that Canada does indeed piss off United States Republicans, although it is yet to be clearly established why ... *shrug*
So far it appears, merely for existing.

No, but Quebec (http://www.maplesyrupstore.com/) is.

bah, everyone knows that canada's only export is beaver

bah, everyone knows that canada's only export is beaver
They aren't really an export, because we expect them back once you're done with them.

You have to admit, Honky in Black, that with your second, third, and a few other posts, you haven't exactly inspired people to be civil in the whole "name-calling" context.
Yeah, I know. BUT I did apologize for the confusion. I just won't apologize for other people jumping down my throat like I just slapped their mother. (which I might have done. I have no idea who that lady was)

It's not that minor of a belief. Anarchism is pretty popular, it just doesn't recieve any attention on the media because it opposes corporations that thrive on manipulation (i.e. the fucking media).

while it is probably more popular than the libertarian party, it is undeniably pretty fucking minor in the united states. or are all those people claiming to be democracts and republicans lying about it?

They aren't really an export, because we expect them back once you're done with them.
That's just a given. Everyone knows most Canadian beavers have been pre-used by Americans anyways! :p

That's just a giveen. Everyone knows most Canadian beavers have been pre-used by Americans anyways! :p
Ha! Not this indigenous beaver! Untouched, unsullied, unused by any USian! Until I finally meet Sumamba in Vegas.

wow. not going to add any more directed insults.. but it seems to me that the entire "name calling" thing has gotten to be like a bunch of children trying to get the last insult in during a school yard fight. be the better man. drop it and get back on topic.
Ah, you see, there's a context. He's actually cool with it, it was established a few threads ago. You're a relative newcomer here and you mightn't know it.
For example, until he gives ME one, i'm fine with Honky Straughn.
I could give you the links if you so desired ... but that would be "just a bit outside". Furthemore, i was entirely on topic.

Yeah, I know. BUT I did apologize for the confusion. I just won't apologize for other people jumping down my throat like I just slapped their mother. (which I might have done. I have no idea who that lady was)
What, were you waving your arms rather excitedly and she got in the way, or were you airing out deodorant? :D

while it is probably more popular than the libertarian party, it is undeniably pretty fucking minor in the united states. or are all those people claiming to be democracts and republicans lying about it?

Well, you can either trust me, a local anarchist that is involved in many solidarities and groups that hold members in pretty nice numbers that are anarchists of different disciplines, or you can trust politicians you oppose... Whatever.

9-11
http://www.september11news.com/
Madrid Bombing
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/madrid.bombing/
London Bombing
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/07/1341206
Russian School hostages
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/01/russia.school/
Swisair Flight 330
Swissair Bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_330)
Beruit Bombing 1983
US Embassy Bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1983_US_Embassy_bombing)


well
List of Terrorist Attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks)

I dont see very many "poor" countries on that list. just rich targets that were used to get their point across.

*edit: accidentaly cut off the links.

Ha! Not this indigenous beaver! Untouched, unsullied, unused by any USian! Until I finally meet Sumamba in Vegas.


Booyah! And I'll be stuffing that beaver after my first trophy hunt. Don't worry though, I will definitely eat what I catch.

Basically, it boils down to a lesson we all learn in pre-school. If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all.

And before the "free speech" crowd starts whining, it is MY right of free speech to say that.
Your second hilarious irony of the thread. Using freedom of speech to call for restrictions on freedom of speech.

Face it mate, your use of the word "pnwed" makes you look stupid, and you LOSE at spelling.
Can't everyone just calm the fuck down!

And frankly I think that the notion that the populace NEEDS to live in fear simply to satisfy a desire for a more grateful opinion of the military is specious logic.
Not at all. It's totalitarianism.

I assumed that most people in here knew me well enough by now to know my views of innocent people being killed.
Yeah. The same as probably 98% of other posters here. Everyone is against innocent people being killed.

I daresay you are : male
overtly masculine (cf; insecure)
intellectually challenged
scared of the world beyond the good ol' US of A

It doesn't matter what Man in Black is like. We ought to put holes in his arguments. Not put holes in his character. This is no place for setting up personal attacks.

What, were you waving your arms rather excitedly and she got in the way, or were you airing out deodorant? :D
She was a Liberal. I felt that was plent enough of a reason. ;)

Booyah! And I'll be stuffing that beaver after my first trophy hunt. Don't worry though, I will definitely eat what I catch.

Good domestic policy

I dont see very many "poor" countries on that list. just rich targets that were used to get their point across.

*edit: accidentaly cut off the links.
How bout Kenya? Indonesia? India or Pakistan?

Attacks in poor countries tend to be less reported, I'll give ya that.

She was a Liberal. I felt that was plent enough of a reason. ;)
I didn't know you were Canadian.

No, but Quebec (http://www.maplesyrupstore.com/) is, and it produces 75% of the world's supply of Maple Syrup. Vermont shmermont.

And yet Quebec keeps trying to get away from Canada. ;)

I dont see very many "poor" countries on that list. just rich targets that were used to get their point across.

*edit: accidentaly cut off the links.
Right. Well, since you crave information, here you go.

Terrorist attacks in Africa. (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_98/africa.htm)

Terrorism in Asia (http://fas.org/irp/threat/terror_98/asia.htm).

Terrorism in Eurasia (http://fas.org/irp/threat/terror_98/eurasia.htm).

Terrorism in Europe (http://fas.org/irp/threat/terror_98/europe.htm)...and no, not all European countries are 'rich'.

Terrorism in Latin America (http://fas.org/irp/threat/terror_98/latin.htm).

Terrorism in the Middle East (http://fas.org/irp/threat/terror_98/mideast.htm).

Just because you aren't aware of these things going on in other nations, doesn't mean they aren't happening. You get coverage of the most sensational attacks, and the attacks aimed at your country. Most terrorism goes uncommented on. And most of it happens in poor nations.

It doesn't matter what Man in Black is like. We ought to put holes in his arguments. Not put holes in his character. This is no place for setting up personal attacks.Kind of like this one?

She was a Liberal. I felt that was plent enough of a reason.
? :D

Oooookay...chill.
These, sorry, what was it? "The little fucks"? The ones in colleges? Across America?
Um, yeah, they're not protesting not having a military. They're protesting the actions taken by the military. Nobody is spitting in the faces of the US soldiers. The VAST majority of anti-war activists respect what the American soldiers are enduring. Simply, it's their job, and they can't so simply refuse to do it, no matter what they personally believe.
That being said, they are protesting America's abuse of it's military's power. As the world's "only superpower" (a claim which I heavily dispute), America has seen fit to push it's personal agenda on the world. A Pax Americana, if you will, has taken a hold in the United States. Many political philosophers throughout history have stated that the best government for a nation is the one it forms itself.
Now, THAT being said, let's establish this: hardly anybody who was against the war was for Saddam Hussein. We all know he's an evil bastard. But that does not give the United States the right to topple him, least of all when they've installed dictators and assisted in military coups that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, likely in the millions, of people worldwide. Example? Brazil...Iran...Guatemala...Nicaragua...the list goes on. Even if America didn't install the dictators, they certainly supported them if they thought it could help them. Example (a very good one, too): Batista, Cuban dictator until the Che/Fidel uprising.
Saddam Hussein had, for 11 years, been silent. Little word had reached American ears about continued atrocities in Iraq directly commited by the dictator. In fact, I'm pretty sure Saudi Arabia, your best buddies in the MidEast after Israel, had more human rights violations. Your sanctions of Iraq killed millions of Iraqis, including children. You GIVING Iraq it's chemical and biological weapons in the 80s to kill Iranians with caused Saddam's dreams to be realized.
And now, with the more minor of the tripartite "axis of evil" of the list, who's next? Atomic Iran? Nuclear North Korea? Either way, if you're dealing with a guy who has WMDs, the last thing you want is to invade them in case, God forbid, he USES them on your soldiers. Hmm, wait a sec, didn't Saddam have WMDs of some sort? Curious...
The little college fucks, my good friend, are not against a military, but of course, having an end to all military action worldwide would be good. In fact, many of them support the American troops. It's the people who sent them that they are against. In an attempt to keep my part in this lively debate civil, I will refrain from throwing terms at you such as "ignorant", "close-minded", "brainwashed", "arrogant", "hypocritical", or any of those sorts, and believe me, there are many. Instead, recall the words of my favourite orator: "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent". I will only implore you to understand that the world is not focused between San Francisco in the West and Boston in the East, the 49th Parallel in the North and the Rio Grande in the South. And of course, lest we forget Alaska and Hawaii. My friend, if ever an Iron Curtain were to descend across not just a continent, but the world, that's where it is now. And keep in mind, especially if you've ever been to Disney World, it's a small world after all (and we're not all that different):fluffle: .

I dont see very many "poor" countries on that list. just rich targets that were used to get their point across.

perhaps we should look at a more complete list?

http://www.tkb.org/NCTC/RegionReportModule.jsp

I not only find this discussion moot, but inanely infantile. As a hobbyist military historian and a Humanities/Political Science student, I can state almost a thousand reasons why your little theory of "America needs to be attacked" is a load of bull. Think about what you're saying for a moment.

A) You're talking the youth being rebellious. SAY IT AIN'T SO! Look, history's not as pretty as you and the rest of the world make it out to be. A lot of it's cleaned up. Hell, I talk about WWII like it was an age of heroes... which in a way it was, but not in any way because of the youth, but because individual human acheivement has given way to political/societal progress. You're going to have rebels in every generation. And they're not wrong to be, either! Sometimes, war is fucking senseless. Mind my language, but it just is!

B) Have you even LOOKED at the effects of the conflicts in the last century? For every 'justified and glorious' war that has cropped up, the death tolls have been staggering, the economic benefits dubious (hell we're STILL trying to rebalance Europe post-WWII/Cold War) and the effects on society as a whole ridiculous. We've got everything from mass isolationism to disparaged youth to complete restructuring of the family unit, over and over again. Do you really think the screwed family unit and a huge number of psychological problems don't have their basis in war?

C) The only two reasons I can think of for America to be attacked is a) to destroy it utterly, end Pax Americana, plunge society into centuries of slow regress and start the fuck over. b) to wake the American people up as to the fact that no one really LIKES THEM VERY MUCH (no one really likes the top dog ever very much) and c) to complete the Marxist cycle from feudalism -> capitalism -> revolution -> proletariat just because it'd be the most unexpected and ridiculous thing in the world. And the third one isn't really a reason, I just thought it would be funny.

D) Shut up. Just SHUT UP. People who don't think before opening their gobs make the rest of humanity look bad.

And most of it happens in poor nations.

unless haiti has suddenly become the richest and most powerful nation in north america

perhaps we should look at a more complete list?

http://www.tkb.org/NCTC/RegionReportModule.jsp
Can you become the retroactive father of my children?

This page (http://www.tkb.org/NCTC/VictimNatlReportModule.jsp) also nicely outlines victims of terrorism by nationality. Tell me, are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Colombia, India, Eritrea, Nepal and the Phillipines considered 'rich nations'? Because they are the nations with some of the highest numbers of victims of terrorism.

unless haiti has suddenly become the richest and most powerful nation in north america
It's entirely possible. Maybe we just weren't looking?

I not only find this discussion moot, but inanely infantile. As a hobbyist military historian and a Humanities/Political Science student, I can state almost a thousand reasons why your little theory of "America needs to be attacked" is a load of bull. Think about what you're saying for a moment.

A) You're talking the youth being rebellious. SAY IT AIN'T SO! Look, history's not as pretty as you and the rest of the world make it out to be. A lot of it's cleaned up. Hell, I talk about WWII like it was an age of heroes... which in a way it was, but not in any way because of the youth, but because individual human acheivement has given way to political/societal progress. You're going to have rebels in every generation. And they're not wrong to be, either! Sometimes, war is fucking senseless. Mind my language, but it just is!

B) Have you even LOOKED at the effects of the conflicts in the last century? For every 'justified and glorious' war that has cropped up, the death tolls have been staggering, the economic benefits dubious (hell we're STILL trying to rebalance Europe post-WWII/Cold War) and the effects on society as a whole ridiculous. We've got everything from mass isolationism to disparaged youth to complete restructuring of the family unit, over and over again. Do you really think the screwed family unit and a huge number of psychological problems don't have their basis in war?

C) The only two reasons I can think of for America to be attacked is a) to destroy it utterly, end Pax Americana, plunge society into centuries of slow regress and start the fuck over. b) to wake the American people up as to the fact that no one really LIKES THEM VERY MUCH (no one really likes the top dog ever very much) and c) to complete the Marxist cycle from feudalism -> capitalism -> revolution -> proletariat just because it'd be the most unexpected and ridiculous thing in the world.

D) Shut up. Just SHUT UP. People who don't think before opening their gobs make the rest of humanity look bad.


Bravo and hehe!

unless haiti has suddenly become the richest and most powerful nation in north america
They certainly are rich in culture! ;)

Anybody else notice the unussually high number of new posters in this thread?

HHHHHHHhhhhhhhmmmmmmmm.............

It's entirely possible. Maybe we just weren't looking?
Maybe THAT'S WHERE THE WMD'S WENT! *gasp* :eek:

EDIT:

I want to apologize for the above joke. I should have been more cautious.


What i meant to say, and from here on, is ...

Maybe THAT'S WHERE THE W'sMD WENT! *gasp* :eek:
There, fixed for accuracy.

Anybody else notice the unussually high number of new posters in this thread?

HHHHHHHhhhhhhhmmmmmmmm.............

Your point being...?

Anybody else notice the unussually high number of new posters in this thread?

HHHHHHHhhhhhhhmmmmmmmm.............

I've been out of NS for a while, mostly attending to my studies and other matters. Besides, uninformed opinions make me squirm. I just felt this thread warranted a rant since it was so ridiculously dumb. And I came in reading the thread almost expecting to find the opposite childish opinion of abject anti-Americanism, but this is almost worse. In fact it is worse. I'm not a big fan of the United States anyway. I'm not really a big fan of any nation, by way of politics, though some are far better off than others.

Now I'm going to sleep for a good thirteen hours, I've been up near three days solid writing ridiculously complex papers.

MIB needs to live in Iran for a while so he can appreciate what liberalism has done for him.

Your point being...?
It usually means that people are rushing off to create puppets so they can post ignorant things and 'get away with it', or to 'back themselves up' by agreeing...with themselves. Purile puppetry.

It usually means that people are rushing off to create puppets so they can post ignorant things and 'get away with it', or to 'back themselves up' by agreeing...with themselves. Purile puppetry.

Ah yes, that makes sense...
Just for the record, I'm real.

Ah yes, that makes sense...
Just for the record, I'm real.
*hums J-Lo ...*
*gets sick of it quick and instead thinks about her body*

Ok, now don't get your panties in a bunch. Let me explain myself.

The reason I think that the United States needs to be attacked is so that all these clueless kids growing up today can know what it means to be without a military.

I'm frankly getting sick of the Iraq war clouding peoples minds as to how immensely important Americas military is. I'm sick of the little fucks in colleges across America saying that the Military shouldn't be glorified for "killing people", yet they have no idea why the killing is done, and the fact that 99% of the Military would die happy never firing a shot in anger.

The kids in America are spoiled to a dangerous degree. They are too stupid to see that the Military is the reason they can sit in their cosy classrooms and learn how to hate the Troops.

What has happened in America? How can so many young people hate the very institution that has protected them, their parents, their grandparents, and beyond.


EDIT - For all the "slow" people in here, this was a tongue in cheek remark about us needing to be attacked, but obviously your vitriol gets in the way of any rational thought. Anyone who says they truly think I want the U.S. attacked, I call them liars, because you all know my views, and your lack of interpretive skills shows too well in your ignorance.

Imbecile, you never lived in a war, and I hope you never will. No military should be glorified. Plus, there are other institutions protecting the population, such as the police amongst others, which are not related to the military which all it's existance is based on the act of murdering foreign peoples through wars. That is, of cource, aplicable to all countries.

Imbecile, you never lived in a war, and I hope you never will. No military should be glorified. Plus, there are other institutions protecting the population, such as the police amongst others, which are not related to the military which all it's existance is based on the act of murdering foreign peoples through wars. That is, of cource, aplicable to all countries.
And you are?

And you are?
You should be asking..."and you are the puppet of...?"

You should be asking..."and you are the puppet of...?"
That was the jist of it. ;)

anyway... plz dont bomb ireland.. that might give me and alod of other people. an ACTUAL reason to hate the us.. i wouldnt like that.. i like your accents... but sadly cant hear my own besides we let you guys use shannon airport.. anyway. em oh yeah meh irans probably just looking for nuclear power ..sure there maybe some bombs.. but they wont use em, their presedent is just a weird poster boy for whast cool now (anti us) , you see they have weekly anti america rallys there.. where they burn flags.. but when i was there with a yank friend ( excuse the term yank.. its just short) a load of school girls wouldnt stop teasing him and talking to him.. and a shit load of ppl were amazed to meet a real life american.. it was pretty cool, .. em ..what would work better than getting attacked would be using the military as an example of well.. order and juctice... not head cracking.. most americans seem to be really patriotic.. so the problem doesnt seem to be about support to the army but how its being used. A big thing is the set up of your army.. its designed to take aprt other armies and abuse them roughly from behind.. so its bound to be used to do just that... i wouldnt sugest an other attack.. its just more griev and screaming and sorrow.. that i wouldnt like to have to tell my kid what it was like in the future :)

Just for this thread, I will be joining Cindy Sheehan and others in an anti-war protest in downtown Houston right in front of Barbara Bush's favorite church.

Monday at 4! Look for me on the news!

Just for this thread, I will be joining Cindy Sheehan and others in an anti-war protest in downtown Houston right in front of Barbara Bush's favorite church.

Monday at 4! Look for me on the news!
Congrats, you just lost the respect I had for you. Does Cindy love Che too?



EDIT - And will Stormfront be there too? They seem to like those rallies.

Congrats, you just lost the respect I had for you. Does Cindy love Che too?

I never wanted or needed your respect. Besides, I never had it. I'm a Communist and a Radical Leftist. You want me silenced.

I don't know Cindy. I just know she'll be there monday.

I never wanted or needed your respect. Besides, I never had it. I'm a Communist and a Radical Leftist. You want me silenced.

I don't know Cindy. I just know she'll be there monday.
I don't want you silenced. I just want you to wake up to the real world, and quit trying to poison people with the silliness that is communism. ;)

I don't want you silenced. I just want you to wake up to the real world, and quit trying to poison people with the silliness that is communism. ;)

And I want the same for you about Nationalistic Capitalist Imperialism. ;)

And I want the same for you about Nationalistic Capitalist Imperialism. ;)
At least my system has been demonstrated to work! :D


And by the way, as much as we disagree, and as much as I sometimes want to punch you in the face, I honestly do respect you for holding onto your ideals, however misguided they may be. ;)

EDIT - For all the "slow" people in here, this was a tongue in cheek remark about us needing to be attacked, but obviously your vitriol gets in the way of any rational thought. Anyone who says they truly think I want the U.S. attacked, I call them liars, because you all know my views, and your lack of interpretive skills shows too well in your ignorance.

OUR vitriol disrupting rational thought. You must have a hell of a set of braces to have a mouth that irony.

It might interest you to know that our immense military has been considered a detriment to our democracy for most of our history. Those "little fucks" in colleges across the country are of a mind with our founding fathers, including the military general George Washington, who knew that a large standing army in peacetime is an invitation to tyranny.

We didn't have a large standing army in the interwar period, and when pearl harbor happened we armed and mobilized at a shot and kicked major ass. A large standing military force is nothing more than a drain on the economy and a dangerous temptation to do things like, oh let's get crazy for a minute, invade unarmed nations to control their natural resources. Crazy shit like that.

Perhaps if you tried signing up for some of the classes that those "little fucks" are taking you might be a little less inclined to side with the big fucks who are of a mind with the various fascist dictators (I'm specifically NOT reffering to Hitler) in modern history who see a powerful standing army and imperialist ambitions as a symbol of national glory.

They certainly are rich in culture! ;)

and, recently, assassinations

Right, well i've looked through most of the terrorist attacks you linked and it seems to me that you missed the point of what i was trying to say. in most of the cases it was a Rich, Powerful country being attacked. the attacks may have happened in poor countries but they were targeted at the larger more infuential ones. I wasnt saying that the attacks didnt happen IN poor countries. i was saying they didnt happen TO poor countries. they dont strike the countries that have no influence. when was the last time somebody bombed the austrilian embassy in germany.. if there is one.. i dunno.

At least my system has been demonstrated to work! :D


Lol ... for now. But just you wait!

And by the way, as much as we disagree, and as much as I sometimes want to punch you in the face, I honestly do respect you for holding onto your ideals, however misguided they may be. ;)

Aye ... and the feeling is mutual.

At least my system has been demonstrated to work! :D


And by the way, as much as we disagree, and as much as I sometimes want to punch you in the face, I honestly do respect you for holding onto your ideals, however misguided they may be. ;)

I never understood this "holding to your ideals" crap. There's nothing inherently good about holding to ideals when they're retarded and perverse. I don't respect e.g. George Bush for refusing to change his mind based on new, or indeed any, evidence. This whole inverse idealism bullshit is one of the most annoying pseudo virtues out there. It's essentially elevating willful ignorance laudability. Willful ignornace is a character flaw, not a merit.

It's right up there with that whole "he's just being honest," or "she's has the courage to be who she is," when talking about people like Simon Cowel or Anna Nicole Smith respectivly. When who you are is an obnoxious jackass or an indolent whore then you could stand be be a little less yourself and a bit more of a phoney. As Dave Chapell put it, "it's good to be real sometimes, it's good to be phoney sometimes... Sometimes, keepin' it real goes horribly wrong."

BTW, this isn't intended as an attack on anyone here, unless one of you happens to be Anna Nicole Smith, just a bit of a rant on the idea of respecting, for its own sake, something that is not inherently good.

Lol ... for now. But just you wait!
I will! (in wealth and comfort :D )



Aye ... and the feeling is mutual.
Well, if we can can get along, maybe the world isn't doomed. ;)

Congrats, you just lost the respect I had for you. Does Cindy love Che too?



EDIT - And will Stormfront be there too? They seem to like those rallies.

What are you talking about? Stormfront is a right-wing hate group.

-snip-


Wow, total loss of respect for you. Seriously, more innocent people need to die "to teach these college kids a lesson? That is the most absurd thing I have heard in a long time. Like me saying "well you need to hit that newborn baby with a baseball bat, to teach it a lesson for all that whinning its doing".

Another thing, our military is for DEFENSIVE purposes, not to go around and invade everyone that disagrees with our ideology. Who or what gives a right to do that? NO ONE! Every nation should be able to beleive what it will, with out fear of the OL' US coming in and invading and putting in a new "democracy".

And if we ever get attacked again, I hope that you are the first on the front lines,getting your ass shot at.

*sigh* not all societies are perfect. the arab culture has its Al'Queda.. the industrialized world has.. stormfront. what if we could just lock them all in a room together. that would be great. seriously.. lock all the extreme right, extreme left, racist, bigoted, ultra religious.. etc.. people in one huuge (airtight) room. toss a few baseball bats in.. wait about 2 hours... and everybody thats left should be able to get along without killing eachother. can still be debates and difference of opinion but hopefully not to the degree that people are willing to kill over it.

Exhibit A :rolleyes:

I'll up your ante and say this. The army, like any other branch of the government, is a tool, like a hammer or a saw. And said tool has a specific function. You don't use hammers to open cans and you don't use knives as prybars. Generally, the militaries primary function boils down to a few things. Blowing things up.

By itself, the military shouldn't do anything beyond day to day operations. You don't see your hammer walking up to hit nails all by itself do you? Now, who holds that hammer? That would be the executive branch of the government. Unless there's a coup de tat of course, but that's another story.

So yes, the military IS a tool. Specifically a tool for the executive branch to wield as it see's fit. Much of the responsibility for the results of the use of the tool, barring defects of course, lies within the wielder of the tool and no one else.

War is a continuation of politics by other means.

I don't want you silenced. I just want you to wake up to the real world, and quit trying to poison people with the silliness that is communism. ;)

You want people to die so that you can silence opposition to the military! Of COURSE you want him silenced as well, just as you want me, and anyone that disagrees with you, silenced.

War is a continuation of politics by other means.
You're quite right in stating that war never must be seen as a purpose to itself. I can agree with that sentiment :)

Just for this thread, I will be joining Cindy Sheehan and others in an anti-war protest in downtown Houston right in front of Barbara Bush's favorite church.

Monday at 4! Look for me on the news!
You Go-gurt!!!

At least my system has been demonstrated to work! :D


And by the way, as much as we disagree, and as much as I sometimes want to punch you in the face, I honestly do respect you for holding onto your ideals, however misguided they may be. ;)
Awesome. It's about time we saw something like this. :fluffle:

Aye ... and the feeling is mutual.

Well, if we can can get along, maybe the world isn't doomed.

and, recently, assassinations
Call that "intrigue" ... looks better on the jacket. *nods*
Might want to skip the garbage-sifting part as well.

I don't see why HiB bothered with the long blathering post.

George Orwell made the same point with just three words:

War is Peace

I don't see why HiB bothered with the long blathering post.

George Orwell made the same point with just three words:

War is Peace
Because I'm blathery by nature. ;)

To back off of middle east saying "sorry, we wanted to give you democracy, but, on second tought, you wouldn't know what to do with it" would be another lesson in humor, but, on second tought, they wouldn't know what to do with it.

Haven't read the whole thread, am pretty sure my views have already been stated: don't care, want to state them anyway.

Eisenhower: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Edward R. Murrow: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it."

Harry S Truman: "Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."

The Iraq War is a prime example of a military action made by our country that has made our country less safe in the aftermath of 9/11. Supporting the troops has nothing to do with taking the leaders of America to task for misleading the military. The only good that has come from it is to give a conclusion to Gulf War I by taking out a dicatator who should have been removed over a decade ago.

It's opinion: fine. We're all entitled to our own. But leaving the military unchecked to fight wars based on whatever administration is currently in power is madness. We have a right in our freedom to demand that the government we've chosen to represent us be burdened by the weight of truth. Serious questions about who we are fighting and why demands serious answers by those who led us into the fight.

There is much more to supporting troops than just closing your eyes and leaving them in the hands of whomever is in power.