NationStates Jolt Archive

I just saw a few minutes of the "Military Channel" yesterday: One Marine who was interviewed said "war is a guy thing, women can never understand it" (mind you, military websites say that there is no place for stereotypes in a soldiers heart). Another marine, who led the outfit, said, "I have never met an honest Iraqi". Later in the show, when the group had to use an Iraqi house for a base of operations, so the outfit told the those who lived inside to leave; when the residents questioned them, one marine indicated his weapon and said, "You have five minutes."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_1ayyVxKRI Watch from 4:22 for the parts mentioned--for the questioning residents part, see part 2/6.

The marines have the lowest average I.Q. and ASVAB score of any branch, but I never thought them this rude.

I have no doubt that Marines are basically like everybody else - some of them are nice people, and some of them are assholes.

I have no doubt that Marines are basically like everybody else - some of them are nice people, and some of them are assholes.

Well, I dunno. I would say that certain personality types are less inclined to join the military. not too many tree hugging commie hippies in the marines, no?

Well, I dunno. I would say that certain personality types are less inclined to join the military. not too many tree hugging commie hippies in the marines, no?

No, statistically speaking they tend to be conservative, unintelligent, and like killing. Have not seen Full Metal Jacket?

Have not seen Full Metal Jacket?

I tend to not base my understandings of reality on fiction.

Well, I dunno. I would say that certain personality types are less inclined to join the military. not too many tree hugging commie hippies in the marines, no?

Hence the "basically." :p The specific demographic breakdown of the military is certainly going to be somewhat different than that of society as a whole (among other things, there's a lot more poor people in the military, seeing as wealthy people mostly don't feel like they need to go get shot at just to pay for college), but the general "some portion of them are assholes, and some portion of them are nice" principle is probably sound.

Hence the "basically." :p The specific demographic breakdown of the military is certainly going to be somewhat different than that of society as a whole (among other things, there's a lot more poor people in the military, seeing as wealthy people mostly don't feel like they need to go get shot at just to pay for college), but the general "some portion of them are assholes, and some portion of them are nice" principle is probably sound.

sure. I was just objecting to your (probably unintented and conceivably non existant) implication that the military is an accurate cross section of society as a whole.

I tend to not base my understandings of reality on fiction.

Neither do I--but due to a few of my recent experiences (and I do not just mean the Military Channel) I now believe that film far more realistic than I did initially.

USMC are rather...unique its more to do with being super easy to offend I'd say and trying to hold up to the impossible standard of a British infantryman

but having not seen the show I'd say he was actually saying it in a lightly mocking way

seeing as wealthy people mostly don't feel like they need to go get shot at just to pay for college

thats why they are officers

I now believe that film far more realistic than I did initially.

actually its pretty realistic as far as war movies go though the threat of a drill sergeant taking you out back and beating the shit out of you is gone as is the bully system (punishing a whole group for the mistakes of one so that they correct the individual)

I just saw a few minutes of the "Military Channel" yesterday: One Marine who was interviewed said "war is a guy thing, women can never understand it" (mind you, military websites say that there is no place for stereotypes in a soldiers heart). Another marine, who led the outfit, said, "I have never met an honest Iraqi". Later in the show, when the group had to use an Iraqi house for a base of operations, so the outfit told the those who lived inside to leave; when the residents questioned them, one marine indicated his weapon and said, "You have five minutes."

The marines have the lowest average I.Q. and ASVAB score of any branch, but I never thought them this rude.
The first statement is just ignorant. The second one is understandable from someone who is part of an occupying force. The third situation is also understandable, the marines are in the middle of their work and don't want bullshit from other people.

Later in the show, when the group had to use an Iraqi house for a base of operations, so the outfit told the those who lived inside to leave; when the residents questioned them, one marine indicated his weapon and said, "You have five minutes."

These are the "terrorists"? And these are the "harbringers of democracy"?

It'd be a bad joke if it weren't for the GENOCIDE accompanying it.

The third situation is also understandable, the marines are in the middle of their work and don't want bullshit from other people.

No, it's not. It's THEIR house, THEIR country, which should NEVER have been occupied in the first place.

Interesting that you'd claim the lowest IQ and ASVAB belong to the Marines, when the Navy will take you after you've flunked the Marine Corps tests, Army tests, and Air Force tests.

Being much, much smaller than the other three services, the Marines can cherry-pick who they want, whereas the Army and Navy (having trouble making their recruitment quotas year after year) have had to consistently lower their standards with recruits.

The Marines turn people AWAY, and always have.

Heh. I happen to know a woman Marine.
Still just a guy thing?

The Marines turn people AWAY, and always have.

Hence why they took on an old friend of my dad's, after he failed to get into the British regular army?

Anyway to answer the question, I think with his first statement he meant that woman can't understand why you'd want to risk your life in some 3rd world cesspit, which is actually implying women are more sensible and less aggressive than men.

These are the "terrorists"? And these are the "harbringers of democracy"?

It'd be a bad joke if it weren't for the GENOCIDE accompanying it.

What genocide?

Heh. I happen to know a woman Marine.
Still just a guy thing?

Hormone imbalance? :tongue:

What genocide?

600,000 dead Iraqis. And that in the last count.

which should NEVER have been occupied in the first place.

Well, this is certainly subjective.

Well, this is certainly subjective.

Sure, so is "Should Saddam have invaded Kuwait?" by that logic.

Especially as Kuwait had no WMDs either.

600,000 dead Iraqis. And that in the last count.

Ok... look up genocide.

The Marines turn people AWAY, and always have.

isn't that more to do with fitness though? :p

Heh. I happen to know a woman Marine.
Still just a guy thing?

Anyway to answer the question, I think with his first statement he meant that woman can't understand why you'd want to risk your life in some 3rd world cesspit, which is actually implying women are more sensible and less aggressive than men.

I'd hazard he meant more you' know "those little kids with long hair back home"

Hence why they took on an old friend of my dad's, after he failed to get into the British regular army?

pfft British army > all

hence why the doctrine always follows conserving ammo with good shots

Ok... look up genocide.

So, how much does it take for it to be a genocide? A million?

Sure, so is "Should Saddam have invaded Kuwait?" by that logic.

Especially as Kuwait had no WMDs either.

Indeed. Though that technicality really changes little.

So, how much does it take for it to be a genocide? A million?

Nope, genocide is a matter of intent. Again, perhaps you should look it up.

Nope, genocide is a matter of intent. Again, perhaps you should look it up.

Well, Bush certainly didn't care about how many people he killed just to get his paws on the oil.

But fine, if we are to avoid a semantics debate, I retract the "genocide" and substitute "mass murder" instead.

–noun
The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide

Indeed. Though that technicality really changes little.

The problem is Bush had as much of a right to invade Iraq as Saddam to invade Kuwait.

Well, Bush certainly didn't care about how many people he killed just to get his paws on the oil.

But fine, if we are to avoid a semantics debate, I retract the "genocide" and substitute "mass murder" instead.

Funny... murder also involves intent.

Maybe you should avoid every semantics issue, and leave the issue alone?

600,000 dead Iraqis. And that in the last count.

People die in a war. That's not genocide, that's collateral damage.

By your definition, the British and Americans were committing genocide on the Germans in WWII.

SNIP

http://i469.photobucket.com/albums/rr51/ZGsoccerHB/daf-1.jpg

http://i469.photobucket.com/albums/rr51/ZGsoccerHB/daf-1.jpg

No, I'm not.

People die in a war. That's not genocide, that's collateral damage.

By your definition, the British and Americans were committing genocide on the Germans in WWII.

Cops commit genocide against a criminal every time they are forced to use deadly force.

Everyone that has ever died at any point has been the subject of genocide.

Funny... murder also involves intent.

Bush wanted to start a war. He knew people would die in it. He wanted, therefore, people to die. And got his wish.

Intent.

No, I'm not.

<.<
>.>

can you show me your not

No, I'm not.

Two against one.

Consensus says yes.

People die in a war. That's not genocide, that's collateral damage.

So were the people in WTC. Does Iraq now have the right to invade the US?

Two against one.

Consensus says yes.

Consensus is what got you in this war in the first place. And now consensus is against it. Since "trolling", also by consensus, usually involves voicing an unpopular opinion, "consensus" would have YOU trolling.

Want to discuss consensus?

600,000 dead Iraqis. And that in the last count.

The Lancet studies, which I'm certain you're referring to, have been widely criticized for their methodology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties

Other groups, such as Iraq Body Count have a more solid methodology and a substantially lower (but equally horrific) number.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Ye need not inflateth the already terribel.

<.<
>.>

can you show me your not

No, I can't. Feel free to dance all over my inability to prove a negative.

The problem is Bush had as much of a right to invade Iraq as Saddam to invade Kuwait.

Hmmm, I'd say Bush had more, because the Kuwaitis don't tend to gas their own people, or have them tortured and shot.

Bush wanted to start a war. He knew people would die in it. He wanted, therefore, people to die. And got his wish.

Intent.

Ok... but intending for people do die is not necessarily murder. Murder is the deliberate ending of innocent life. I highly doubt Bush wanted only to kill innocents.

What's more is that Saddam Hussein was murdering his own people, I can kill, in defense of others, and that isn't murder, Bush killed, in defense of others, ergo not murder.

pwned.

Other groups, such as Iraq Body Count have a more solid methodology and a substantially lower (but equally horrific) number.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Ye need not inflateth the already terribel.

Very well.

Ok... but intending for people do die is not necessarily murder. Murder is the deliberate ending of innocent life. I highly doubt Bush wanted only to kill innocents.

What's more is that Saddam Hussein was murdering his own people, I can kill, in defense of others, and that isn't murder, Bush killed, in defense of others, ergo not murder.

pwned.

ALL were innocent. Including, yes, Saddam, given that he had declared no war.

Hmmm, I'd say Bush had more, because the Kuwaitis don't tend to gas their own people, or have them tortured and shot.

No, see, thats irrelevant apparently. Because people have died, it's genocidal murder.

Never mind all of the innocent people that will be saved. (Yes, I realize that plenty of people, many innocent have also died, but sich is too often the Butcher's Bill to rid the world of evil.)

Hmmm, I'd say Bush had more, because the Kuwaitis don't tend to gas their own people, or have them tortured and shot.

Can Bush spell "none of his business"?

ALL were innocent. Including, yes, Saddam, given that he had declared no war.

So I am innocent of all crime, so long as I don't declare war?

Convenient, the US never declared war.

You really can't seem to win.

No, see, thats irrelevant apparently. Because people have died, it's genocidal murder.

Never mind all of the innocent people that will be saved. (Yes, I realize that plenty of people, many innocent have also died, but sich is too often the Butcher's Bill to rid the world of evil.)

SCREW THE INNOCENT PEOPLE SAVED!

It's not Bush's right to invade a country preemptively.

So I am innocent of all crime, so long as I don't declare war?

Convenient, the US never declared war.

You really can't seem to win.

As long as you don't START a war, you're innocent of the war itself.

So were the people in WTC. Does Iraq now have the right to invade the US?

They weren't collateral damage. They were the targets.

Can Bush spell "none of his business"?

Thats a seemingly irrelevant question.

You're right, it wasn't Bush's business. It wasn't the business of American soldiers who gave their lives for the sake of justice, when it doesn't affect them.

Thats what makes their sacrifice so meaningful. It's none of their business, and thats what makes them heroes.

They weren't collateral damage. They were the targets.

No, the towers were the target. They just happened to be around them.

You see how it works? "Saddam was the target, the Iraqis just happened to be (within a few hundred miles) around him" is equally spurious.

As long as you don't START a war, you're innocent of the war itself.

Uh, International Law and historic Just War theory would disagree.

Thats a seemingly irrelevant question.

You're right, it wasn't Bush's business. It wasn't the business of American soldiers who gave their lives for the sake of justice, when it doesn't affect them.

Thats what makes their sacrifice so meaningful. It's none of their business, and thats what makes them heroes.

No, it doesn't. It makes them bullies at best, and Bush a mass murderer.

As long as you don't START a war, you're innocent of the war itself.

You're right, Saddam didn't take action against us. He took action against his own innocent people.

I agree with you, really, people should have the unalienable right to kill others, so long as they mind their own business.

Oh wait, thats ridiculous.

Uh, International Law and historic Just War theory would disagree.

Legally, Bush had no right to start it.

No, it doesn't. It makes them bullies at best, and Bush a mass murderer.

Nope.

You're right, Saddam didn't take action against us. He took action against his own innocent people.

I agree with you, really, people should have the unalienable right to kill others, so long as they mind their own business.

Oh wait, thats ridiculous.

First of all, Bush didn't start the war out of care for any Iraqi, he did it out of bloodthirst and oil-thirst.

Second of all, AMERICA supported Saddam in the first place. You shouldn't have propped him.

Legally, Bush had no right to start it.

He didn't 'start a war' he enacted military action. Leaving Iraq has been in Congress' hands, not Bush's for the last several years.

He didn't 'start a war' he enacted military action. Leaving Iraq has been in Congress' hands, not Bush's for the last several years.

Were there major military operations before Bush called for them?

No?

Then he started a war! Stop dancing around it.

I don't know about rude, but the Marines can be damned HOT looking men!

Too bad too many of them are deathly terrified of another man lusting after their muscular, tattooed, studly bodies.....

First of all, Bush didn't start the war out of care for any Iraqi, he did it out of bloodthirst and oil-thirst.

Second of all, AMERICA supported Saddam in the first place. You shouldn't have propped him.

1. Proof? Evidence?

2. Hindsight is 20/20, plenty of people regret voting for Bush, by your logic everyone who ever voted for Bush must continue to support him.

I love the phrase 'collateral damage'.

First, this way we get to pretend that they aren't actually dead people. They're just 'damage', like a scrape on your car.

Second, it excuses these deaths on the grounds of incompetence. "Yeah, we accidentally killed thousands of innocents because we can't or didn't bother to aim properly, so we're still the good guys."

To tie it back to the OP, I think that defining the deaths of innocents in such a dehumanising way is somewhat rude. Do Marines do this?

Legally, Bush had no right to start it.

Of course not, but there are just and legal wars that do not require an aggressor to move first.

To have moved on Rwanda in 1994 would have been just. Much as the casus belli in the 1967 for Israel was justified.

Were there major military operations before Bush called for them?

No?

Then he started a war! Stop dancing around it.

I'm dancing around nothing, you mention legality... legally we are not engaged in a war, but rather a prolonged military engagement.

The difference is only technical, I agree, but you are trying to use legality, and technicallity to support your point, when that comically makes you even more wrong.

1. Proof? Evidence?

2. Hindsight is 20/20, plenty of people regret voting for Bush, by your logic everyone who ever voted for Bush must continue to support him.

1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Rise_to_power

2- No, you shouldn't have put him in in the first place, and you shouldn't have STARTED A WAR to remove him either. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I love the phrase 'collateral damage'.

First, this way we get to pretend that they aren't actually dead people. They're just 'damage', like a scrape on your car.

Second, it excuses these deaths on the grounds of incompetence. "Yeah, we accidentally killed thousands of innocents because we can't or didn't bother to aim properly, so we're still the good guys."

To tie it back to the OP, I think that defining the deaths of innocents in such a dehumanising way is somewhat rude. Do Marines do this?

It's a basic tenet of Just War theory that while civilian deaths are unacceptable, they are inevitable, and making a good faith effort to minimize civilian casualties--even to the point that it proves more dangerous for yourself--alleviates the guilt.

I'm dancing around nothing, you mention legality... legally we are not engaged in a war, but rather a prolonged military engagement.

The difference is only technical, I agree, but you are trying to use legality, and technicallity to support your point, when that comically makes you even more wrong.

There's a difference between legality and a technicality. Seeing as I'm not inclined to teach it to you, I hope you find it out yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Art View Post
Well, I dunno. I would say that certain personality types are less inclined to join the military. not too many tree hugging commie hippies in the marines, no?

It is true that there are not a lot of "tree hugging commie hippies in the marines" yes; but take it from a tree hugging socialist hippie that was in the marines, an organized group of young men or women whether they be in the military or not, when placed in an environment where saying or doing the wrong thing will result in your own death, one can not be expected to be as socially graceful as those of us who sit in our homes and pass judgment. Now, introduce a camera into the environment and the need to lash out against the situation increases dramatically.

It is true that there are not a lot of "tree hugging commie hippies in the marines" yes; but take it from a tree hugging socialist hippie that was in the marines, an organized group of young men or women whether they be in the military or not, when placed in an environment where saying or doing the wrong thing will result in your own death, one can not be expected to be as socially graceful as those of us who sit in our homes and pass judgment. Now, introduce a camera into the environment and the need to lash out against the situation increases dramatically.

They shouldn't have been in the COUNTRY, let alone the HOUSE.

I love the phrase 'collateral damage'.

First, this way we get to pretend that they aren't actually dead people. They're just 'damage', like a scrape on your car.

Second, it excuses these deaths on the grounds of incompetence. "Yeah, we accidentally killed thousands of innocents because we can't or didn't bother to aim properly, so we're still the good guys."

To tie it back to the OP, I think that defining the deaths of innocents in such a dehumanising way is somewhat rude. Do Marines do this?

Innocent casualties are probably the worst parts of wars. They are unfortunate for sure, but every war involves innocent casualities. No matter how right, or just a military action can be, they are balanced by innocent blood. Sad, for sure, but had Saddam not murdered his own innocent people first, these secondary innocent casualties could also have been avoided.

It's a basic tenet of Just War theory that while civilian deaths are unacceptable, they are inevitable, and making a good faith effort to minimize civilian casualties--even to the point that it proves more dangerous for yourself--alleviates the guilt.

I highly doubt that the Shock and Awe tactic could be described as a good faith effort to minimise civilian casualties.

There's a difference between legality and a technicality. Seeing as I'm not inclined to teach it to you, I hope you find it out yourself.

Now you are trying to school me on semantics? Cute. And inappropriate, given your record.

Had Saddam not murdered his own innocent people first, these secondary innocent casualties could also have been avoided.

"Had she not dressed like a slut I might not have had to rape her."

It was none of your business. And Bush claimed there were WMDs. Where are them? Where are the WMDs?

They shouldn't have been in the COUNTRY, let alone the HOUSE.

And Saddam shouldn't have been oppressing his own people. Hitler shouldn't have gassed the Jews.

"Should have" suddenly becomes a frail expression, no?

Now you are trying to school me on semantics? Cute. And inappropriate, given your record.

It's illegal to murder.

It's a technicality if a minor mistake in handling the evidence renders it moot, allowing a murderer to walk.

I work with the English language for a living.

Interesting that you'd claim the lowest IQ and ASVAB belong to the Marines, when the Navy will take you after you've flunked the Marine Corps tests, Army tests, and Air Force tests.

Being much, much smaller than the other three services, the Marines can cherry-pick who they want, whereas the Army and Navy (having trouble making their recruitment quotas year after year) have had to consistently lower their standards with recruits.

The Marines turn people AWAY, and always have.

What I have said is simply a fact derived from military statistics.

And Saddam shouldn't have been oppressing his own people.

Not. Your. BUSINESS.

"Had she not dressed like a slut I might not have had to rape her."

It was none of your business. And Bush claimed there were WMDs. Where are them? Where are the WMDs?

Actually, Bush claimed (rightly so) that there was a risk (go ahead, read the word again... and maybe a third time for good measure) of Saddam having/developing WMDs, this is because Saddam ignored UN sanctions only about a dozen and a half times. He doesn't allow weapon inspectors unlimited access, we must assume he has something to hide. It's his own stupid fault, and Bush warned him.

Innocent casualties are probably the worst parts of wars. They are unfortunate for sure, but every war involves innocent casualities. No matter how right, or just a military action can be, they are balanced by innocent blood. Sad, for sure, but had Saddam not murdered his own innocent people first, these secondary innocent casualties could also have been avoided.

If Saddam Hussein had never risen to power, we could have avoided even more deaths.

Heikoku, you are a troll. The only difference between you and the noobs, is that you stuck around.

Not. Your. BUSINESS.

Then it isn't the business of the law if I choose to kill other people myself.

In fact, criticizing Bush isn't your business.

Ok, now that your argument has failed, I will wait for the next one.

If Saddam Hussein had never risen to power, we could have avoided even more deaths.

Indeed. Hindsight 20/20.

Mistakes happen. I realize that in this case a 'little' mistake has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and that isn't a good, or acceptable thing, but there is nothing to do save to correct the error at this point.

Heikoku, you are a troll. The only difference between you and the noobs, is that you stuck around.

Gah! You're right, and I know it... but it's hard for me not to refute his non-arguments!

I need to take a chill pill, and let him run his mouth (well... keyboard). Lol.

1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Rise_to_power

2- No, you shouldn't have put him in in the first place, and you shouldn't have STARTED A WAR to remove him either. Two wrongs don't make a right.

You're using Wikipedia as a reliable source? Wow you certainly proved your point :rolleyes:

1.) One of the reasons why we went into the war was because terrorist groups were threatening to kill more Americans. Are you saying we shouldn't be able to defend our country? Are you saying we should sit back and let them? That isn't right. Bush isn't murdering people, this is WAR, people die. Saddam was murdering his people and treating them like shit. And in the first place, we shouldn't have left them in their time of need a few years ago, because that just made it worse, we are finishing the job we started.

2.) You're using too much biased opinion and innacurate facts in this argument

3.) Why do you feel the need to "teach" others when obviously you need to get your facts right in the first place?

Then it isn't the business of the law if I choose to kill other people myself.

In fact, criticizing Bush isn't your business.

Ok, now that your argument has failed, I will wait for the next one.

1- Bush is not the law. America is not the law. Get that through your head.

2- Yes, it is. If he had screwed up within your own borders alone, it wouldn't be.

1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Rise_to_power

2- No, you shouldn't have put him in in the first place, and you shouldn't have STARTED A WAR to remove him either. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The US put Hussein into place?

One of the reasons why we went into the war was because terrorist groups were threatening to kill more Americans.

Lie.

The US put Hussein into place?

Supported him.

Indeed. Hindsight 20/20.

Mistakes happen. I realize that in this case a 'little' mistake has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and that isn't a good, or acceptable thing, but there is nothing to do save to correct the error at this point.

Wait.

Are you suggesting that the CIA made a mistake in supporting Saddam Hussein?

"Oops, we accidentally funneled money and weapons for many years to someone we know is a murderer...."

Indeed. Hindsight 20/20.

Mistakes happen. I realize that in this case a 'little' mistake has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and that isn't a good, or acceptable thing, but there is nothing to do save to correct the error at this point.

It was not your business to make the mistake, neither was it to "correct" it.

I just saw a few minutes of the "Military Channel" yesterday: One Marine who was interviewed said "war is a guy thing, women can never understand it" (mind you, military websites say that there is no place for stereotypes in a soldiers heart). Another marine, who led the outfit, said, "I have never met an honest Iraqi". Later in the show, when the group had to use an Iraqi house for a base of operations, so the outfit told the those who lived inside to leave; when the residents questioned them, one marine indicated his weapon and said, "You have five minutes."

The marines have the lowest average I.Q. and ASVAB score of any branch, but I never thought them this rude.

Considering the massive thread jacking. I will just start with the OP.

1st statement. He is likely just making an over simplified case for the men only combat arms policy of the US military.

2nd statement. It is his personal experience and a generalization. when your down range you tend to use as few words as possible. the only thing that surprises me is why the marine corps didn't make sure to send a more articulate PC marine to be interviewed.

3rd Statement. Its a war zone. Being polite takes up time and may cost lives. I am assuming this base of operations is before an expected fire fight ? Its a situation people may die, my job as a solider is to keep my guys a live.
Its war so all of these statements are tolerable even if not correct in a debating environment.

As for the marines IQ and ASVAB scores source?
I can say my opinion as an army solider of marines is this.
Of all the branches they are the most full of themselves. Marines tend to think of everything going as signs of why and how they are to be a marine. does it make them worse ? I cant say its just a different attitude that they have or at least pretend to have.

Heikoku, you are a troll. The only difference between you and the noobs, is that you stuck around.

You STILL support a war that killed thousands of people for no reason whatsoever.

the only thing that surprises me is why the marine corps didn't make sure to send a more articulate PC marine to be interviewed.

You assume they had one.

You assume they had one.

I speak from experience they do.

I speak from experience they do.

Within that particular squad?

Within that particular squad?

just make sure the squad that the reporter is tagging along with has one to begin with. its a war zone the military has full control.

So, we have a bunch of troops in an unpopular military action who aren't wanted getting shot at all the time by the people they've come to liberate, and we're upset that they're a little rude?

I'd probably be a little rude too.

EDIT: Fixed terminology.

To tie it back to the OP, I think that defining the deaths of innocents in such a dehumanising way is somewhat rude. Do Marines do this?

First-off, I do not want to put all Marines in a box: I will say that on average they tend to be much less kind than portrayed as. I have talked with many of them and, though the U.S. pretends that the whole group cares about Iraqis, and that the Marines want to help them, the fact is that most Marines tend to be bigoted against Iraqis and Muslims, and make jokes like "I'd fly 1000 miles to smoke a camel...jockey." They seem to show little regard for the Iraqi people, and may consider them all enemies. Though what I am referring may be no worse than the way the WWII Marines felt about the Japanese; it is almost certain that no tear was shed over the atomic bomb being dropped, and it is very likely that many jokes were made.

First-off, I do not want to put all Marines in a box: I will say that on average they tend to be much less kind than portrayed as. I have talked with many of them and, though the U.S. pretends that the whole group cares about Iraqis, and that the Marines want to help them, the fact is that most Marines tend to be bigoted against Iraqis and Muslims, and make jokes like "I'd fly 1000 miles to smoke a camel...jockey." They seem to show little regard for the Iraqi people, and may consider them all enemies. Though what I am referring may be no worse than the way the WWII Marines felt about the Japanese; it is almost certain that no tear was shed over the atomic bomb being dropped, and it is very likely that many jokes were made.

This may be an effect of the whole 'dehumanisation of the enemy' thing. But instead of being focused solely on combatants, it bleeds over into the general populace. Perhpas evenheightened by the fact that the enemy combatants look like everyone else.

Considering the massive thread jacking. I will just start with the OP.

1st statement. He is likely just making an over simplified case for the men only combat arms policy of the US military.

Each of those quotes was from a different Marine.

2nd statement. It is his personal experience and a generalization. when your down range you tend to use as few words as possible. the only thing that surprises me is why the marine corps didn't make sure to send a more articulate PC marine to be interviewed.

I doubt they understood the concept, since the leader of the group jokingly (but in a serious tone) threatened to shoot the cameraman in the leg if he made the men look bad.

3rd Statement. Its a war zone. Being polite takes up time and may cost lives. I am assuming this base of operations is before an expected fire fight ? Its a situation people may die, my job as a solider is to keep my guys a live.
Its war so all of these statements are tolerable even if not correct in a debating environment.

Good soldiers, bad persons?

This may be an effect of the whole 'dehumanisation of the enemy' thing. But instead of being focused solely on combatants, it bleeds over into the general populace. Perhpas evenheightened by the fact that the enemy combatants look like everyone else.

the terms don't translate into action or even feeling. My brother came back from Iraq and would use some terms that would be offensive but he also believed (At least at the time) in the mission of making the country and the lvies of Iraqi's better. Combat does things to you and most of it is just verbal stuff.

Were there major military operations before Bush called for them?

No?

Which Bush are you talking about? If the first, no; if the second, yes.

In 1991, Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait. Pres. George H.W. Bush organized a coalition to remove Iraq from that country. Operation Desert Storm was a "major military operation". That operation concluded with a cease fire.

Iraq subsequently violated the terms of that cease fire.

Well, I'm afraid I feel the need to add my opinion to the dizzying array of comments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to have observed a number of posters claiming or implying that U.S. military action has spread freedom in Iraq. Perhaps someone might enlighten me as exactly when this has happened? Or even if it was truly intended--need I remind you of our first hostilities in the conflict (bombing civilian population by night)?

Even if the nation becomes suitably similar to us at some point, presumably through U.S. efforts, all that awaits it is being exploited some more in the holy names of American consumerism and imagined superiority. Is that freedom?

I guess this is rude:L

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=184862&ESRC=dod.nl

But then again, they had it coming.

I just saw a few minutes of the "Military Channel" yesterday: One Marine who was interviewed said "war is a guy thing, women can never understand it" (mind you, military websites say that there is no place for stereotypes in a soldiers heart). Another marine, who led the outfit, said, "I have never met an honest Iraqi". Later in the show, when the group had to use an Iraqi house for a base of operations, so the outfit told the those who lived inside to leave; when the residents questioned them, one marine indicated his weapon and said, "You have five minutes."

1. That appears to be that Marine's opinion. I disagree with it, but I'm hesitant to agree with any statement using the qualifiers "always" or "never".

2. Again, an individual's opinion. You said he "led" the outfit... am I to assume that this was the platoon leader or above (an officer)? Or was he the platoon sergeant, or an NCO in charge of a smaller detachment? Paranoia is not necessarily a bad thing when you're responsible for your friends' lives and you can't tell who the enemy is.

3. What was the tactical situation, especially the security considerations, of the operation they were on? You're ripping a statement out of context, and I'm not going to judge based on that.

The marines have the lowest average I.Q. and ASVAB score of any branch, but I never thought them this rude.
Source for those statistics? I wasn't aware of a report.

Of course, I've met individuals who never served in the military who have been much more rude than this. So, if that's as rude as they get, I'd have to conclude that Marines are much more polite than civilians.

Of course, I've met individuals who never served in the military who have been much more rude than this. So, if that's as rude as they get, I'd have to conclude that Marines are much more polite than civilians.

Most soldiers I've met in person (and I've met quite a few over the years) are generally more polite and more responsible than the typical civilian recently out of high school.

Maybe it's the training.

Each of those quotes was from a different Marine.

I doubt they understood the concept, since the leader of the group jokingly (but in a serious tone) threatened to shoot the cameraman in the leg if he made the men look bad.

The officer is always college educated. Most of your NCOs are also college educated or working on it. Maybe excluding some of the new E-5's. At least that's how it was in the army.

Good soldiers, bad persons?

kicking someone out of their home when you need it to survive and if they are there while your there both your chances of survival go down. they were direct and too the point, that's simply how you behave in a war zone.

I've known a lot of military people, including Marines. One of my Marine friends is a male Wiccan (Wiccans are about the closest thing to hippies you're going find these days).

Some are stupid, some are quite bright. I've never met a rude Marine; of course, that doesn't mean they don't exist. The OP gives three examples of what he calls "rude" Marines (the fact that they're in a more than stressful situation is irrelevant, of course). Three examples does not a statistical universe make. Three rude/stupid Marines doesn't mean all, or even most, Marines are rude/stupid.

Well, I dunno. I would say that certain personality types are less inclined to join the military. not too many tree hugging commie hippies in the marines, no?

This is funny because the only two (ex) marines that I know aren't conservatives. They're also two of the nicest people I know, and actually pretty bright, I guess they're the anti-stereotype marines.

Actually, one of them is an environmental engineer, so he really is a tree hugging communist hippie ;)

Well, I'm afraid I feel the need to add my opinion to the dizzying array of comments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to have observed a number of posters claiming or implying that U.S. military action has spread freedom in Iraq. Perhaps someone might enlighten me as exactly when this has happened? Or even if it was truly intended--need I remind you of our first hostilities in the conflict (bombing civilian population by night)?

Even if the nation becomes suitably similar to us at some point, presumably through U.S. efforts, all that awaits it is being exploited some more in the holy names of American consumerism and imagined superiority. Is that freedom?

Actually, I believe our first strikes were against infrastructure.

Aslo, maybe you're right, maybe enslaving them to democracy, and capitalism isn't quite perfect freedom. On the other hand, giving them the ability to choose their leaders through elections, and giving them the freedom not to be oppressed by a tyrannical overlord is ast least a step closer to freedom, even if it falls short of perfect freedom.

Yeah.

No, statistically speaking they tend to be conservative, unintelligent, and like killing. Have not seen Full Metal Jacket?

And at that time there was a draft: so all kind of men were serving. Left-wingers and right-wingers, trigger-happy and compassionate etc.

At least that's how it was in the army.
Of course, that does bring up a counterargument... at least in the Army, we knew how to roll up the sleeves on our BDUs. <g>

((just to explain the joke, before someone tries to read too much into it... soldiers and marines roll the sleeves up on their camouflage uniforms differently; soldiers fold the cuff of the sleeve over the roll so it shows the pattern, marines don't. after I got out, a friend of mine who was a former marine and I used to joke about how this made one service or the other 'smarter'.))

Iraq subsequently violated the terms of that cease fire.

Exactly. I understand that this does not nessecitate agreement with the military action, but it is indeed a reason to at least somewhat justify said action.

I personally agreed with the 'war' in Iraq when it was being proposed. I have since then, never been in opposition to it. The UN should have been the one to roll in to Iraq, they didn't, at least the US upheld it's global duties. I understand that my opinion is in the minorities, and I understand that arguments against my opinion, but that is how I feel about it.

One on hand, you'd expect people who are trained to respect the chain of command would have a good idea of when to stfu before you make things worse for themselves. On the other, the same training could lead to having little regard for civilians who are outside the chain of command.

Not. Your. BUSINESS.
By that reasoning, the war in Iraq is not your business. Shall you be remaining silent on the matter until Brazil gets involved?
I guess this is rude:L

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=184862&ESRC=dod.nl

But then again, they had it coming.

Your ability to post something off topic rivals Heikoku's.

War in Iraq =/= Are marines rude
Shit blowing up =/= Are marines rude

The US put Hussein into place?

Yes, they did. Together with the oil majors (including the european ones). Also later, when Iraq attacked Iran, the Kremlin wasn't too displeased of Saddam, too.

More in-depth about USA and Saddam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_-_United_States_relations , with a nice pic of Saddam and Rummy shaking hands.

I just saw a few minutes of the "Military Channel" yesterday: One Marine who was interviewed said "war is a guy thing, women can never understand it" (mind you, military websites say that there is no place for stereotypes in a soldiers heart). Another marine, who led the outfit, said, "I have never met an honest Iraqi". Later in the show, when the group had to use an Iraqi house for a base of operations, so the outfit told the those who lived inside to leave; when the residents questioned them, one marine indicated his weapon and said, "You have five minutes."

The marines have the lowest average I.Q. and ASVAB score of any branch, but I never thought them this rude.

Too bad Arabs are well known for doing this :hail:once they're attacked. I still couldn't forget about the photos of gulf war I where Iraqi units were photographed kneeling down and kissing American boots. That act is most unthinkable in where I come from.

By that reasoning, the war in Iraq is not your business. Shall you be remaining silent on the matter until Brazil gets involved?

No. Bush's crime was international, the reaction can be international too.

And they TRIED to involve Brazil in it. Our Constitution, however, is evolved enough to have an only-in-self-defense clause, Art. 84, Line 19.

This is not genocide. Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction of all life on Arrakis."

No. Bush's crime was international, the reaction can be international too.

And they TRIED to involve Brazil in it. Our Constitution, however, is evolved enough to have an only-in-self-defense clause, Art. 84, Line 19.

Oh bull. You just cannot stop whining about Iraq can you? Bush isn't, and shouldn't be tried. Neither will Cheney or Rumsfield. Get the fuck over it.

And there is no genocide in Iraq, not anymore, as Saddam is no longer in power to use poison gas on the Kurds.

"Evolved" you say? Seems more cowardly and foolhardy to me.

And they TRIED to involve Brazil in it. Our Constitution, however, is evolved enough to have an only-in-self-defense clause, Art. 84, Line 19.

that's not so hard to over come. deploy troops over seas and then have them defend themselves.

that's not so hard to over come. deploy troops over seas and then have them defend themselves.

Nicely done, good sir!

:)

that's not so hard to over come. deploy troops over seas and then have them defend themselves.

Our Supreme Court would prevent it.

Oh bull. You just cannot stop whining about Iraq can you? Bush isn't, and shouldn't be tried. Neither will Cheney or Rumsfield. Get the fuck over it.

And there is no genocide in Iraq, not anymore, as Saddam is no longer in power to use poison gas on the Kurds.

"Evolved" you say? Seems more cowardly and foolhardy to me.

1- He should. He killed lots of people.

2- The man the US put in power last time it interfered there?

3- Evolved.

1- He should. He killed lots of people.

2- The man the US put in power last time it interfered there?

3- Evolved.

1. He killed no one himself.
But, people do die in war.

2. The man the US put in, and then took out.

3. Cowardly and foolhardy.
Any nation not willing to fight is a nation of cowards, plain and simple. It is also foolhardy because it takes options of your nations plate.

1. He killed no one himself.
But, people do die in war.

2. The man the US put in, and then took out.

3. Cowardly and foolhardy.
Any nation not willing to fight is a nation of cowards, plain and simple. It is also foolhardy because it takes options of your nations plate.

1- He started a war that killed people.

2- Neither was your right.

3- Your blatant trolling nonwithstanding, we ARE fully willing to fight when we HAVE to. However, Brazil has a good enough foreign policy that no one's attacking us. That we're not a nation of bullies doesn't make us a nation of cowards.

1- He started a war that killed people.

2- Neither was your right.

3- Your blatant trolling nonwithstanding, we ARE fully willing to fight when we HAVE to. However, Brazil has a good enough foreign policy that no one's attacking us. That we're not a nation of bullies doesn't make us a nation of cowards.

1. All wars kill people.

2. Maybe not, but we had the power. All great powers impose their will over the world. It is the way of things. Throughout history all powers of interfered in the affairs of others to benefit themselves. The US seems to have a problem with blowback, though.

3. There is no trolling. I'm stating facts. People who aren't willing to fight if needs be are cowards.

Realistically, maybe is for the best that Brazil put that in its constitution, as forsight. Brazil isn't a major power, and perhaps the framers of your constitution realized this, and put it in as to stop any actions that would get Brazil in trouble.

3- Your blatant trolling nonwithstanding,

No, this is good. You accusing another of trolling.

2- Neither was your right.

Our right according to what? Your opinion? Noted, now you can shut up about it maybe.

No, this is good. You accusing another of trolling.

That's because you define me being against an atrocity as trolling.

1. All wars kill people.

2. Maybe not, but we had the power. All great powers impose their will over the world. It is the way of things. Throughout history all powers of interfered in the affairs of others to benefit themselves. The US seems to have a problem with blowback, though.

3. There is no trolling. I'm stating facts. People who aren't willing to fight if needs be are cowards.

Realistically, maybe is for the best that Brazil put that in its constitution, as forsight. Brazil isn't a major power, and perhaps the framers of your constitution realized this, and put it in as to stop any actions that would get Brazil in trouble.

1- And he started one.

2- Ah, "might makes right". I was wondering when THAT argument would show.

3- Need only IS when a nation is attacked. That we're not a nation of bullies doesn't make us a nation of cowards.

I just saw a few minutes of the "Military Channel" yesterday: One Marine who was interviewed said "war is a guy thing, women can never understand it" (mind you, military websites say that there is no place for stereotypes in a soldiers heart). Another marine, who led the outfit, said, "I have never met an honest Iraqi". Later in the show, when the group had to use an Iraqi house for a base of operations, so the outfit told the those who lived inside to leave; when the residents questioned them, one marine indicated his weapon and said, "You have five minutes."

The marines have the lowest average I.Q. and ASVAB score of any branch, but I never thought them this rude.

Wow! Who would have thought that a training regimen of pain, brutality, and ritualized humiliation would not produce a gentile and refined class of warrior poet?

Sarcasm aside, you're getting this on a TV show on a channel dedicated to promoting military goals and dependent on military cooperation. A documentary whose purpose is, at least in part, to encourage people to join the marines is going to play to a certain badboy/badass stereotype to hook an audience. Some of the most sophisticated people I've met were former Marines.

Of course, they were all former.

So, how much does it take for it to be a genocide? A million?

It takes deliberate state policy of extermination of an entire ethnic/religious/social group. Stop tossing the word genocide around because there is a high casualty count. It cheapens the word.

1. He killed no one himself.
But, people do die in war.


I see if I order someone on my payroll to break into your house and steal your goods and torch the building, I am not culpable if you die in the process.

Excellent.


2. The man the US put in, and then took out.


For self serving reasons both times, not out of any concern for the wellbeing of the people that would die for this. First it was to put someone strong enough to counter Soviet supported Iran. Then it was to make a name for himself and funnel billions to his corporate friends. Don't try to pretend otherwise. Humanitarian concern is only ever trotted out when you want to look nice for the press.

For self serving reasons both times, not out of any concern for the wellbeing of the people that would die for this. First it was to put someone strong enough to counter Soviet supported Iran. Then it was to make a name for himself and funnel billions to his corporate friends. Don't try to pretend otherwise. Humanitarian concern is only ever trotted out when you want to look nice for the press.

Not to be a pain, but the Soviets did not support Iran until after the Iran-Iraq war had wrapped up, meanwhile Hussein derived a very large quantity of weapons from the USSR.

In fact, the only discernable goal of the US during that was was to balance between both states, so that neither was able to dominate the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Foreign_support_to_Iraq_and_Iran

I see if I order someone on my payroll to break into your house and steal your goods and torch the building, I am not culpable if you die in the process.

Nice!

Our right according to what? Your opinion? Noted, now you can shut up about it maybe.

According to international law. And no, I won't shut up.

Funny not one of the Marines that visits NationStates posted before me.

To Heikoku 2; war does not decide who is right, but who is left. while we could threadjack this post there is no bother what is done is done. If the Hague or some other international body wishes to prosecute Bush by all means. We few, we proud, we dumb enough to sign on the dotted line don't pick our battles, we let our congress do that for us. If the war was wrong it was a fault of congress and our president not the trigger pullers.

As for the actual thread itself. Marines are a##holes. We are trained to think we are ten feet tall and bullet proof. We are trained to have to kill the enemies of our nation whether we wish to or not. In the worst case we dehumanize them into racial stereotypes to make pulling the trigger easier. And I think it was the second statement about meeting an honest Iraqi, well insurgency makes trusting those who look like the enemy hard. If you have to bet with the lives of your fellow Marines/soldiers you bet safe.

We are also some of the nicest military personnel you will meet. I watched a Sgt once stop some guy on the street who looked like he was about to lay into his gf. A lot of us take our duty to protect the nation against threats domestic and foreign seriously and that includes protecting all citizens if we are able.

You think Marines are assholes? You've never met Chechen rebels, then.


They are the goatse of assholes.

I just saw a few minutes of the "Military Channel" yesterday: One Marine who was interviewed said "war is a guy thing, women can never understand it" (mind you, military websites say that there is no place for stereotypes in a soldiers heart). Another marine, who led the outfit, said, "I have never met an honest Iraqi". Later in the show, when the group had to use an Iraqi house for a base of operations, so the outfit told the those who lived inside to leave; when the residents questioned them, one marine indicated his weapon and said, "You have five minutes."

The marines have the lowest average I.Q. and ASVAB score of any branch, but I never thought them this rude.

I would love to see you prove what you say you saw. I watch the military channel daily and I have never seen a Marine talk like that on camera. I would also like to see your proof that USMC ASVAB and IQ scores are lower than the other services. I'd be willing to bet my USMC retirement check that you can't provide said proof.

I would love to see you prove what you say you saw. I watch the military channel daily and I have never seen a Marine talk like that on camera. I would also like to see your proof that USMC ASVAB and IQ scores are lower than the other services. I'd be willing to bet my USMC retirement check that you can't provide said proof.

If I manage to find it, can I collect the bet? I need cash.

Of course, I've met individuals who never served in the military who have been much more rude than this. So, if that's as rude as they get, I'd have to conclude that Marines are much more polite than civilians.

I've dealt with waiters who were ruder than the quoted Marines. I think the post begs the question some, much like if someone were to post 'Are all conservatives mentally ill?' or 'What makes liberals such whiners?', but when you only have 'a few minutes' of footage, I guess you do what you can.

Can Bush spell "none of his business"?

So if it's none of his business, then you'd better stop complaining about human rights abuses in foreign countries as of now.

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=184862&ESRC=dod.nl

I wish I could've seen their faces as it landed.

Can Bush spell "none of his business"?

The US used to spell that phrase all the time. Then Pearl Harbor happened. Remember Pearl Harbor?

To Heikoku 2; war does not decide who is right, but who is left. while we could threadjack this post there is no bother what is done is done. If the Hague or some other international body wishes to prosecute Bush by all means. We few, we proud, we dumb enough to sign on the dotted line don't pick our battles, we let our congress do that for us. If the war was wrong it was a fault of congress and our president not the trigger pullers.
However "I was just obeying orders" ceased to be considered an acceptable defence in 'war crimes' trials back at Nuremburg in the 1940s...

(and this comment isn't coming from some "left-wing hippie peacenik", it's coming from a [British] conservative who -- although by no means pleased about the post-invasion mess in Iraq -- considers the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime to have been legally & morally justifiable...)

(and this comment isn't coming from some "left-wing hippie peacenik", it's coming from a [British] conservative who -- although by no means pleased about the post-invasion mess in Iraq -- considers the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime to have been legally & morally justifiable...)

I always thought the only difference between a British liberal and a British conservative was that the conservative extended their pinky finger when they had their tea.

The US used to spell that phrase all the time. Then Pearl Harbor happened. Remember Pearl Harbor?

Are you asserting that Iraq had the will OR the ability to attack the US? If so, you're lying. If not, your argument makes no sense. Either case, you're using the dead at Pearl Harbor to score political points in a forum. In a situation completely different from what led to Pearl Harbor. So, I have to ask: Do YOU remember Pearl Harbor?

According to international law. And no, I won't shut up.

Ah. I see. You are then, aware of International Law that stated that Saddam had to allow UN Weapons Inspectors unlimited access to Iraq correct? So, actually, the UN had the duty over a dozen resolutions ago to invade, and show Iraq that genocide isn't a cool, or acceptable thing to do.

The UN didn't have the nerve to take action (surprise surprise). So the US upheld it's humanitarian obligation to help those in need, and it's international obligation to the UN.

I would quite in fact argue that the UN did not have the right to not invade Iraq.

Ah. I see. You are then, aware of International Law that stated that Saddam had to allow UN Weapons Inspectors unlimited access to Iraq correct? So, actually, the UN had the duty over a dozen resolutions ago to invade, and show Iraq that genocide isn't a cool, or acceptable thing to do.

The UN didn't have the nerve to take action (surprise surprise). So the US upheld it's humanitarian obligation to help those in need, and it's international obligation to the UN.

I would quite in fact argue that the UN did not have the right to not invade Iraq.

1- And the UN accepted the access they got.

2- The UN didn't WANT to take action.

3- The UN interprets international law and treaties, not you.

Are you asserting that Iraq had the will OR the ability to attack the US?

I assert that, at the time, i along with a majority of Americans thought they had that ability with nuclear or chemical or biological weapons and had a leader with the willingness to use them.



If so, you're lying. If not, your argument makes no sense. Either case, you're using the dead at Pearl Harbor to score political points in a forum.

Im doing nothing of the sort. Im using an historical event to illustrate a clear example of where a policy of "its none of my business" [or isolationism as they taught us in History class] ends up with a bad result.

Are you asserting that Iraq had the will OR the ability to attack the US? If so, you're lying. If not, your argument makes no sense. Either case, you're using the dead at Pearl Harbor to score political points in a forum. In a situation completely different from what led to Pearl Harbor. So, I have to ask: Do YOU remember Pearl Harbor?

Nope, I believe it was a broader context based on tendencies of American Isolationism that had pervaded our political sense of self almost since inception.

Though WWI was not fought against a nigh world-spanning evil, WWII was fought for the good of the world, regardless of how many people the US genocided (maybe that terminology, though incorrect, will strike a cord with your over-dramatics).

WWII changed America, I believe that "With great power, comes great responsibility." We have the duty to help those less fortunate, such as the Kurds in Northern Iraq, who were being gassed by Saddam. But hey, we shouldn't care about the human rights violations committed by Saddam, we should pick and choose which violations to hate, like you think is a good idea.

1- And the UN accepted the access they got.

2- The UN didn't WANT to take action.

3- The UN interprets international law and treaties, not you.

And not you. Way to disclude yourself as well, now you can drop 'international law'.

You are right though, that if one person doesn't want to stop evil, no one should want to stop evil. We should have just let Hitler have the world in 1942, after all, think of all the lives that would not have been ended by Americans.

I assert that, at the time, i along with a majority of Americans thought they had that ability with nuclear or chemical or biological weapons and had a leader with the willingness to use them.





Im doing nothing of the sort. Im using an historical event to illustrate a clear example of where a policy of "its none of my business" [or isolationism as they taught us in History class] ends up with a bad result.

1- You were wrong.

2- This is not about isolation, this is about not preempting!

1- And the UN accepted the access they got.

2- The UN didn't WANT to take action.

3- The UN interprets international law and treaties, not you.

You would do well to remember this statement. As far as I recall, I don't believe the UN has attempted to even get the ball rolling on charging G.W. Bush or any of his subordinates with war crimes.

So, clearly, the UN as a whole does not believe Bush committed war crimes, and remember, they interpret international law and treaties, not you.

And not you. Way to disclude yourself as well, now you can drop 'international law'.

You are right though, that if one person doesn't want to stop evil, no one should want to stop evil. We should have just let Hitler have the world in 1942, after all, think of all the lives that would not have been ended by Americans.

1- The UN is still against the invasion.

2- Way to pull out the Hitler card out of your butt. If Saddam had invaded anywhere from the first Gulf War on, you MIGHT have a point.

I assert that, at the time, i along with a majority of Americans thought they had that ability with nuclear or chemical or biological weapons and had a leader with the willingness to use them.

Not an unreasonable thought. Saddam acted like he had something to hide, even when we made it clear that we weren't just gonna pass another fake resolution. He effectively made the decision to bring war into his country... not that he didn't already kill his own people, but thats none of anyone elses business.... :rolleyes:

Nope, I believe it was a broader context based on tendencies of American Isolationism that had pervaded our political sense of self almost since inception.

Though WWI was not fought against a nigh world-spanning evil, WWII was fought for the good of the world, regardless of how many people the US genocided (maybe that terminology, though incorrect, will strike a cord with your over-dramatics).

WWII changed America, I believe that "With great power, comes great responsibility." We have the duty to help those less fortunate, such as the Kurds in Northern Iraq, who were being gassed by Saddam. But hey, we shouldn't care about the human rights violations committed by Saddam, we should pick and choose which violations to hate, like you think is a good idea.

WWII wasn't supposed to change America into a bully nation that preempts, screws with, attacks and murders entire countries out of - not "compassion" - self-interest.

Not an unreasonable thought. Saddam acted like he had something to hide, even when we made it clear that we weren't just gonna pass another fake resolution. He effectively made the decision to bring war into his country... not that he didn't already kill his own people, but thats none of anyone elses business.... :rolleyes:

"She had the rape coming, your honor, she wore a miniskirt!"

1- The UN is still against the invasion.

2- Way to pull out the Hitler card out of your butt. If Saddam had invaded anywhere from the first Gulf War on, you MIGHT have a point.

Actually I was leaning on Intestinal Fluids previous mention of Pearl Harbor, and tying in a similar point, but more directly with WWII.

The UN can be against the invasion, that is their choice as a body of nations to decide. Note they haven't done anything about it?

Actually I was leaning on Intestinal Fluids previous mention of Pearl Harbor, and tying in a similar point, but more directly with WWII.

The UN can be against the invasion, that is their choice as a body of nations to decide. Note they haven't done anything about it?

If the UN is against something in its interpretation of international law, that something is against international law.

"She had the rape coming, your honor, she wore a miniskirt!"

You've said this before. I have not said this. Wearing revealing clothing is quite a different thing altogether.

Regardless, rape is no one's business but the two peoples. Remember, because nothing ever is anyone elses business. :rolleyes:

If the UN is against something in its interpretation of international law, that something is against international law.

Ok. Saddam was in violation of international law first.

But what we are doing is none of the UN's business.

1- You were wrong.

Thats correct and unfortunately that happens to humans sometimes. It still doesn't abdicate our responsibilities to act on what we believe at the time to be right.

2- This is not about isolation, this is about not preempting!

If we learned 2 months before Pearl Harbor that the attack was coming, and the US instead attacked the base that the Pearl Harbor attack would originate from, is that preempting?

1- You were wrong.Everyone is, occasionaly. As is obvious, very, very obvious.

If the UN is against something in its interpretation of international law, that something is against international law....So, what has the UN done to actually...stop us?

You've said this before. I have not said this. Wearing revealing clothing is quite a different thing altogether.

Regardless, rape is no one's business but the two peoples. Remember, because nothing ever is anyone elses business. :rolleyes:

It's society's and the police's. The US is NOT the world police.

...So, what has the UN done to actually...stop us?

That the US wouldn't veto?

Thats correct and unfortunately that happens to humans sometimes. It still doesn't abdicate our responsibilities to act on what we believe at the time to be right.



If we learned 2 months before Pearl Harbor that the attack was coming, and the US instead attacked the base that the Pearl Harbor attack would originate from, is that preempting?

1- Yeah, well, you were wrong and now thousands of people are dead. They sue doctors into bankruptcy for one.

2- You didn't "learn" anything about the WMDs. Bush cherrypicked evidence to pretend they existed.

That the US wouldn't veto?Exactly. They, quite obviously (It seems), don't have the ability to stop us.

It's society's and the police's. The US is NOT the world police.

Whether the Us is, or is not, and what we choose to do about it is none of your business.

In fact it's none of anyone's business ever. Or have you stopped believing that?

It's society's

Ok, and dealing with a murderous tyrant was part of our global society's duty. Onbly a few nations respected that societal duty.

Society? Way to use a word that works better for my argument, than for your vacant trolling.

Whether the Us is, or is not, and what we choose to do about it is none of your business.

In fact it's none of anyone's business ever. Or have you stopped believing that?

INTERNATIONALLY it IS the business of other nations.

Ok, and dealing with a murderous tyrant was part of our global society's duty. Onbly a few nations respected that societal duty.

Society? Way to use a word that works better for my argument, than for your vacant trolling.

No, it wasn't. Especially when YOU put Saddam in in the first place.

Exactly. They, quite obviously (It seems), don't have the ability to stop us.

They should have. Then perhaps this atrocity wouldn't have happened. Then, perhaps, the US wouldn't even have put Saddam in in the first place.

Especially when YOU put Saddam in in the first place....We put him there, so we should...remove him? (As in, it's our mess, let us clean it up?)

No, it wasn't. Especially when YOU put Saddam in in the first place.

Who put Saddam in in the first place at this point is almost hilariously irrelevant.

INTERNATIONALLY it IS the business of other nations.

A tyrant can commit any crime he chooses so long as he only slaughters and represses his own countrymen?

I am sorry but that is a big load of bullshit.

Also, this forum supports rich-text, though I know it is too late for your to save any face whatsoever, you wouldn't look like quite the raving dullard if you used rich-text, rather than CAPS. Just a suggestion.

Also, you're in Brazil, so either persuade the UN to fight the US, invade the US yourself, or stick to your own business.

1- Yeah, well, you were wrong and now thousands of people are dead. They sue doctors into bankruptcy for one.

How many other "occupiers" go to such lengths as the US to pay money to Iraqi families who have victims who are caught in the crossfire of this war on Al Queda.

How many other occupiers sentence their own soldiers for murder when they kill people in an occupied country?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5giymWLSfUIgQvzxuUNYtHUXWyzew

2- You didn't "learn" anything about the WMDs. Bush cherrypicked evidence to pretend they existed.

Then how do you explain how almost all of the rest of the modern intelligence agencies on the Planet made the same assessment if it was just a huge Bush conspiracy?

...We put him there, so we should...remove him? (As in, it's our mess, let us clean it up?)

Nope, because it was never any of our (or anyone elses) business in the first place. :rolleyes:

How many other "occupiers" go to such lengths as the US to pay money to families who have victims who are caught in the crossfire of this war on Al Queda.

How many other occupiers sentence their own soldiers for murder when they kill people in an occupied country?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5giymWLSfUIgQvzxuUNYtHUXWyzew



Then how do you explain how almost all of the rest of the modern intelligence agencies on the Planet made the same assessment if it was just a huge Bush conspiracy?

Regardless of your good, and sound arguments. It was none of our business. :rolleyes:

Who put Saddam in in the first place at this point is almost hilariously irrelevant.

No. It ironically relevant, since Saddam Hussein had already used chemical weapons in violation of international law before Reagan publicly started sending him money, including military aid. And after that, with that aid, Hussein gassed the Kurds.

After giving public and material support to this man who was already obviously a bloodthirsty tyrant, it seems ridiculous for the US government to then trun around and justify an invasion based on the fact that he was a bloodthirsty tyrant.

This is why no one believes the US government's justifications.

This is why no one believes the US government's justifications.No, people believe it, apparently. You could have phrased that better.

No. It ironically relevant, since Saddam Hussein had already used chemical weapons in violation of international law before Reagan publicly started sending him money, including military aid. And after that, with that aid, Hussein gassed the Kurds.

After giving public and material support to this man who was already obviously a bloodthirsty tyrant, it seems ridiculous for the US government to then trun around and justify an invasion based on the fact that he was a bloodthirsty tyrant.

This is why no one believes the US government's justifications.

Oh. Well, I guess you've never made a mistake before.

It's too bad that no one should ever try to correct any mistake that they made.

No, people believe it, apparently. You could have phrased that better.

You are completely correct.

Perhaps I should have written that no one who uses critical thinking skills would believe the justifications.

Oh. Well, I guess you've never made a mistake before.

It's too bad that no one should ever try to correct any mistake that they made.

I would like to know at what point the USA figured out that Saddam Hussein was a bloodthirsty maniac. Because any support of him after that point is no longer a 'mistake'. It is complicity.

You are completely correct.

Perhaps I should have written that no one who uses critical thinking skills would believe the justifications. Much better. Though, you'll find many of the described people in America.

Much better. Though, you'll find many of the described people in America.

And I have met many US citizens who do not believe the justifications.

After giving public and material support to this man who was already obviously a bloodthirsty tyrant, it seems ridiculous for the US government to then trun around and justify an invasion based on the fact that he was a bloodthirsty tyrant.

This is American policy vs Iran for the past 30 years. Buy a big Pit Bull and unleash on Iran. Let Iraq and Iran roll around on the ground keeping each other busy and out of trouble in the bigger picture. Then the Pit Bull stopped fighting Iran and bit Kuwait. Then the US had to hit the Pit Bull on the nose with a newspaper and say bad Pit Bull(First Gulf war) and then the Pit Bull started nipping at the heels of its owner and it had to be put down.

And I have met many US citizens who do not believe the justifications.We just have too many damn people to use the word "many". I'm going to have to find a better modifier.

Never met any so I don't know, though obviously they are American.

I would love to see you prove what you say you saw. I watch the military channel daily and I have never seen a Marine talk like that on camera.

Were you watching it on Thursday, between 1830-2000 hours, California time? Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_1ayyVxKRI (atch from 4:22 for the parts mentioned--for the questioning residents part, see part 2/6.

I would also like to see your proof that USMC ASVAB and IQ scores are lower than the other services. I'd be willing to bet my USMC retirement check that you can't provide said proof.

Go to your local bookstore: take a look at a copy of McGraw-Hill's ASVAB guide.

I just saw a few minutes of the "Military Channel" yesterday: One Marine who was interviewed said "war is a guy thing, women can never understand it" (mind you, military websites say that there is no place for stereotypes in a soldiers heart). Another marine, who led the outfit, said, "I have never met an honest Iraqi". Later in the show, when the group had to use an Iraqi house for a base of operations, so the outfit told the those who lived inside to leave; when the residents questioned them, one marine indicated his weapon and said, "You have five minutes."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_1ayyVxKRI (The second half contains the parts mentioned--for the questioning residents part, see part 2/6.)

The marines have the lowest average I.Q. and ASVAB score of any branch, but I never thought them this rude.

My grandpa was a Marine, and one of the nicest people I've ever known. But I suppose drafts make for different troops. And I guess WWII was a different beast too.

He was the kind of guy that refused to talk about the war, and vehemently insisted that--even though he was Iwo Jima--he never fired a shot from his gun. He was probably lying, yes. But he wasn't the badass "I'ma kill you" Marine stereotype.

No, it's not. It's THEIR house, THEIR country, which should NEVER have been occupied in the first place.

Nice threadjack.

I would like to thank Heikoku 2 who is from Brazil. The nation whose slash and burn farming technique is destroying huge swathes of rainforest daily. It must be hard to lecture us ethically deficient Americans through all the smoke of your own ethically evolved country. *bow*

I would like to thank Heikoku 2 who is from Brazil. The nation whose slash and burn farming technique is destroying huge swathes of rainforest daily. It must be hard to lecture us ethically deficient Americans through all the smoke of your own ethically evolved country. *bow*

Why, am I DEFENDING the actions of land-owners three states away from mine, now? Am I attacking ALL americans or just the ones that cheered on while Iraq was raped? That that part of our constitution is better than the American lack of one, it is. So is Japan's article 9 or Germany's article 26.

How many other "occupiers" go to such lengths as the US to pay money to Iraqi families who have victims who are caught in the crossfire of this war on Al Queda.

How many other occupiers sentence their own soldiers for murder when they kill people in an occupied country?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5giymWLSfUIgQvzxuUNYtHUXWyzew



Then how do you explain how almost all of the rest of the modern intelligence agencies on the Planet made the same assessment if it was just a huge Bush conspiracy?

The war on Iraq had NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda.

And the fact remains that there were no WMDs. And now people are dead.

...We put him there, so we should...remove him? (As in, it's our mess, let us clean it up?)

Not with a damn war!

This is American policy vs Iran for the past 30 years. Buy a big Pit Bull and unleash on Iran. Let Iraq and Iran roll around on the ground keeping each other busy and out of trouble in the bigger picture. Then the Pit Bull stopped fighting Iran and bit Kuwait. Then the US had to hit the Pit Bull on the nose with a newspaper and say bad Pit Bull(First Gulf war) and then the Pit Bull started nipping at the heels of its owner and it had to be put down.

You need to stop with the psychotic delusion that your country "owns" others.

Am I attacking ALL americans or just the ones that cheered on while Iraq was raped?

Iraq raped? By who? Oh yea thats right, by Saddams death squads.

Iraq raped? By who? Oh yea thats right, by Saddams death squads.

By an unwarranted invasion. For that matter, America in general and Republicans in particular didn't let out a peep about Saddam's death squads before Saddam stopped being your... what did you say again? Pet, isn't it? Because you care so much about human rights.

By an unwarranted invasion. For that matter, America in general and Republicans in particular didn't let out a peep about Saddam's death squads before Saddam stopped being your... what did you say again? Pet, isn't it?

Thats not true at all. In fact the US spent a better part of a decade between the two Gulf wars trying to get Saddam to behave himself. This is clear by following the historical record of the UN regarding Iraq in those nearly ten years.

That is such a hilariously ridiculous and quaint question.

So I've returned after doing socially acceptable activities for a while, and notice that a good amount of individuals are still finding a way to run rings around Heikoku's logic with their idealism and "facts". Surprise, surprise. Anyway, here's my thoughts: any given person (whom is likely to actually exist) is going to end up being responsible for some sort of insane slaughter at some point. If you've ever supported most countries, or any sort of political ideaology, you're associated with the wars which have been caused by that. Unless you're starving yourself because you've sent your paycheck to African children, you might as well be saying, "Sorry, I'm not willing to do a damn thing about you dying." So, I'm sure every one of us is a murderer; that's not the issue.

The fact is, people can't be blamed for pursuing their own interests. For some, like Heikoku, it is unpleasant to see hundreds of thousands perish even for what may be passed as a righteous reason. For others, it is enjoyable to have some excuse to feel as if they are some sort of "crusader"; to feel like they are leaving an influence on the world, and that makes them feel pretty badass. This is understnadable too, considering we've established that it is purely human nature to cause suffering and unethical civilian treatment.

So, now that you all understand one another, please quit whining and making crap up to suit your temporary preferences and do something productive. Like, go build a snowman.

So I've returned after doing socially acceptable activities for a while, and notice that a good amount of individuals are still finding a way to run rings around Heikoku's logic with their idealism and "facts". Surprise, surprise. Anyway, here's my thoughts: any given person (whom is likely to actually exist) is going to end up being responsible for some sort of insane slaughter at some point. If you've ever supported most countries, or any sort of political ideaology, you're associated with the wars which have been caused by that. Unless you're starving yourself because you've sent your paycheck to African children, you might as well be saying, "Sorry, I'm not willing to do a damn thing about you dying." So, I'm sure every one of us is a murderer; that's not the issue.

The fact is, people can't be blamed for pursuing their own interests. For some, like Heikoku, it is unpleasant to see hundreds of thousands perish even for what may be passed as a righteous reason. For others, it is enjoyable to have some excuse to feel as if they are some sort of "crusader"; to feel like they are leaving an influence on the world, and that makes them feel pretty badass. This is understnadable too, considering we've established that it is purely human nature to cause suffering and unethical civilian treatment.

So, now that you all understand one another, please quit whining and making crap up to suit your temporary preferences and do something productive. Like, go build a snowman.

Wow.

You ARE eloquent.

And very good for a new guy. :)

Wow.

You ARE eloquent.

And very good for a new guy. :)

and you are choppy with very badly thought out arguments...and how long have you been here...plus you threadjack...so meh

and you are choppy with very badly thought out arguments...and how long have you been here...plus you threadjack...so meh

The fact remains the war was wrong.

The fact remains the war was wrong.

Which honestly has fuckall to do with the topic about whether or not Marines are rude.

The fact remains the war was wrong.

No, the fact is that a war was started. You and I are both of the opinion that the war is asinine, but that is not fact.

And...

Which honestly has fuckall to do with the topic about whether or not Marines are rude.

...this.

The US used to spell that phrase all the time. Then Pearl Harbor happened. Remember Pearl Harbor?

Oh right. The US invasions of the Philippines, Mexico, the extortion at gunpoint of Japan, the bastard children of American ego centric Manifest Destiny, they all didn't happen before Pearl Harbor, did they?

But I expect no different from your kind, so willing to kill and conquer when you have the advantage, hide the dirty little wars under the carpet, but then cry foul and protest your innocence when you are retaliated against.

The people who protest that America was isolationist before the bombing of pearl harbor despite knowing of its history are no different than the scum who tell you they're your friends while they're planning to stab your eyes out the moment you let your guard down.

Question: why does every vaguely US military related thread have to be derailed by Heikoku in a jihad-like quest for us to recognize his debating (cough) prowess?

Question: why does every vaguely US military related thread have to be derailed by Heikoku in a jihad-like quest for us to recognize his debating (cough) prowess?Because the US military has something to do with the Iraq War, and the Iraq War is wrong! :rolleyes:

Yes, Heikoku, we understand that you do not like the war. Fortunately, rubbing your beliefs in everyone's face does...nothing.

Fortunately, rubbing your beliefs in everyone's face does...nothing.

Someday, the Iraq War will be discussed in the same breath as the invasion of Poland. I work hard to ensure that it is within my lifetime.

Someday, the Iraq War will be discussed in the same breath as the invasion of Poland. I work hard to ensure that it is within my lifetime.That's nice. You have something against the Iraq War. You've expounded upon it needlessly ever since I've known you.

Other than your endless repetitive statements about the Iraq War, do you have anything to say on the topic of Marines being rude?

That's nice. You have something against the Iraq War. You've expounded upon it needlessly ever since I've known you.

Other than your endless repetitive statements about the Iraq War, do you have anything to say on the topic of Marines being rude?

Yes - after invading a country, they, in that show, entered a house and threatened its inhabitants. I'm pretty sure that breaches the rules of discourse.

Yes - after invading a country, they, in that show, entered a house and threatened its inhabitants. I'm pretty sure that breaches the rules of discourse.Alright, this I understand. I'm quite sure that invading a country and threatening its inhabitants is very rude. I agree completely.

Someday, the Iraq War will be discussed in the same breath as the invasion of Poland. I work hard to ensure that it is within my lifetime.

You're comparing Bush to the Swedes and Turks of the late 17th century?

That's just terrible...

You're comparing Bush to the Swedes and Turks of the late 17th century?

That's just terrible...

Of course he/she isn't. It's an obvious comparison between Bush and the Teutonic Order, with Bush as Ulrich von Jungingen. :p

Someday, the Iraq War will be discussed in the same breath as the invasion of Poland. I work hard to ensure that it is within my lifetime.

Because nothing affects the judgment of future historians and academics like somebody endlessy bitching on the Internet. Self-important much?

You're comparing Bush to the Swedes and Turks of the late 17th century?

That's just terrible...

Especially because Finnish soldiers fought there.

I know a lot of people who served/serve in the armed forces. Generally Marines are a bit more rugged and quite often more rude than other branches but I know some damn nice marines too. Universally soldiers are almost always very self assured but there is nothing wrong with that.

Yes - after invading a country, they, in that show, entered a house and threatened its inhabitants. I'm pretty sure that breaches the rules of discourse.

Yes because what should the soldiers have done? Called the inhabitants real estate agent to negotiate a rental agreement when they have fellow soldiers under fire nearby? War is not polite. Stop expecting it to be.

Yes because what should the soldiers have done? Called the inhabitants real estate agent to negotiate a rental agreement when they have fellow soldiers under fire nearby? War is not polite. Stop expecting it to be.

What about NOT THREATENING THEM WITH A RIFLE?

Besides, screw them. They have no business being there in the first place, let alone drawing fire to a house that's not theirs. They're under fire because they're THERE. If they weren't there, they'd not be under fire.

Oh yay, this has turned into another thread where people start fighting over the conflicts in the Middle East...

Find a thread thats about that please. There are plenty of them.

What about NOT THREATENING THEM WITH A RIFLE?


Your living in an unrealistic fantasy world. Its not a Marines job to be polite so the entire premise is ridiculous. Its like asking if coal miners as a group are polite or not. The question is illogical.

Buildings have been commandeered for military purposes since buildings were caves. What part of this is a surprise to you?

Your living in an unrealistic fantasy world. Its not a Marines job to be polite so the entire premise is ridiculous. Its like asking if coal miners as a group are polite or not. The question is illogical.

Buildings have been commandeered for military purposes since buildings were caves. What part of this is a surprise to you?

There's a difference between not being polite and threatening someone with a rifle. You are currently not being polite to me. You are not threatening me with a rifle.

A Marine is supposed to stick a bayonet into the enemy's chest, not sound compassionate on youtube.

Especially because Finnish soldiers fought there.

Why do you feel the need to bring Finland into everything? Is it a desperate attempt to make your pathetic, shithole excuse for a country seem marginally less awful and feeble than it is?

Why do you feel the need to bring Finland into everything? Is it a desperate attempt to make your pathetic, shithole excuse for a country seem marginally less awful and feeble than it is?

Mainly because of my patriocity. I don't think that Finland is so horrible. And why do you bash Finland so much?

What about NOT THREATENING THEM WITH A RIFLE?

If you can't speak the language, and you need somebody out of the house, you're gonna wave your weapon at them, simply because they'll know what that means. I highly doubt he was prepared to shoot the inhabitants.

Besides, screw them. They have no business being there in the first place

What are you doing in Brazil then? Get out, leave it for the Indians.

A Marine is supposed to stick a bayonet into the enemy's chest, not sound compassionate on youtube.

Ah, so Iraqi civilian homeowners are the enemy now. Interesting.

If you can't speak the language, and you need somebody out of the house, you're gonna wave your weapon at them, simply because they'll know what that means. I highly doubt he was prepared to shoot the inhabitants.



What are you doing in Brazil then? Get out, leave it for the Indians.

1- That's what interpreters and someone who SPEAKS THE DAMN LANGUAGE are for. Not that they should even be there in the first place, but do you see why interpreters are needed?

2- I was born here. The American soldiers were, by definition, not born in Iraq.

Mainly because of my patriocity.

Patriotism.

I don't think that Finland is so horrible. Well, as a Finn, you clearly wouldn't.

And why do you bash Finland so much?

Because you have a stupid language, and you can't defend yourselves. You've been ruled by foreigners for hundreds of years.

Because you have a stupid language, and you can't defend yourselves. You've been ruled by foreigners for hundreds of years.
You do realize that describes every single country since forever right?

1- That's what interpreters and someone who SPEAKS THE DAMN LANGUAGE are for. Not that they should even be there in the first place, but do you see why interpreters are needed?

Yes I do, but in some situations it becomes too dangerous for an interpreter/the interpreter gets injured or killed/you get separated from them etc etc

2- I was born here. The American soldiers were, by definition, not born in Iraq.

But your ancestors still came here, forced the natives off the land etc. The Americans aren't doing that. If anything they have more right to be there than you do to be in Brazil.

You do realize that describes every single country since forever right?

Not really.

Because you have a stupid language, and you can't defend yourselves. You've been ruled by foreigners for hundreds of years.

Nationalism got to Finland in the 1800s. Before that we really didn't have the idea of an independent Finland. And as for defending ourselves, what about the Winter War when we caused more casualties to the Soviets than them to us? And, the Finnish is a different language because it was developed in different conditions than for example English.

You do realize that describes every single country since forever right?

Except of course the US. ;)

Nationalism got to Finland in the 1800s. Before that we really didn't have the idea of an independent Finland.

Because you'd been crushed, and rightly so, for so long.

And as for defending ourselves, what about the Winter War when we caused more casualties to the Soviets than them to us?

That was more thanks to the terrain and German help than Finnish power.

And, the Finnish is a different language because it was developed in different conditions than for example English.

I know it developed differently, but it's so bloody stupid. It hurts my ears to listen to and my eyes to read.

Except of course the US. ;)

Britain, Spain, Russia and possibly France all ruled parts of what is now the US for hundreds of years.(and no I'm not taking you seriously:))

That was more thanks to the terrain and German help than Finnish power.

Read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4)

Britain, Spain, Russia and possibly France all ruled parts of what is now the US for hundreds of years.(and no I'm not taking you seriously:))

France never ruled anywhere, it's lies and foreign propaganda.

But your ancestors still came here, forced the natives off the land etc. The Americans aren't doing that. If anything they have more right to be there than you do to be in Brazil.

Wrong. I never invaded Brazil. What my purported ancestors did isn't my fault. The soldiers invaded Iraq.

France never ruled anywhere, it's lies and foreign propaganda.

:p Stop being so British.

And Finland is a nice peaceful place, nothing shit-hole-ish about it.

Wrong. I never invaded Brazil. What my purported ancestors did isn't my fault. The soldiers invaded Iraq.

How do you know these soldiers were first wave? What their predecessors did isn't their fault.

Because you'd been crushed, and rightly so, for so long.

Nope. It wasn't in Finland before that because merchants aren't that interested in ideals like nationalism. When those that it interests like people in their 20s-30s hear of it, of course they pick it up.


[/QUOTE=No Names Left Damn It;14538335]
That was more thanks to the terrain and German help than Finnish power.[/QUOTE]

Erm, no. We only got that help in the Continuation War.

[/QUOTE=No Names Left Damn It;14538335]
I know it developed differently, but it's so bloody stupid. It hurts my ears to listen to and my eyes to read.[/QUOTE]

Because anecdotal evidence is the best kind. :rolleyes:

Read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4)

I know about him, but would he have been able to pull that off without the snow? Or the trees etc?

How do you know these soldiers were first wave? What their predecessors did isn't their fault.

I won't argue this with you, on account of it being too silly.

Erm, no. We only got that help in the Continuation War.

They supplied you with arms for the Winter War.

Because anecdotal evidence is the best kind. :rolleyes:

I don't like the language, that's entirely opinionated. You don't need evidence for it.

I won't argue this with you, on account of it being too silly.

Run away from the argument you can't refute then.

And Finland is a nice peaceful place, nothing shit-hole-ish about it.

It's full of Finns.

It's full of Finns.

What's wrong with Finns?

What's wrong with Finns?

They fail.