NationStates Jolt Archive

Couldn't have said it better myself...
http://men.msn.com/articlees.aspx?cp-documentid=3042293&GT1=9212

Makes me think that Hemingway was right all along.

"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter."

Bloodlust is a temptation of the devil.

So you've served in Iraq?

So you've served in Iraq?

Twice.

That really is an amazing piece of writing.

Twice.

and you did it for the thrill of hunting humans legally?

Twice.

GW1 or this one?

GW1 or this one?

Both.

Both.

Fair enough...good article and well written.

I agree with the statement that warfare is the ultimate source of life experience. You see things that you never would have wanted to but it gives you a greater sense of reality in the world. Pictures of a dead, mutilated body do not do it justice. Writing cannot express the emotions involved in killing or in sending a man to his death. But all of the horrible things experienced in combat make the high points all the better. After 7 months deployed in a FOB a simple hot meal becomes the best food that you have ever consumed. A warm bed becomes something that seems worth millions. It completely changes your outlook on life and i think that it makes you a more well-rounded person.

It's pretty much like those who do extreme sports. For the rush apparently.

How much you want to bet those who miss it the most will start killing people at near random just for the rush? Like drug addicts, except their rush comes from killing and being nearly killed.

It's pretty much like those who do extreme sports. For the rush apparently.

How much you want to bet those who miss it the most will start killing people at near random just for the rush? Like drug addicts, except their rush comes from killing and being nearly killed.

The act of killing is not addicting. The adrenaline rush of combat however can be. As well as the brotherhood of war.

It completely changes your outlook on life and i think that it makes you a more well-rounded person.

You are stupid.

I agree with the statement that warfare is the ultimate source of life experience. You see things that you never would have wanted to but it gives you a greater sense of reality in the world. Pictures of a dead, mutilated body do not do it justice. Writing cannot express the emotions involved in killing or in sending a man to his death. But all of the horrible things experienced in combat make the high points all the better. After 7 months deployed in a FOB a simple hot meal becomes the best food that you have ever consumed. A warm bed becomes something that seems worth millions. It completely changes your outlook on life and i think that it makes you a more well-rounded person.

Combat hardships certainly can make you appreciative of the everyday things in life. I also think it gives you a sense of thankfullness for your own life, and many times a determination not to waste that life.

You are stupid.

Careful or he'll threaten to kill you and get deleted again. Although at least my arguments with him had some style to them. Yours needs improvement.

Well, even war does have its pros.

I agree with the statement that warfare is the ultimate source of life experience. You see things that you never would have wanted to but it gives you a greater sense of reality in the world. Pictures of a dead, mutilated body do not do it justice. Writing cannot express the emotions involved in killing or in sending a man to his death. But all of the horrible things experienced in combat make the high points all the better. After 7 months deployed in a FOB a simple hot meal becomes the best food that you have ever consumed. A warm bed becomes something that seems worth millions. It completely changes your outlook on life and i think that it makes you a more well-rounded person.

I have to agree with you there. It does different things to different people. However it did change me to a point I don't take things for granted. I believe it makes me try harder in life now then before. I also find pleasure in things that most people take for granted.

Couldn't have said it better myself...
http://men.msn.com/articlees.aspx?cp-documentid=3042293&GT1=9212

Makes me think that Hemingway was right all along.

"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter."

See, the fact that you've served twice while Deep Kimchi was merely a member of the 101st Fighting Keyboards proves you are not him once and for all.

This is also partially why I will never join the military...I don't want the possibility of that bloodlust seeping into my being, corrupting my way of thinking to the point where I might murder someone just to feel it again...

The act of killing is not addicting. The adrenaline rush of combat however can be. As well as the brotherhood of war.

No, no, no. Not just killing alone. As proven by some of the people who were quoted back, it was the rush of killing AND nearly being killed. So while they probably won't become serial killers in the stalker sense, there's a possibility that they might turn to violent crime to get their 'fix' of war.

See, the fact that you've served twice while Deep Kimchi was merely a member of the 101st Fighting Keyboards proves you are not him once and for all.

Supposedly DK claimed to have served as well though he never proved it.

After 7 months deployed in a FOB a simple hot meal becomes the best food that you have ever consumed. A warm bed becomes something that seems worth millions.
I've heard the same kind of things from formally homeless people. That doesn't make homelessness good.
The fact that such simple things would take on such great value is evidence enough of the terrible physiological impact of war.
It completely changes your outlook on life and i think that it makes you a more well-rounded person.
Even if true, that is no excuse for killing another human being.
As well as the brotherhood of war.
What brotherhood is there in killing your fellow man?

It's why Leto has fish-speakers.

No, no, no. Not just killing alone. As proven by some of the people who were quoted back, it was the rush of killing AND nearly being killed. So while they probably won't become serial killers in the stalker sense, there's a possibility that they might turn to violent crime to get their 'fix' of war.

Never heard of that happening and i seriously doubt that it would. It is the rush of nearly being killed much more than that of killing that I guess is addictive.

I've heard the same kind of things from formally homeless people. That doesn't make homelessness good.
The fact that such simple things would take on such great value is evidence enough of the terrible physiological impact of war.
Homelessness for a few months might make you more appreciative of your life but i agree that it isn't good for your entire life.

Even if true, that is no excuse for killing another human being.
Self-defense? Defending children?

What brotherhood is there in killing your fellow man?

Going through one of the hardest things that you ever will with a small group of people and being alive because of those people.

You are stupid.

Says the kid who has never been to war.

Cool it before it gets any hotter, folks.

The author of that article talks of being unable to readapt to civilian life, and I think that that's a sad thing - that the people sent out to defend a way of life can't fully integrate back into that way of life when it's over.

In Starship Troopers, Heinlein's fictional Human government extended suffrage only to people who'd served a tour of duty in the military - precisely because it changes the way people think. Heinlein evidently thought that they were better people because of it; but the point is that veterans evidently do think differently.

Whether they're better people or not I don't know; I don't have personal knowledge of enough military personnel to make that judgement.

For the record, I am a pacifist and have no intention (or history) of undertaking military service. But I think it's important to try to understand those who do.

Pong satisfies my lust for blood quite nicely thank you very much.

Never heard of that happening and i seriously doubt that it would. It is the rush of nearly being killed much more than that of killing that I guess is addictive.

So how do you explain those who are unable to re-adapt to non-combat lives and usually end up killing themselves, and sometimes their families first?

See, the fact that you've served twice while Deep Kimchi was merely a member of the 101st Fighting Keyboards proves you are not him once and for all...


I'm a tad offended at the 'Fighting Keyboards' remark. At least call us the 'Barfing Buzzards'.

I can think of a number of reasons where killing is nessecary. While I can see where the pacifists are coming from, I'm not convinced that getting mowed down and killed on its own will defeat aggression.

See, the fact that you've served twice while Deep Kimchi was merely a member of the 101st Fighting Keyboards proves you are not him once and for all.

This is also partially why I will never join the military...I don't want the possibility of that bloodlust seeping into my being, corrupting my way of thinking to the point where I might murder someone just to feel it again...
That's funny. You can make some incredibly bad assumptions. DK and I were both in Desert Storm/Shield. Different places -- I don't know the man but his stories all make sense.

The author and the vets are right. There's something missing after you fly that last mission and you don't log any more flights in green ink. It isn't the killing, of course, it's the danger. And the thrill of cheating death, once again. I would come back after a flight so wound up that I couldn't sleep. Far worse than anything that I had experienced around the ship. Night carrier landings get the adrenaline up, too, but not quite like a barrage of AAA.

Don't worry, pacifists, it isn't the killing we miss. It's the adrenaline. Killing without danger wouldn't do it. More than a few of my friends have started doing dangerous things, just to recapture a little of that rush. I'm not quite so foolish as to put myself so far into harm's way again. Posting here provides all the adrenaline rush that I need.

But all of the horrible things experienced in combat make the high points all the better. After 7 months deployed in a FOB a simple hot meal becomes the best food that you have ever consumed. A warm bed becomes something that seems worth millions. It completely changes your outlook on life and i think that it makes you a more well-rounded person.Such experience can be gained outside of combat, and without having to kill another person. I speak from my own experience here.

Being able to drink water out of the tap without having to boil it first; actually having any running water in your house; paper manufactured for the express purpose of being toilet paper; being able to go down to the supermarket and buy whatever fruit or vegetables you want without having to rely on the time of year and how well crops have grown; being able to communicate complex ideas and concepts to other people.

That's funny. You can make some incredibly bad assumptions. DK and I were both in Desert Storm/Shield. Different places -- I don't know the man but his stories all make sense.

The author and the vets are right. There's something missing after you fly that last mission and you don't log any more flights in green ink. It isn't the killing, of course, it's the danger. And the thrill of cheating death, once again. I would come back after a flight so wound up that I couldn't sleep. Far worse than anything that I had experienced around the ship. Night carrier landings get the adrenaline up, too, but not quite like a barrage of AAA.

Don't worry, pacifists, it isn't the killing we miss. It's the adrenaline. Killing without danger wouldn't do it. More than a few of my friends have started doing dangerous things, just to recapture a little of that rush. I'm not quite so foolish as to put myself so far into harm's way again. Posting here provides all the adrenaline rush that I need.

Always thought Myrm, was EO's puppet and now it's confirmed. Another like Corny who thinks that it's bolstering their arguments to have two nations commenting and agreeing with one another. One nation and one poster here as there's no need for me to agree with myself. Maybe EO admits to his tactics.

You miss combat for the adrenaline, not the killing. If you missed the killing you'd just have to be one sick F. Pacifists fundamentally disagree with war and don't care much what your reasons for it are. Neither extreme makes the situation better, but a balanced approach can help. Wars of necessity are the only ones that need to be fought. If you are going to risk death there damn well better be a good reason for it. This is contrary to what our current engagement in Iraq is.

Couldn't have said it better myself...
http://men.msn.com/articlees.aspx?cp-documentid=3042293&GT1=9212

Makes me think that Hemingway was right all along.

"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter."

Oh.My.God.

You should be well-aware you will never be able to explain this or argue your point with people that have no experience with this,other than pictures,flim and second-hand accounts.
Its like you deliberately started a shriek-fest.

Oh.My.God.

You should be well-aware you will never be able to explain this or argue your point with people that have no experience with this,other than pictures,flim and second-hand accounts.
Its like you deliberately started a shriek-fest.
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter."

Distance must make the difference. I barely saw the people that I dropped bombs on. It was mostly at the resolution of an IR camera, but even in the daytime, I would see a tank, several artillery pieces, a runway...Only once, after the fact, did I see a guy running away from a spot I had targeted with an LGB.

So is killing something you miss when it's more personal?

That's funny. You can make some incredibly bad assumptions. DK and I were both in Desert Storm/Shield. Different places -- I don't know the man but his stories all make sense.

The author and the vets are right. There's something missing after you fly that last mission and you don't log any more flights in green ink. It isn't the killing, of course, it's the danger. And the thrill of cheating death, once again. I would come back after a flight so wound up that I couldn't sleep. Far worse than anything that I had experienced around the ship. Night carrier landings get the adrenaline up, too, but not quite like a barrage of AAA.

Don't worry, pacifists, it isn't the killing we miss. It's the adrenaline. Killing without danger wouldn't do it. More than a few of my friends have started doing dangerous things, just to recapture a little of that rush. I'm not quite so foolish as to put myself so far into harm's way again. Posting here provides all the adrenaline rush that I need.

I think this oversimplifies the experience of the military in general. Even people who don't go to war, miss the military when they leave. Guys who return home from boot camp and feel guilty because they don't feel the same comradery with their families and friends that they felt with the guys in their platoon.

I can remember sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner a few days after I left boot camp, one hand on my leg and eyes on my food, eating as fast I could. I felt uncomfortable that people were joking when they were supposed to be eating. So undisciplined. So unaware of the world outside those doors. Their experiences so uncommon to my own.

I still sometimes think I would go back to boot camp for the rest of my life given the option.

That's just boot camp. Fast forward to those events where we risked our lives or the lives of those within our ranks. Shared in common experiences that are so unique to those situations. It's not just adrenaline. It's that at those times, homelessness, war, boot camp, being in the world trade center or any number of other rather unique experiences, our being is so simplified so focused on the mission, whatever mission, survival, getting through boot camp, getting out of the WTC or whatever. Everyone around you is focused on the same thing. Unity of purpose. A simplified and clear purpose in life and everyone around shares in that purpose.

Cocaine has got nothing on that. It's an amazing feeling and attributing it to only danger is to oversimplify the entire experience.

There's something missing after you fly that last mission and you don't log any more flights in green ink. It isn't the killing, of course, it's the danger. And the thrill of cheating death, once again. I would come back after a flight so wound up that I couldn't sleep. Far worse than anything that I had experienced around the ship. Night carrier landings get the adrenaline up, too, but not quite like a barrage of AAA.

Don't worry, pacifists, it isn't the killing we miss. It's the adrenaline. Killing without danger wouldn't do it. More than a few of my friends have started doing dangerous things, just to recapture a little of that rush. I'm not quite so foolish as to put myself so far into harm's way again. Posting here provides all the adrenaline rush that I need.
We should be reassured because people are compelled to foolishly and needlessly endanger themselves in order to merely be content, where if they had not gone to war they would not need to endanger themselves merely to take the edge of their adrennalin withdrawal? Because, hey at least they only like to endanger themselves rather than everyone else around them. It's like telling us we should commend Jack the Ripper for not killing as many people as Stalin did away with. You miss the point if you think the harm done to those who now can no longer be content with the normal and safe life they were sent to war to secure, is of no concern. The way of life they can no longer be content with was worth risking and ending lives for, surely the loss of an ability to be content with such a life is a loss worth being concerned about.

Always thought Myrm, was EO's puppet and now it's confirmed. Another like Corny who thinks that it's bolstering their arguments to have two nations commenting and agreeing with one another. One nation and one poster here as there's no need for me to agree with myself. Maybe EO admits to his tactics.

You miss combat for the adrenaline, not the killing. If you missed the killing you'd just have to be one sick F. Pacifists fundamentally disagree with war and don't care much what your reasons for it are. Neither extreme makes the situation better, but a balanced approach can help. Wars of necessity are the only ones that need to be fought. If you are going to risk death there damn well better be a good reason for it. This is contrary to what our current engagement in Iraq is.

Puppet-wanking is against the rules. If you think he's actually doing that, report him. It's annoying that everyone is constantly claiming these things when it's so easy to prove it is or is not happening. Either defeat him in debate or report him if he's cheating. Otherwise, just let it go.

We should be reassured because people are compelled to foolishly and needlessly endanger themselves in order to merely be content, where if they had not gone to war they would not need to endanger themselves merely to take the edge of their adrennalin withdrawal? Because, hey at least they only like to endanger themselves rather than everyone else around them. It's like telling us we should commend Jack the Ripper for not killing as many people as Stalin did away with. You miss the point if you think the harm done to those who now can no longer be content with the normal and safe life they were sent to war to secure. The way of life they can no longer be content with was worth risking and ending lives for, surely the loss of an ability to be content with such a life is a loss worth being concerned about.

I think his point was that they are not a danger to others, merely themselves. It's not something to be happy about, but it's much different than those that claim that being in a war would cause you to be a violent criminal. For one thing, people who have been in war often have an almost unhealthy obsession with supporting the ideals of their home society, as it justifies their service. Becoming a violent criminal would be an odd way to express such an obsession.

Puppet-wanking is against the rules. If you think he's actually doing that, report him. It's annoying that everyone is constantly claiming these things when it's so easy to prove it is or is not happening. Either defeat him in debate or report him if he's cheating. Otherwise, just let it go.

I don't really mind. If you follow this thread you see Myrm answering a question regarding Deep Kimchi and Eve Online after the response was posted to EO. This is the first response that Myrm had in this thread. Does this seem a little odd to you? I have no problem defeating EO in a debate and really don't mind defeating any number of puppets he would put up. I don't consider it cheating, just lame.

I don't really mind. If you follow this thread you see Myrm answering a question regarding Deep Kimchi and Eve Online after the response was posted to EO. This is the first response that Myrm had in this thread. Does this seem a little odd to you? I have no problem defeating EO in a debate and really don't mind defeating any number of puppets he would put up. I don't consider it cheating, just lame.

You attempt to discredit him with insinuations that you've not done the work to support. If it's true, prove it. If not, then drop it and debate on level ground. Claiming things you don't actually know in order to discredit him is what's lame.

By the way, you do realize that what Myrm said actually supports the idea that EO is DK. Kind of hurts your rather absurd point.

So you've served in Iraq?

Twice.

GW1 or this one?

Both.

See, the fact that you've served twice while Deep Kimchi was merely a member of the 101st Fighting Keyboards proves you are not him once and for all.

This is also partially why I will never join the military...I don't want the possibility of that bloodlust seeping into my being, corrupting my way of thinking to the point where I might murder someone just to feel it again...

That's funny. You can make some incredibly bad assumptions. DK and I were both in Desert Storm/Shield. Different places -- I don't know the man but his stories all make sense.

The author and the vets are right. There's something missing after you fly that last mission and you don't log any more flights in green ink. It isn't the killing, of course, it's the danger. And the thrill of cheating death, once again. I would come back after a flight so wound up that I couldn't sleep. Far worse than anything that I had experienced around the ship. Night carrier landings get the adrenaline up, too, but not quite like a barrage of AAA.

Don't worry, pacifists, it isn't the killing we miss. It's the adrenaline. Killing without danger wouldn't do it. More than a few of my friends have started doing dangerous things, just to recapture a little of that rush. I'm not quite so foolish as to put myself so far into harm's way again. Posting here provides all the adrenaline rush that I need.

This is what leads me to believe there are some strings being pulled. It just seems a little too close for comfort. When one nation answers for another it just seems odd.

I can find better ways to enjoy myself than being shelled, bombed and shot at, thanks.

You attempt to discredit him with insinuations that you've not done the work to support. If it's true, prove it. If not, then drop it and debate on level ground. Claiming things you don't actually know in order to discredit him is what's lame.

By the way, you do realize that what Myrm said actually supports the idea that EO is DK. Kind of hurts your rather absurd point.

Corny posts as both Allegany County2 and Corneliu, that much he has admitted and it presents the false sense that there are two people who agree instead of one. DK, EO, Myrm all seem like the same person to me. Read through and follow my previous multi-posted response. I actually agree with EO, DK, or whomever he's calling himself on this one. I'm not trying to discredit him right at the moment, just pointing out that one name is answering a question directed at the other and it seems odd. Troops do in fact miss the thrill of war and the adrenaline rush it gives. I will debate and disagree on a variety of other topics, but on this one EO and I are lock step. Perhaps you misunderstood my intent here.

"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter."

Distance must make the difference. I barely saw the people that I dropped bombs on. It was mostly at the resolution of an IR camera, but even in the daytime, I would see a tank, several artillery pieces, a runway...Only once, after the fact, did I see a guy running away from a spot I had targeted with an LGB.

So is killing something you miss when it's more personal?

There is a lot more involved when you are in the theatre of combat, when you're an annointed member,in gear,dealing directly with the opponent.Having made the commitment and then living up to it,as your position demands.
I was comparing someone who is directly involved in combat-wether its personally getting the enemy in his site and pulling the trigger,or part of an artillary unit miles away- to someone who sits an ocean away,watching the news and looking at pictures.

Corny posts as both Allegany County2 and Corneliu, that much he has admitted and it presents the false sense that there are two people who agree instead of one. DK, EO, Myrm all seem like the same person to me. Read through and follow my previous multi-posted response. I actually agree with EO, DK, or whomever he's calling himself on this one. I'm not trying to discredit him right at the moment, just pointing out that one name is answering a question directed at the other and it seems odd. Troops do in fact miss the thrill of war and the adrenaline rush it gives. I will debate and disagree on a variety of other topics, but on this one EO and I are lock step. Perhaps you misunderstood my intent here.

No, I recognize it. It's a personal attack against someone you don't like. Actually several people you don't like. And as I said, it's a weak tactic. Are you really going to try to pretend that this is the only topic that matters? What you say about him here will have no bearing on past and future topics? BS.

And if Corny admits that his puppet is his puppet, then it's not against the rules or even wrong. If he's pretending it isn't his puppet then it's against site rules and appoint him. Same with EO. Otherwise, they are just unfounded accusations based on speculation.

I say, based on your views and your tactics that you're Michael Richards. If I go into every thread talking about how your Michael Richards, is that good debate or some lame attempt to discredit you?

You attempt to discredit him with insinuations that you've not done the work to support. If it's true, prove it. If not, then drop it and debate on level ground. Claiming things you don't actually know in order to discredit him is what's lame.

By the way, you do realize that what Myrm said actually supports the idea that EO is DK. Kind of hurts your rather absurd point.
Actually, I'm on the fence about that. The two have much different ways of expressing themselves and Eve has left out bits and pieces that Kimchi would have included by now. On the other hand, DK has been gone for a long time, now that he's in Lazarus, we may see more from him.

I think his point was that they are not a danger to others, merely themselves. It's not something to be happy about, but it's much different than those that claim that being in a war would cause you to be a violent criminal. For one thing, people who have been in war often have an almost unhealthy obsession with supporting the ideals of their home society, as it justifies their service. Becoming a violent criminal would be an odd way to express such an obsession.
I think that was the intended point too. My point however, is suggesting that the average soldier doesnt return from combat a violent criminal isnt really saying anything that doesnt appear rather obvious. If the point was 'the majority dont return as homocidal maniacs bent on killing for thrills', then it's not much of a point because I doubt anyone genuinely holds a contrary belief.

The point that should be at issue is whether or not the people concerned are harmed as a result of their participation in combat. I honestly doubt anyone here truely believes that the majority of people returning from combat come back as violent psycopaths, hence my point that Myrmidonisia's apparent assertion to that effect, isnt really making much of a point at all.

No, I recognize it. It's a personal attack against someone you don't like. Actually several people you don't like. And as I said, it's a weak tactic. Are you really going to try to pretend that this is the only topic that matters? What you say about him here will have no bearing on past and future topics? BS.




This is standard practice now,the constant attempts at outing an individual,regardless of the subject at hand.

As if the witch could have a dozen puppets or just one would reduce your ability to prove your point.

We should be reassured because people are compelled to foolishly and needlessly endanger themselves in order to merely be content, where if they had not gone to war they would not need to endanger themselves merely to take the edge of their adrennalin withdrawal? Because, hey at least they only like to endanger themselves rather than everyone else around them. It's like telling us we should commend Jack the Ripper for not killing as many people as Stalin did away with. You miss the point if you think the harm done to those who now can no longer be content with the normal and safe life they were sent to war to secure, is of no concern. The way of life they can no longer be content with was worth risking and ending lives for, surely the loss of an ability to be content with such a life is a loss worth being concerned about.
Dangerous is a relative thing. Parachuting, motorcycle riding, bungee jumping... All of those pursuits are dangerous in my mind, but are socially acceptable. These are the types of things I see friends doing -- things that I wouldn't do. I prefer standing in a stream of bone-chilling water, trying to outwit a trout.

I think that was the intended point too. My point however, is suggesting that the average soldier doesnt return from combat a violent criminal isnt really saying anything that doesnt appear rather obvious. If the point was 'the majority dont return as homocidal maniacs bent on killing for thrills', then it's not much of a point because I doubt anyone genuinely holds a contrary belief.

The point that should be at issue is whether or not the people concerned are harmed as a result of their participation in combat. I honestly doubt anyone here truely believes that the majority of people returning from combat come back as violent psycopaths, hence my point that Myrmidonisia's apparent assertion to that effect, isnt really making much of a point at all.

Somebody said it. Whether they believed it or not, it commanded a response and got one. That was the point. One needn't take it further than that.

Certainly they are harmed in some ways. I doubt anyone would claim otherwise (which according to you means you shouldn't say it). Certainly they benefit in some ways as well. What is at question is whether one outweighs the other generally or whether it is a personal experience.

Killing Muslims was better than sex. Right Eve?

No, I recognize it. It's a personal attack against someone you don't like. Actually several people you don't like. And as I said, it's a weak tactic. Are you really going to try to pretend that this is the only topic that matters? What you say about him here will have no bearing on past and future topics? BS.

And if Corny admits that his puppet is his puppet, then it's not against the rules or even wrong. If he's pretending it isn't his puppet then it's against site rules and appoint him. Same with EO. Otherwise, they are just unfounded accusations based on speculation.

I say, based on your views and your tactics that you're Michael Richards. If I go into every thread talking about how your Michael Richards, is that good debate or some lame attempt to discredit you?



For the last time... I do not need to discredit him by syaing he's using puppets. Did you see my previous post where I linked to EO and Myrm answering the same questions on different screen names. I'm pretty much pointing out to you by linking his own posts that he's the puppetmaster. Further, I agree with Mrym, EO, whoever in thsi case so I'm not using it to discredit him. I AGREE regarding the missing of combat as I've experienced the same thing at times. Finally, go back and read the multi-post I compiled. There's an exchange between two posters and then the third, myrm answers in place of EO. That is why I think he's using a puppet. So go back and read instead of spouting the same crap at me over and over. If you disagree that this doesn't prove my point then so be it. I'm not quite sure why you're so bent out of shape but bend back.

Here's a recap:

1. read the multipost put together which lead me to beleive a putppet is being used

2. Realize that I agree because after coming back from combat I too missed the rush of the adrenaline when incoming is yelled

3. If you disagree that myrm answering a question for EO doesn't prove puppetry then fine. Either way I made the case and you haven't read it.

4. If I want to discredit EO I'll use his very own stats like Nazz and I did the other day. I also research and find information which proves him to be a hack. I don't give an F is he attacks me on 10 names, I'll still crush him. Comprende? :fluffle:

For the last time... I do not need to discredit him by syaing he's using puppets. Did you see my previous post where I linked to EO and Myrm answering the same questions on different screen names. I'm pretty much pointing out to you by linking his own posts that he's the puppetmaster. Further, I agree with Mrym, EO, whoever in thsi case so I'm not using it to discredit him. I AGREE regarding the missing of combat as I've experienced the same thing at times. Finally, go back and read the multi-post I compiled. There's an exchange between two posters and then the third, myrm answers in place of EO. That is why I think he's using a puppet. So go back and read instead of spouting the same crap at me over and over. If you disagree that this doesn't prove my point then so be it. I'm not quite sure why you're so bent out of shape but bend back.

Here's a recap:

1. read the multipost put together which lead me to beleive a putppet is being used

2. Realize that I agree because after coming back from combat I too missed the rush of the adrenaline when incoming is yelled

3. If you disagree that myrm answering a question for EO doesn't prove puppetry then fine. Either way I made the case and you haven't read it.

4. If I want to discredit EO I'll use his very own stats like Nazz and I did the other day. I also research and find information which proves him to be a hack. I don't give an F is he attacks me on 10 names, I'll still crush him. Comprende? :fluffle:

You do give an F if he attacks you on 10 names. Look at how far you'll go to defend yourself giving an F. So if you'll crush him, then you wouldn't need to go so far to prove this point. It wouldn't matter. However, it's clear it does matter to you. Comprende?

So if you don't need such weak tactics, and you claim you don't, then just stop using them. Right here. Right now. Or keeping trying to explain to me why you're justified in trying to personally discredit him. I don't really care. But they'll never become stronger tactics.

Somebody said it. Whether they believed it or not, it commanded a response and got one. That was the point. One needn't take it further than that.
No one in this thread said it.

Certainly they are harmed in some ways. I doubt anyone would claim otherwise (which according to you means you shouldn't say it).
I expect that between the two of us I am the better acquainted with 'the state of things according to myself'.

Certainly they benefit in some ways as well. What is at question is whether one outweighs the other generally or whether it is a personal experience.
I suspect the reason we have not gotten any further toward answering this question than we were on page one of the thread is because people are too busy trying to establish that not everyone or even the majority of those returning from combat will be compelled by blood-lust to commit violent crimes, even though no one is actually arguing to the contary.

The fact that many people return from combat without developing a penchant for criminality and/or violence they would not otherwise have developed, doesnt appear to be in dispute at all. What might be disputed is whether or not anyone returns from combat with such a penchant, and if so the numbers concerned.

A very well-written and interesting article, but a shame this thread has descended into pointless arguing.

You do give an F if he attacks you on 10 names. Look at how far you'll go to defend yourself giving an F. So if you'll crush him, then you wouldn't need to go so far to prove this point. It wouldn't matter. However, it's clear it does matter to you. Comprende?

So if you don't need such weak tactics, and you claim you don't, then just stop using them. Right here. Right now. Or keeping trying to explain to me why you're justified in trying to personally discredit him. I don't really care. But they'll never become stronger tactics.

Right, I'm done with this silly argument with you as I was just pointing something out. I have no need to discredit EO, he does a fine job of that himself. In the future I'll just be a crybaby and report him for using a puppet. That's all, and then I won't have to hear from you telling me it's a weak tactic. If you have followed any of out previous posts you would understand the need, want, desire to crush EO into the hole from which he came. But I'll let it be. I don't know what your fixation on strong and weak tactics is but it really doesn't matter to me. I agree with the article and the point of the post. I, in an ancillary way just wanted to point out, as others have before me, that it appears EO is using puppets to bolster his claims. Why that got our panties in such a bunch I'm not sure, but I'll just continue my pounding through statistics and ideas. Thank you so much for getting me back on track.

Thanks EO. I am going to forward this article to my friends and family. Perhaps they will begin to understand what we go through on a moment to moment basis in our lives.

No one in this thread said it.
You sure about that? You should probably read the thread before you make provably false statements.

On the first page, no less.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12455171&postcount=11


I expect that between the two of us I am the better acquainted with 'the state of things according to myself'.

Did you not just claim that it needn't be said because no one disagrees. Let's see if you did?

If the point was 'the majority dont return as homocidal maniacs bent on killing for thrills', then it's not much of a point because I doubt anyone genuinely holds a contrary belief.

I go by what you say. If what you say is not what you believe, well, you should make that clear.

I suspect the reason we have not gotten any further toward answering this question than we were on page one of the thread is because people are too busy trying to establish that not everyone or even the majority of those returning from combat will be compelled by blood-lust to commit violent crimes, even though no one is actually arguing to the contary.

Again, not true. Someone did and people clarified and re-clarified as a result. It's really that simple.

The fact that many people return from combat without developing a penchant for criminality and/or violence they would not otherwise have developed, doesnt appear to be in dispute at all. What might be disputed is whether or not anyone returns from combat with such a penchant, and if so the numbers concerned.

Certainly.

Right, I'm done with this silly argument with you as I was just pointing something out. I have no need to discredit EO, he does a fine job of that himself. In the future I'll just be a crybaby and report him for using a puppet. That's all, and then I won't have to hear from you telling me it's a weak tactic. If you have followed any of out previous posts you would understand the need, want, desire to crush EO into the hole from which he came. But I'll let it be. I don't know what your fixation on strong and weak tactics is but it really doesn't matter to me. I agree with the article and the point of the post. I, in an ancillary way just wanted to point out, as others have before me, that it appears EO is using puppets to bolster his claims. Why that got our panties in such a bunch I'm not sure, but I'll just continue my pounding through statistics and ideas. Thank you so much for getting me back on track.

You brought it up. You personally attacked several posters by claiming they are all the same person and then said it was a weak tactic. I simply made you defend yourself on the same grounds. Interesting that my use of the term is a "fixation" while yours isn't.

I'm glad I could help.

Killing Muslims was better than sex. Right Eve?

You should delete this post. Its a pretty stupid statement.

Well, even war does have its pros.

Professionals or not-cons?

I can think of a number of reasons where killing is nessecary. While I can see where the pacifists are coming from, I'm not convinced that getting mowed down and killed on its own will defeat aggression.

The premise, as I understand, is that violence begets aggression. Or vice versa. Regardless, the point being that responding in kind to acts of aggression only results in a continuation of more violence.

You sure about that? You should probably read the thread before you make provably false statements.

You should probably establish what it is you are claiming before claiming something that is not true then thinking something that doesnt substantiate your claim proves it true.

On the first page, no less.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12455171&postcount=11
How much you want to bet those who miss it the most will start killing people at near random just for the rush?
See anything there about a majority there? I dont....looks like a no-match to me. If you intended to demonstrate that some people in the thread might be struggling with differentiating between 'some might' and 'a majority might or will', that was indeed a large part of my point.


Did you not just claim that it needn't be said because no one disagrees. Let's see if you did?
Do you erroneously (and mind numbingly) believe that if it is not worthwhile stating a particular thing no one disagrees with in a particular context that it is therefore never worthwhile to state anything no one disagrees with? I know I dont.

I go by what you say. If what you say is not what you believe, well, you should make that clear.
Really? Because in this instance it looks remarkably as though you have made a false inferrence that requires a logical fallacy in order to be reached.

Again, not true. Someone did and people clarified and re-clarified as a result. It's really that simple.
Really? Then why couldnt you supply a single quote where the position I outlined is argued, rather than supplying one where a more moderate and less ridiculous one is being argued? Could it be because the more moderate and less ridiculous argument is the only one of the two that actually has been made in this thread?

Certainly.

Always thought Myrm, was EO's puppet and now it's confirmed. Another like Corny who thinks that it's bolstering their arguments to have two nations commenting and agreeing with one another. One nation and one poster here as there's no need for me to agree with myself. Maybe EO admits to his tactics.

You miss combat for the adrenaline, not the killing. If you missed the killing you'd just have to be one sick F. Pacifists fundamentally disagree with war and don't care much what your reasons for it are. Neither extreme makes the situation better, but a balanced approach can help. Wars of necessity are the only ones that need to be fought. If you are going to risk death there damn well better be a good reason for it. This is contrary to what our current engagement in Iraq is.

Can you define this, at all times, in all circumstances? In relation to international affairs? In relation to public opinion? In relation to national interests? To those of your neighbors? To your citizens? Can you at any time assign greater importance or legitimacy to any of these considerations?

You should delete this post. Its a pretty stupid statement.

In what way? (No I'm not going to delete it.)

You should probably establish what it is you are claiming before claiming something that is not true then thinking something that doesnt substantiate your claim proves it true.



See anything there about a majority there? I dont....looks like a no-match to me. If you intended to demonstrate that some people in the thread might be struggling with differentiating between 'some might' and 'a majority might or will', that was indeed a large part of my point.

Do you erroneously (and mind numbingly) believe that if it is not worthwhile stating a particular thing no one disagrees with in a particular context that it is therefore never worthwhile to state anything no one disagrees with? I know I dont.

Get ready for it... ready for it... I was wrong. We at that point had gotten so far from it that I think it became lost. It didn't say or imply the majority. It is, however, what sparked that series of points, claifications, about the feeling that a majority DO return with. It should also be noted that several other posters tried to equate missing the comradery of war with missing the killing.

Meanwhile, take it easy. Are you trying to put me on the defensive? I'm more likely to concede the point when you give me the opportunity to do so.

Meanwhile, take it easy. Are you trying to put me on the defensive?
I'm not altogether sure what you mean. I've a sneaky suspicion you are objecting to being served what you were trying to dish out. :confused:

I'm not altogether sure what you mean. I've a sneaky suspicion you are objecting to being served what you were trying to dish out. :confused:

I'm saying give me a chance to concede or not before you go further on the attack. I'm not objecting to being served. I think I was served about halfway through, which is when after reading I conceded. The rest was just more of the same.

A friend of mine always tells me to recognize when I've sold someone and stop selling. I was passing along the advice.

I'm saying give me a chance to concede or not before you go further on the attack.
I dont believe I carried the point after you posted to withdraw your point.

I'm not objecting to being served. I think I was served about halfway through, which is when after reading I conceded. The rest was just more of the same.

A friend of mine always tells me to recognize when I've sold someone and stop selling. I was passing along the advice.
I'm not saying I dont see the sense in your friend's advice, but I am wondering how I'm to know you are going to concede the point half way through my post at the time I am typing it. Should I only reply to the first few sentences of any post you make and check back with you to see whether you intend to concede some point or other before I address the remainder of your post? Do you apply this policy to your own posting habits or is it some special rule just for me?:confused:

I dont believe I carried the point after you posted to withdraw your point.

You continued it long after I was sold.

I'm not saying I dont see the sense in your friend's advice, but I am wondering how I'm to know you are going to concede the point half way through my post at the time I am typing it. Should I only reply to the first few sentences of any post you make and check back with you to see whether you intend to concede some point or other before I address the remainder of your post? Do you apply this policy to your own posting habits or is it some special rule just for me?:confused:

No, but here's the point. You had a convincing point. And you had the knowledge that you were right, no? You explained how you were right and showed how you were right. You showed the folly in my assertion and even appropriately chastised me for that assertion and any snarkiness included in it.

Sounds pretty thorough, no? That's the point that I conceded to your post and the part of your post I replied to.

But here's what really happened.

You had a convincing point. And you had the knowledge that you were right, no? You explained how you were right and showed how you were right. You showed the folly in my assertion and even appropriately chastised me for that assertion and any snarkiness included in it. You explained how you were right. You explained how you were right. You explained the folly in my assertion and chastised me for the assertion. You explained the folly in my assertion and chastise me for the assertion.

Okay, now, you might not agree that you did that. Maybe I'm wrong again. But let's assume I'm right for a moment. Do you think the first description or the second description sounds like the best way to convince me even if I don't reply at all?

Regardless, this isn't really important. I've been as harsh and have a penchant for overkill (that's how I ended up receiving that advice), so I figured I'd pass it on. I suspect you're less confused and more just disagree that the advice was appropriate in this instance. And fine. You're free to. It was friendly. Take it or leave it.

"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter."

With this in the opening post, how can it possibly be misunderstood that it's about injuring or killing (as hunting implies) as opposed to the comradeship?

I mean, sure, if you go hunt deer, you can say "Oh, I do it for the excitement." But you're still killing deer. If you furthermore say: "There is no hunting like the hunting of deer and those who have hunted (armed? :eek: ) deer long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter."

Are you thinking: "Oh, he likes the chase" or "Oh, he likes the killing of the deer."

Doesn't really matter either way, does it? You're still killing deer!

[/rant and veering off track]

No, but here's the point. You had a convincing point. And you had the knowledge that you were right, no? You explained how you were right and showed how you were right. You showed the folly in my assertion and even appropriately chastised me for that assertion and any snarkiness included in it.
I had a convincing point from the outset, no change there. I had the knowledge I was right from the outset, no change there. I explained how I was right from the outset, no change there. I showed how I was right from the outset, no change there. This was followed by further 'folly'. Why would I assume, since there was no change from earlier, that suddenly, having a convincing point, knowing I was right and showing I was right, would cause you to desist from your 'folly'? It had failed to do so up to that point, what indication was there that it would suddenly succeed?

Sounds pretty thorough, no? That's the point that I conceded to your post and the part of your post I replied to.
Given the complete mystery your continued assertion in the face of all evidence to the contrary presented me with, I hardly think a lack of faith in your comprehending the point at my bequest, was unreasonable.

You had a convincing point. And you had the knowledge that you were right, no?
Yeah, just as I did when I posted previously.....you know the post that didnt cause you to withdraw the point you were asserting. If it were the first time I had asserted my counter view, you might have a point. But I was no more right or knowledgable in the post that apparently caused you to concede than I was in the earlier post that didnt....so you see from my point of view, still no way to differentiate between what will and wont convince you, until after you have replied.

You explained how you were right and showed how you were right.
Well yes, but then I thought I'd done as much the previous post...

You showed the folly in my assertion and even appropriately chastised me for that assertion and any snarkiness included in it. You explained how you were right. You explained how you were right. You explained the folly in my assertion and chastised me for the assertion. You explained the folly in my assertion and chastise me for the assertion.
I responded to the content of your post in the context of having no notion as to what your misunderstanding was or how you were concluding that evidence contrary to your point supported it. Now tell me if a person is interpreting X as meaning not-X, how I'm to convince the person of X, using the same information that leads them to conclude not-X? I didnt know how you were getting X from not-X, much less what would convince you to stop getting X from not-X.

Okay, now, you might not agree that you did that.
And as it happens I dont.

Maybe I'm wrong again. But let's assume I'm right for a moment.
Hang on, you now want me to assume something I dont believe, in order to imagine if you would be correct, were something I think is untrue, actually in fact true? I dont see the point. Especially since even if we went through with this exercise it wouldnt demonstrate anything that hasnt already been agreed to by both of us.

Do you think the first description or the second description sounds like the best way to convince me even if I don't reply at all?
I think you are trying to hold me to a standard that neither of us is interested in upholding for our own part, simply in order to have the last word.

I post to entertain myself, not because I feel some obligation to benefit you by convincing you of the truth - if it happens that's a nice bonus, but I'll lose no sleep if it doesnt. I cant state definitively why you post, but the fact that you put snarkiness into it indicates that a desire to be persausive isnt both foremost and over-arching in your list of priorities, so it's a mystery why you are apparently expecting it to be top of mine.

In what way? (No I'm not going to delete it.)

You said : "Killing Muslims was better than sex,right Eve?"

How many "ways" are there ? Its a stupid statement in every way.

Self-defense? Defending children?
Self defense? You signed up to be there. You signed up knowing full well that you may have to kill. It's not self defense when you rush into someone's home firing a gun, metaphorically speaking.
Oh, and the US kills children indiscriminately in war, at least when it drops the bombs.
Going through one of the hardest things that you ever will with a small group of people and being alive because of those people.
And killing with those people. Besides, if you think your experience was hard you should try being one of the insurgents.
No body armor, no green zone to retreat to, no air support, just an AK-47, some improvised explosions and the desire to defend their homes from what they can only consider usurpers and invaders. Now that's courage.

You said : "Killing Muslims was better than sex,right Eve?"

How many "ways" are there ? Its a stupid statement in every way.

Not at all a stupid statement. One, Eve Online is suspected of being Deep Kimchi, who in fact did say that killing Muslims was better than sex. (Or perhaps he said better than orgasm. Can't quite remember which.) Two, even if he is a different person, he seems similar enough to DK in terms of politics and claimed personal experience that it is not unreasonable to suggest he would agree with that statement.

Not at all a stupid statement. One, Eve Online is suspected of being Deep Kimchi, who in fact did say that killing Muslims was better than sex. (Or perhaps he said better than orgasm. Can't quite remember which.) Two, even if he is a different person, he seems similar enough to DK in terms of politics and claimed personal experience that it is not unreasonable to suggest he would agree with that statement.

so,based on supposition and a preponderance of accurate evidence, you can put words close to your recollection in his mouth?


This starts to bring to mind statements that it wouldnt be unreasonable to speculate you'd agree with.

so,based on supposition and a preponderance of accurate evidence, you can put words close to your recollection in his mouth?

Asking a question is now putting words in someone's mouth?

This starts to bring to mind statements that it wouldnt be unreasonable to speculate you'd agree with.

By all means, speculate away.

I showed how I was right from the outset, no change there.

Wrong. You did not. You weren't. You were right on one point which I conceded. I didn't really care to press the issue, but let's explore this since you're choosing to behave like this.

Given the complete mystery your continued assertion in the face of all evidence to the contrary presented me with, I hardly think a lack of faith in your comprehending the point at my bequest, was unreasonable.

Complete mystery? I missed that in your original post that you said "majority". I assumed you were responding to what was ACTUALLY said, nto something you made up. There's no mystery. I missed a word. I made the mistake of assuming you were responding to the post rather than constructing a strawman. Now you're behaving foolishly after I conceded the point to pretend like I was completely unreasonable in my response. So let's examine what really happened, my misguided friend.


Yeah, just as I did when I posted previously.....you know the post that didnt cause you to withdraw the point you were asserting. If it were the first time I had asserted my counter view, you might have a point.

Nope. Let's examine how we got here, shall we? Since me dropping it wasn't good enough for you.

Here is the post you were replying to -
There's something missing after you fly that last mission and you don't log any more flights in green ink. It isn't the killing, of course, it's the danger. And the thrill of cheating death, once again. I would come back after a flight so wound up that I couldn't sleep. Far worse than anything that I had experienced around the ship. Night carrier landings get the adrenaline up, too, but not quite like a barrage of AAA.

Don't worry, pacifists, it isn't the killing we miss. It's the adrenaline. Killing without danger wouldn't do it. More than a few of my friends have started doing dangerous things, just to recapture a little of that rush. I'm not quite so foolish as to put myself so far into harm's way again. Posting here provides all the adrenaline rush that I need.

Hmmmm... where did he say the "average soldier" or the "majority"? Oh, wait, he didn't. You added that to his point to make his point sound out of place and when I pointed out that he gave a reasoned response to a series of posts, you continued to and still continue to claim that it was not a reasonable response, and more so that I'm unreasonable for point out that it was reasonable.

Now let's look at the series that inspired his post.

It's pretty much like those who do extreme sports. For the rush apparently.

How much you want to bet those who miss it the most will start killing people at near random just for the rush? Like drug addicts, except their rush comes from killing and being nearly killed.

The act of killing is not addicting. The adrenaline rush of combat however can be. As well as the brotherhood of war.

No, no, no. Not just killing alone. As proven by some of the people who were quoted back, it was the rush of killing AND nearly being killed. So while they probably won't become serial killers in the stalker sense, there's a possibility that they might turn to violent crime to get their 'fix' of war.

Never heard of that happening and i seriously doubt that it would. It is the rush of nearly being killed much more than that of killing that I guess is addictive.

So how do you explain those who are unable to re-adapt to non-combat lives and usually end up killing themselves, and sometimes their families first?

This is also partially why I will never join the military...I don't want the possibility of that bloodlust seeping into my being, corrupting my way of thinking to the point where I might murder someone just to feel it again...

The author and the vets are right. There's something missing after you fly that last mission and you don't log any more flights in green ink. It isn't the killing, of course, it's the danger. And the thrill of cheating death, once again. I would come back after a flight so wound up that I couldn't sleep. Far worse than anything that I had experienced around the ship. Night carrier landings get the adrenaline up, too, but not quite like a barrage of AAA.

Don't worry, pacifists, it isn't the killing we miss. It's the adrenaline. Killing without danger wouldn't do it. More than a few of my friends have started doing dangerous things, just to recapture a little of that rush. I'm not quite so foolish as to put myself so far into harm's way again. Posting here provides all the adrenaline rush that I need.

Hmmm.. he gave a direct response to SEVERAL claims that people might become murderous or violent criminals as a result of the addiction to combat.

You against all reason chose to instruct that his post clearly in response to such claims which directly addresses those claims need not be said because clearly everyone already agrees to something he didn't say. Amusing, but not useful.

The only mistake I made was missing a word. Your mistakes include a really serious strawman and missing about a half dozen posts in a conversation.


But I was no more right or knowledgable in the post that apparently caused you to concede than I was in the earlier post that didnt....so you see from my point of view, still no way to differentiate between what will and wont convince you, until after you have replied.

You showed evidence. You do know how debate works. Here since you appear to be clueless, I'll help.

You: I assert A (that you're not supposed to say that because no one disagrees.)
Me: That's not true. Here's why I think it's not true (followed by evidence)
You: Yes, it is. Here's why I think it's true (followed by evidence and insults)
Me: Ah, yes, I see your point. I concede. Next time you might just drop it at that as I was already sold.
You: But why would I think you were sold with evidence if you weren't sold with no evidence?


Meanwhile, let's go back to the silly comments I chose to ignore before.

Do you erroneously (and mind numbingly) believe that if it is not worthwhile stating a particular thing no one disagrees with in a particular context that it is therefore never worthwhile to state anything no one disagrees with? I know I dont.

Do you erroneously (and mind-numbingly) believe that it is for you to decide what should and should not be said, particularly when what is said is an appropriate response to something specifically alluded to earlier in the thread?

Yes, I made the mistake of assuming that you would be rationally consistent. I won't make that mistake again.

Now, please tell me what points I can and cannot make. Since it's for you to decide. I really enjoy being amused by the absurdity of such behavior.


Well yes, but then I thought I'd done as much the previous post...

You didn't. What you did in the previous post is make an unsupported assertion. Sorry for expecting you support it. Next time, we'll just start insulting each other and ignore evidence. That'll be fun.


I responded to the content of your post in the context of having no notion as to what your misunderstanding was or how you were concluding that evidence contrary to your point supported it. Now tell me if a person is interpreting X as meaning not-X, how I'm to convince the person of X, using the same information that leads them to conclude not-X? I didnt know how you were getting X from not-X, much less what would convince you to stop getting X from not-X.

And as it happens I dont.

I conceded the point because it wasn't exactly correct. However, the response he gave was referring specifically to the exactly claims about those that miss it the most. So let's see, you erected a strawman, that he claimed "the majority don't return homocidal maniacs' and I mistakingly read that as an actual understanding of his post. That's where I was wrong.

However, it remains that you errected a strawman, none the less. But keep going. Comedy gold, this is.



Hang on, you now want me to assume something I dont believe, in order to imagine if you would be correct, were something I think is untrue, actually in fact true? I dont see the point. Especially since even if we went through with this exercise it wouldnt demonstrate anything that hasnt already been agreed to by both of us.

And HERE we have the problem. You fail to see the point. This has been the problem since we started the thread. You fail to see the point. At least we're in agreement on that.



I think you are trying to hold me to a standard that neither of us is interested in upholding for our own part, simply in order to have the last word.

I certainly am interesting in upholding such a standard even if I don't always do it. I gave you a chance to end things peacefully rather than delving into the amazingly inane comments you've made since your entry into the thread. You don't like that approach? Fine. Then please explain to me in Myrm's post where he said the majority as you summarized him as saying?

Please explain to me how your strawman applies at all. Please explain to me how your first post stating that had ANY evidence at all that would suggest I concede the point. I should have called you on your strawman at the outset, but unfortunately I misread it as reasonable and replied like it actually summarized Myrm's post.


I post to entertain myself, not because I feel some obligation to benefit you by convincing you of the truth - if it happens that's a nice bonus, but I'll lose no sleep if it doesnt. I cant state definitively why you post, but the fact that you put snarkiness into it indicates that a desire to be persausive isnt both foremost and over-arching in your list of priorities, so it's a mystery why you are apparently expecting it to be top of mine.

I post to entertain myself as well. I also post to learn. You don't. That's clear. Fortunately for me, the way you entertain yourself is quite amusing. Got any more of this stuff, because it's tasty. Sometimes a guy digs himself into a hole and you hand him rope he makes a ladder. You chose to hang yourself. Your choice, but I'm not sorry for laughing.

People keep calling me a bully, but what I'm supposed to do when the little guy keeps kicking me in the shins?

Self defense? You signed up to be there. You signed up knowing full well that you may have to kill. It's not self defense when you rush into someone's home firing a gun, metaphorically speaking.
Oh, and the US kills children indiscriminately in war, at least when it drops the bombs.
1: Yes i did sign up knowing that I may have to kill and if that's what it takes then there is nothing that will stop me from completing my duty.

2: We did not rush into someones home in Afghanistan, we rushed into the taleban's home. We did not rush into the iraqi's home, we rushed into saddam's home.

3: No, the U.S. does not kill children indiscriminately. You are either extremely misinformed or choose to be ignorant. We haven't carpet bombed for 30 years. Each air strike is called in by ground troops and is specifically targeted at the building where the enemy is. Unfortunately, al-qaeda has used children as human shields before. In that situation there is really nothing good that can happen. If we call in an air strike the kids die. If we leave then they are executed.

And killing with those people. Besides, if you think your experience was hard you should try being one of the insurgents.
No body armor, no green zone to retreat to, no air support, just an AK-47, some improvised explosions and the desire to defend their homes from what they can only consider usurpers and invaders. Now that's courage.

What is hard about laying an IED? What is hard about killing and maiming innocent and unarmed civilians? No, the desire to gain more territory for their gang is the main motivator. And i have never been in the green zone.

1: Yes i did sign up knowing that I may have to kill and if that's what it takes then there is nothing that will stop me from completing my duty.

What if your duty inclues shipping people off to Happy Camps in railroad cars? Nothing would stop you then too?

2: We did not rush into someones home in Afghanistan, we rushed into the taleban's home. We did not rush into the iraqi's home, we rushed into saddam's home.

Horseshit. We invaded Iraq. Iraq is as much a home to Iraqis as the US is home to you.

It's interesting that you are so fearless when it comes to "completeing your duty" and yet you shy away from even admitting the bold-faced facts of the war overall.

What if your duty inclues shipping people off to Happy Camps in railroad cars? Nothing would stop you then too?
Nope. That would be illegal.



Horseshit. We invaded Iraq. Iraq is as much a home to Iraqis as the US is home to you.

No, no it wasn't. It was thoroughly saddam's country.

It's interesting that you are so fearless when it comes to "completeing your duty" and yet you shy away from even admitting the bold-faced facts of the war overall.

What facts are those?

Nope. That would be illegal.

OK. So hypothetically, they make shuffling people in railroad cars to Happy Camps legal. Will you comply with your duty now?

No, no it wasn't. It was thoroughly saddam's country.

Funny. It says "Iraq" on the map, and people from Iraq - you know, people who live there - are called "Iraqis."

You may be the only person in the world who thinks they were not Iraqis and they didn't live in Iraq.

What facts are those?

We invaded Iraq. This is a plain fact, yet you're so afraid you can't even admit that it was Iraq. You seem to think it was Saddamland.

OK. So hypothetically, they make shuffling people in railroad cars to Happy Camps legal. Will you comply with your duty now?

If the U.N. passed a resolution saying that then yes. However if it was just a U.S. law then i would not.



Funny. It says "Iraq" on the map, and people from Iraq - you know, people who live there - are called "Iraqis."

You may be the only person in the world who thinks they were not Iraqis and they didn't live in Iraq.
Ummm, where did I say that iraqi's didn't live in Iraq. I remember saying that they weren't in possession of their country but not that. Maybe you should learn how to read?



We invaded Iraq. This is a plain fact, yet you're so afraid you can't even admit that it was Iraq. You seem to think it was Saddamland.
If you keep being as ignorant as this i'm going to have to stop talking to you. I have a lot of time on my hands and i'd rather not get banned.

Ummm, where did I say that iraqi's didn't live in Iraq. I remember saying that they weren't in possession of their country but not that. Maybe you should learn how to read?

Quick question: Do you think before you write?

Check out your own answers to his questions!



Horseshit. We invaded Iraq. Iraq is as much a home to Iraqis as the US is home to you.
No, no it wasn't. It was thoroughly saddam's country.

Emphasis mine.

You've stated that Iraq is not home to the Iraqis. By implication, one could assume they do not live there. It may be a false assumption, but a logical one. In either case, saying Iraq is not home to the Iraqis is as erroneous as the assumption made.

You've stated that Iraq is not home to the Iraqis. By implication, one could assume they do not live there. It may be a false assumption, but a logical one. In either case, saying Iraq is not home to the Iraqis is as erroneous as the assumption made.

No, i stated that it wasn't as much their home as my home is mine. By implication, one could assume that they do not have any control over their home. It may be a false assumption, but it isn't. In either case, you also can't read.

If the U.N. passed a resolution saying that then yes.

That's pretty horrifying. You'd help out on genocide as long as it was UN-approved.

Ummm, where did I say that iraqi's didn't live in Iraq. I remember saying that they weren't in possession of their country but not that.

You said that we didn't invade the home of Iraqis.

But we did.

Maybe you should learn how to read?

Nah, I'm pretty good at reading. Thanks.

If you keep being as ignorant as this i'm going to have to stop talking to you. I have a lot of time on my hands and i'd rather not get banned.

Maybe you should. But not because I am "ignorant." If you can't control your homicidal rage you probably shouldn't try.

Self defense? You signed up to be there. You signed up knowing full well that you may have to kill. It's not self defense when you rush into someone's home firing a gun, metaphorically speaking.
Oh, and the US kills children indiscriminately in war, at least when it drops the bombs.

So I suppose of you're walking down the city and someone starts shooting at you then it's not justifiable to shoot back?


And killing with those people. Besides, if you think your experience was hard you should try being one of the insurgents.
No body armor, no green zone to retreat to, no air support, just an AK-47, some improvised explosions and the desire to defend their homes from what they can only consider usurpers and invaders. Now that's courage.

It's a good thing all of those heroic and brave insurgents are coming from Iraq and doing good things like killing innocent people including unarmed women and children.

That's pretty horrifying. You'd help out on genocide as long as it was UN-approved.
Let's be honest, the U.N. is never going to sponsor genocide so it's not really a concern. Where was this going anyway?



You said that we didn't invade the home of Iraqis.

But we did.
refer to earlier post.

Let's be honest, the U.N. is never going to sponsor genocide so it's not really a concern. Where was this going anyway?

Only to point out how easy it would be to get people like you do to anything. commit a holocaust, invade a nation. Anything. You are the pawns of anyone who can convince you what your "duty" is.


refer to earlier post.

OK. I'll refer to the original post in which you said,

We did not rush into the iraqi's home, we rushed into saddam's home.

And I'll repeat myself again too: Horseshit. We invaded Iraq. Iraq is the home of all Iraqis.

And I'll add that in many cases your proud comrades at arms have literally invaded people's homes. You are wrong on a literal and metaphorical level.

Only to point out how easy it would be to get people like you do to anything. commit a holocaust, invade a nation. Anything. You are the pawns of anyone who can convince you what your "duty" is.
Not quite. If it is legal then I am fine with it. B/C democratic institutions make the laws up I have confidence that genocide will not become legal. End of story.




OK. I'll refer to the original post in which you said,
Again picking and choosing what you want to respond to.



And I'll repeat myself again too: Horseshit. We invaded Iraq. Iraq is the home of all Iraqis.

And I'll add that in many cases your proud comrades at arms have literally invaded people's homes. You are wrong on a literal and metaphorical level.

Iraqi is the home of all iraqis. That is true and i never disputed it. I said that it WASN'T the iraqis home but was saddams home. The iraqis just lived there but did not control their own lives. I don't see what is so hard about this concept.

Not quite. If it is legal then I am fine with it. B/C democratic institutions make the laws up I have confidence that genocide will not become legal. End of story.


Yet you have more faith in the "democratic institution" of the UN than you do your own nation. How does that work? Is the UN somehow "more democratic" than the USA?

Iraqi is the home of all iraqis. That is true and i never disputed it. I said that it WASN'T the iraqis home but was saddams home.

So it's the home of Iraqis, but it's not the Iraqi's home?

The iraqis just lived there but did not control their own lives. I don't see what is so hard about this concept.

I guess it's a "hard" concept for me because you seem to think Iraqis weren't even individuals until the US came along and "liberated" them. This probably eases your conscience - if you have any - regarding the thousands of innocents killed as a result of US policy.

After all, we didn't invade their home. We just invaded Saddam's palace. Even today, we are not occupying Iraq... we're occupying Saddamland... good thing those Saddamites can now control their own lives! I'm sure that's a real comfort that little girls can get raped and killed by the US soldiers, who are not occupying their homeland. We've given them the self-determination... to be occupied and killed by the US.

Yet you have more faith in the "democratic institution" of the UN than you do your own nation. How does that work? Is the UN somehow "more democratic" than the USA?
There are many more checks and balances. You are much more likely to get a corrupt U.S. gov't then to have the majority of the world corrupt.


So it's the home of Iraqis, but it's not the Iraqi's home?
OMG!!!!! I spelled it out for you and you still can't comprehend shit. It's the home of Iraqis, but before it WASN'T their home b/c saddam ruled them and gave them no freedoms.



I guess it's a "hard" concept for me because you seem to think Iraqis weren't even individuals until the US came along and "liberated" them. This probably eases your conscience - if you have any - regarding the thousands of innocents killed as a result of US policy.
How do I not think that they weren't individuals? They certainly didn't have the rights as an individual that you do but they were still people.

After all, we didn't invade their home. We just invaded Saddam's palace. Even today, we are not occupying Iraq... we're occupying Saddamland... good thing those Saddamites can now control their own lives! I'm sure that's a real comfort that little girls can get raped and killed by the US soldiers, who are not occupying their homeland. We've given them the self-determination... to be occupied and killed by the US.
Their country was already in a state of invasion. Don't fucking analyze that b/c you know that i just mean that they had no rights. Just b/c you control something w/ an iron fist means that you rename it w/ your name? News to me. I'm not even going to respond to the end of your post b/c you know how wrong you are and just like being a troll.

There are many more checks and balances. You are much more likely to get a corrupt U.S. gov't then to have the majority of the world corrupt.



OMG!!!!! I spelled it out for you and you still can't comprehend shit. It's the home of Iraqis, but before it WASN'T their home b/c saddam ruled them and gave them no freedoms.




How do I not think that they weren't individuals? They certainly didn't have the rights as an individual that you do but they were still people.


Their country was already in a state of invasion. Don't fucking analyze that b/c you know that i just mean that they had no rights. Just b/c you control something w/ an iron fist means that you rename it w/ your name? News to me. I'm not even going to respond to the end of your post b/c you know how wrong you are and just like being a troll.

So when will the US be invading the home of Mugabe and setting free the Zimbabweans?

So when will the US be invading the home of Mugabe and setting free the Zimbabweans?

Whenever it suits American interests or we have another idiot in office.

Whenever it suits American interests or we have another idiot in office.

Never happen, he doesn't have any oil.

There are many more checks and balances. You are much more likely to get a corrupt U.S. gov't then to have the majority of the world corrupt.



OMG!!!!! I spelled it out for you and you still can't comprehend shit. It's the home of Iraqis, but before it WASN'T their home b/c saddam ruled them and gave them no freedoms.




How do I not think that they weren't individuals? They certainly didn't have the rights as an individual that you do but they were still people.


Their country was already in a state of invasion. Don't fucking analyze that b/c you know that i just mean that they had no rights. Just b/c you control something w/ an iron fist means that you rename it w/ your name? News to me. I'm not even going to respond to the end of your post b/c you know how wrong you are and just like being a troll.


Dont waste your breath trying to explain 1st hand experience to people that dont want to understand because they think they learned it all in a classroom from someone they'll try so desperately to emulate for the rest of their lives.
They already have all their answers.

There are many more checks and balances. You are much more likely to get a corrupt U.S. gov't then to have the majority of the world corrupt.


You have quite the naive view here - the UN isn't the "majority of the world." And how democratic is it. Did you get to vote for who gets what office in the UN? I didn't...

This is a side issue however.

OMG!!!!! I spelled it out for you and you still can't comprehend shit. It's the home of Iraqis, but before it WASN'T their home b/c saddam ruled them and gave them no freedoms.

I can comprehend your shit just fine. And it is shit. Horseshit - bullshit - whatever kind of shit you prefer.

1 a : one's place of residence : DOMICILE b : HOUSE
2 : the social unit formed by a family living together
3 a : a familiar or usual setting : congenial environment; also : the focus of one's domestic attention <home is where the heart is> b : HABITAT
4 a : a place of origin <salmon returning to their home to spawn>; also : one's own country <having troubles at home and abroad> b : HEADQUARTERS 2 <home of the dance company>

Not one of these definitions is dependent on who rules the nation or how many "freedoms" one has.

In contrast, here's what you "spelled out" for me.

Iraqi is the home of all iraqis. That is true and i never disputed it. I said that it WASN'T the iraqis home but was saddams home.

Maybe, just maybe, it's not me who's having trouble comprehending shit here.


How do I not think that they weren't individuals? They certainly didn't have the rights as an individual that you do but they were still people.

Well, Iraq wasn't their home... and if they have less rights... that sure makes it easier to justify killing them.

Their country was already in a state of invasion.

Yeah - the country was already in a state of invasion by the US. And it still is. What's your point here?

Don't fucking analyze that b/c you know that i just mean that they had no rights. Just b/c you control something w/ an iron fist means that you rename it w/ your name? News to me. I'm not even going to respond to the end of your post b/c you know how wrong you are and just like being a troll.

Don't bother responding to any of my posts if you can't even read what YOU write, let alone what others. "You know how wrong you are." Nonsense. I know I'm right, I've proven it, and I'm done with you. Go back to killing people in the name of duty.

So when will the US be invading the home of Mugabe and setting free the Zimbabweans?

When will the UN be concerned,or France or Germany?

Dont waste your breath trying to explain 1st hand experience to people that dont want to understand because they think they learned it all in a classroom from someone they'll try so desperately to emulate for the rest of their lives.
They already have all their answers.

Would you like a cheerleading skirt to go with that pompom shaking? You aren't contributing to anything here other than a mindless, blanket defense of anything and everything someone says and a mindless, blanket assault on everything "they" say.

Take your own advice, stop wasting your breath and shut up.

When will the UN be concerned,or France or Germany?

Equally good questions. I wish they were

Would you like a cheerleading skirt to go with that pompom shaking? You aren't contributing to anything here other than a mindless, blanket defense of anything and everything someone says and a mindless, blanket assault on everything "they" say.

Take your own advice, stop wasting your breath and shut up.

There is no "contribution" where you're concerned unless its lock-step with what you think you believe.

You think you're going to impress or change the mind of someone with 1st hand experience?
You're fooling yourself. Go squeak shrilly amongst your like minded compadres.

You've got nothing except a mindless blanket opinion about something your so emotional about,but truly know little about. And its drives you nuts,so you yap incessantly til you think you feel good about it.

Yeah-a skirt and pom-poms. You didnt learn that in debate class-someone would have hung you from a door knob by your soiled shorts.
Use it in here where you're safe to spout.

Equally good questions. I wish they were

Unfortunately,though we all feel terrible about it, none of us have a stake in it-Yes no oil, no valuable resources.
We cant all agree, no one really wants to get mired in something like that and yes-we're all guilty with doing nothing while hoping it all goes away.

I'm not comfortable with it.

You have quite the naive view here - the UN isn't the "majority of the world." And how democratic is it. Did you get to vote for who gets what office in the UN? I didn't...

Actually the UN is every sovereign country in the world with the exception of the Vatican.


Not one of these definitions is dependent on who rules the nation or how many "freedoms" one has.
Go play semantics somewhere else.


Well, Iraq wasn't their home... and if they have less rights... that sure makes it easier to justify killing them.
We are not killing Iraqi civilians. We are killing those who attack us as we provide defense for Iraqi installations, businesses, construction projects and homes. It is Iraqis who carry out civilian killings.

Yeah - the country was already in a state of invasion by the US. And it still is. What's your point here?
You know that I mean that the Iraqi people were not living in peace b/c they were terrorized by Saddam


Don't bother responding to any of my posts if you can't even read what YOU write, let alone what others. "You know how wrong you are." Nonsense. I know I'm right, I've proven it, and I'm done with you. Go back to killing people in the name of duty.
You've proven nothing except the fact that you lack the ability to think and may be one of the most easily propagandized people on this planet.


Edit: Do you need a lesson on the meaning of past-tense?

Wrong. You did not. You weren't. You were right on one point which I conceded.
That being the point that I was making all along....

I didn't really care to press the issue, but let's explore this since you're choosing to behave like this.
'Choosing to behave like this' presumably being a euthenism for 'not falling all over myself to reassure you that indeed you were right to be wrong and I was wrong to be right when you wrong'.

Complete mystery? I missed that in your original post that you said "majority". I assumed you were responding to what was ACTUALLY said, nto something you made up. There's no mystery.
It may not have occured to you, but I dont have direct access to your experiance. An implication of this is that when I type something and you fail to read a word, I do not necessarily know that you failed to read that particular word even if I can tell that you've somehow miscomprehended something.

I missed a word.
Are you sure it wasnt that my failure to give you a chance to concede caused the word to be invisible to you?
I made the mistake of assuming you were responding to the post rather than constructing a strawman.
Actually that was no mistake.

Now you're behaving foolishly after I conceded the point to pretend like I was completely unreasonable in my response. So let's examine what really happened, my misguided friend.
I'm not trying to pretend anything, indeed I have no need to pretend anything. I dont think the claim that it is bratty and unreasonable to attempt to pass off your error as somehow being the fault of someone else because they explained more than sufficiently, requires any pretence.

Nope. Let's examine how we got here, shall we? Since me dropping it wasn't good enough for you.
Isnt it remarkable how you dropping it resembles other people when they're flogging a dead horse?

Here is the post you were replying to -


Hmmmm... where did he say the "average soldier" or the "majority"? Oh, wait, he didn't. You added that to his point to make his point sound out of place and when I pointed out that he gave a reasoned response to a series of posts, you continued to and still continue to claim that it was not a reasonable response, and more so that I'm unreasonable for point out that it was reasonable.
I have never claimed that his comments were unreasonable or were attempting to make an unreasonable point. I claim that they are superfluous and I maintain that claim.

Now let's look at the series that inspired his post.
Hmmm.. he gave a direct response to SEVERAL claims that people might become murderous or violent criminals as a result of the addiction to combat.
And the truth of his comments would/do not indicate that those claims are true or false. Hence my point about being superfluous. But by all means demonstrate otherwise.
The state of discussion to that point:some people might become murderous or violent criminals as a result of the addiction to combat. The point Myrm's post added 'not every single person becomes murderous or violently criminal as a result of addiction to combat. So the state of the discussion after Mrym's post:some people might become murderouse or violent criminals as a result of the addiction to combat. Do you get it yet? Note the complete lack of any change in the status of the conversation, the complete lack of any progress.....note the superfluous nature of the comments in terms of proving the point at issue either way? Surely you dont need a friggen illustrated map, it is a very simple point after all.


From this point on in your post you become increasingly illucid. You seem to not realise that you were the first one to be snarky. You attribute views and claims to me that I never made while ranting about strawmen. Here you are apparently attempting a step by step disection of the discussion and you still cannot even get it straight.

It's BS that I made a strawman; I didnt summarize Mrym's point, I extrapolated the information available in the comments, applied it to the information already available, and found that it didnt further the point of the discussion (whether or not such addrenlin addiction can result in criminality and/or violence) and stated as much. The response "precipitation occured at some prior time" to the premise "it rained" is neither a summary nor a strawman. It's an extrapolation reached by bringing the information in the premise to bear on other already known informaion. The difference is quite significant, and is one you might benefit from looking into.

It's BS that I'm the one who got snarky first as you appear to be attempting to imply. It's BS that you tried to concede and drop it on a friendly point - how desperate to get a parting shot, to not drop it and to not leave it on a friendly point but rather a point of one-up-manship do you have to be to employ the pathetic lame-ass shit you are trying to pull? Your concession included an accusation that I argued too well and advice on how to argue less well in future because apparently I should both be psychic (and so able to know what will convince you even before I have finished typing it much less you have read it) and somehow more nobly motivated than yourself who clearly cares much more for one-up-manship than for persausion.

Think about, to try to deflect attention away from being wrong you are telling me off for convincing you in a post that didnt stop immediately as of you being convinced. The word pathetic truely falls short in this instance. Now you can grow up and stop expecting everyone to fall over themselves apologetically everytime you get something wrong, or you can carry on being a brat. Frankly if your reaction to my refusal to be brow-beaten by you is any indication, it's certainly in line with what one expects when a bully is balked, so maybe all those folk you refer to have a point of some kind. Either way, since I for one refuse to be brow-beaten into submission, it's far more your concern than mine.

1: Yes i did sign up knowing that I may have to kill and if that's what it takes then there is nothing that will stop me from completing my duty.
A bullet might.
2: We did not rush into someones home in Afghanistan, we rushed into the taleban's home. We did not rush into the iraqi's home, we rushed into saddam's home.
And the innocents who got in the way?
3: No, the U.S. does not kill children indiscriminately. You are either extremely misinformed or choose to be ignorant. We haven't carpet bombed for 30 years. Each air strike is called in by ground troops and is specifically targeted at the building where the enemy is.
Even during "Shock and awe"?
Unfortunately, al-qaeda has used children as human shields before. In that situation there is really nothing good that can happen. If we call in an air strike the kids die. If we leave then they are executed.

Al-Qaeda is only a minority of the enemy in Iraq. The kids just happen to be there. It's kind of where they live.
What is hard about laying an IED? What is hard about killing and maiming innocent and unarmed civilians?
Not all of them do that and you know it.
No, the desire to gain more territory for their gang is the main motivator. .
Of course. They can't possibly have a good reason for what they do. Brown people are just animals not human beings exactly like you and me.
And i have never been in the green zone
My hero.

Actually the UN is every sovereign country in the world with the exception of the Vatican.

It's an international treaty and organization which is not democratic. I just find it odd that you would comply with some sort of UN order to commit genocide, but not with a US one. What with you being a member of the US military.

Go play semantics somewhere else.

Ah, I see. When you use words incorrectly and this becomes known to you, it's just "playing semantics." How interesting.

We are not killing Iraqi civilians. We are killing those who attack us as we provide defense for Iraqi installations, businesses, construction projects and homes. It is Iraqis who carry out civilian killings.

Oh? So I guess you are saying that your beloved United Nations is wrong (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/iraq-j18.shtml)?

And maybe this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6152118.stm) didn't happen, or it was evil Iraqi terrorists.

You know that I mean that the Iraqi people were not living in peace b/c they were terrorized by Saddam

Yes, I know that you think being terrorized by Saddam makes it OK for the US to take his place.

You've proven nothing except the fact that you lack the ability to think and may be one of the most easily propagandized people on this planet.

Oh, of course. You couldn't be wrong - even though I've again proven many of your nonsense statements factually incorrect - but instead I have to "lack the ability to think." It's amazing you know, how I can play "semantic games" (and win), yet I cannot think.

As for how "propagandized" I am, that's really quite irrelevant. But I would point out that it's you who've been brainwashed into thinking the US did not invade the Iraqi homeland, that US soldiers don't kill Iraqis, and that if the UN orders it, it must be a good thing.

Edit: Do you need a lesson on the meaning of past-tense?

Someone may well school me, but it sure as hell isn't going to be you.