NationStates Jolt Archive

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

...

Bad move on your part.

Okay: Let me kindly explain to you what's the difference here. The SOLDIERS are INVADING a country. I was BORN in it. The soldiers aren't the descendants of invaders, they are the INVADERS. I am not an invader, I'm a distant descendant of them. The soldiers shouldn't be there, because they weren't wanted there when the invasion occurred, FAR LESS than a generation ago. My ancestors invaded here MANY generations ago. The soldiers can control their actions. I can't control my ancestor's actions.

Do you understand or should I draw you a picture?

They fail.

So does your face.

So does your face.

You made me chuckle. :)

The soldiers shouldn't be there, because they weren't wanted there when the invasion occurred

But they are needed now.

I can't control my ancestor's actions.

But you could do the right thing and leave.

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.

And this is their fault how? I mean it's not as if the soldiers get to choose when and where they fight.

And this is their fault how? I mean it's not as if the soldiers get to choose when and where they fight.

I thought you could choose your deployments. You certainly can in the British army.

I thought you could choose your deployments. You certainly can in the British army.No, I'm pretty sure that you have to mobilize with your unit, and ship with your unit.

No, I'm pretty sure that you have to mobilize with your unit, and ship with your unit.

Pah. After your first (or maybe second) tour of duty in the British army you get to chose your deployments.

Pah. After your first (or maybe second) tour of duty in the British army you get to chose your deployments.The US military also happens to be significantly bigger than the British.

They do give you a "dream list" of places that you would like to go to if you're serving in the active army. Though, if your unit is mobilized to go to Iraq/Afghanistan, I'm almost positive that you have to go with them.

Marines are not here to be nice, Marines are here to kill people and break their shit,long live case rounds!!

The US military also happens to be significantly bigger than the British.

By bigger you of course mean worse. :)

They do give you a "dream list" of places that you would like to go to if you're serving in the active army.

What places ar these then? Okinawa? South Korea?

Pah. After your first (or maybe second) tour of duty in the British army you get to chose your deployments.

Really?

But they are needed now.



But you could do the right thing and leave.

1- They CREATED the need.

2- It's not "right" for me to leave because I never committed any crime.

And this is their fault how? I mean it's not as if the soldiers get to choose when and where they fight.

It's not the fault of the home owners, is it? Unlike the soldiers, THEY signed no papers.

1- They CREATED the need.

The government created the need, the soldiers got put there through no choice of there own. They didn't decide to invade.

2- It's not "right" for me to leave because I never committed any crime.

Neither did most of these soldiers.

By bigger you of course mean worse. :) I have no idea as to what you're on about. :p



What places ar these then? Okinawa? South Korea?Put the name of the place on the list with a military base there, and it's possible that you could get sent there. :D

I have no idea as to what you're on about. :p

Don't make us recolonise you. You upstart colonials could do with a bit of edification about which country's best.

Put the name of the place on the list with a military base there, and it's possible that you could get sent there. :D

Does it have to be an American military base? I mean, can they get sent to an allied military base then or what?

Don't make us recolonise you. You upstart colonials could do with a bit of edification about which country's best. Don't make us integrate you.



Does it have to be an American military base? I mean, can they get sent to an allied military base then or what?Mostly American military bases.

Don't make us integrate you.

You can try.

Neither did most of these soldiers.

1- The war itself is illegal.

2- Even if it wasn't, the citizens are under no obligation to support an occupying force, let alone by drawing fire to their houses.

3- That the soldier threatened the owner of the house with a rifle to get them to do it is even worse.

1- The war itself is illegal.

That's no fault of the soldiers'.

3- That the soldier threatened the owner of the house with a rifle to get them to do it is even worse.

So let's say it's you. There's no interpreter. You need these people out of the house now. What do you do? And read the OP again. He waved his rifle, he didn't point it at him.

That's no fault of the soldiers'.



So let's say it's you. There's no interpreter. You need these people out of the house now. What do you do? And read the OP again. He waved his rifle, he didn't point it at him.

1- Neither is it of the people who live there. So, no, they are still under no obligation to get soldiers in their home. I'd not take BRAZILIAN soldiers in mine.

2- Sign language. Besides, y'know, NOT INVADING their house in the first place. If I robbed a store and cops were out to get me, I'd not expect people to host me to evade them. Why do so when invading a country and their people were out to get me?

1- Neither is it of the people who live there. So, no, they are still under no obligation to get soldiers in their home. I'd not take BRAZILIAN soldiers in mine.

2- Sign language. Besides, y'know, NOT INVADING their house in the first place. If I robbed a store and cops were out to get me, I'd not expect people to host me to evade them. Why do so when invading a country and their people were out to get me?

So maybe you should direct your anger solely at those who began the war, and not on those who are forced to carry out the orders whether they agree or not. Criticize and judge individual soldiers for crimes they commit, but you can't yell at the soldiers for being in Iraq in the first place.

So maybe you should direct your anger solely at those who began the war, and not on those who are forced to carry out the orders whether they agree or not. Criticize and judge individual soldiers for crimes they commit, but you can't yell at the soldiers for being in Iraq in the first place.

They STILL don't get to waltz into other people's houses like they own them!

They STILL don't get to waltz into other people's houses like they own them!

Read what I said. Go ahead and criticize individual soldiers for individual actions. I am not suggesting that troops get a free pass.

Read what I said. Go ahead and criticize individual soldiers for individual actions. I am not suggesting that troops get a free pass.

So we are agreed, then, that no, home owners don't have to open their houses to soldiers of an occupying force.

So we are agreed, then, that no, home owners don't have to open their houses to soldiers of an occupying force.

Well, no, they don't have to, there's nothing requiring them to... but on the other hand, it's funny, a large man with a large gun finds very few locked doors.

Well, no, they don't have to, there's nothing requiring them to... but on the other hand, it's funny, a large man with a large gun finds very few locked doors.

Yeah, and so do 19 men with paper-cutters in a plane, innit? Doesn't make it right either.

Yeah, and so do 19 men with paper-cutters in a plane, innit? Doesn't make it right either.

Ooh, shocking, you compared American soldiers to terrorists, look, I'm all mad now. As for 'right', I didn't make any moral judgments, I only offered an observation.

Ooh, shocking, you compared American soldiers to terrorists, look, I'm all mad now. As for 'right', I didn't make any moral judgments, I only offered an observation.

No, YOU did so when you just said that "guns open doors". Well, to be fair, no, you didn't, you just compared them to muggers.

No, YOU did so when you just said that "guns open doors". Well, to be fair, no, you didn't, you just compared them to muggers.

Very few muggers bother opening doors and entering residences. Mugging is more an al fresco crime. But you are still off base. What I actually offered was an observation on the philosophy of force majeure.

Very few muggers bother opening doors and entering residences. Mugging is more an al fresco crime. But you are still off base. What I actually offered was an observation on the philosophy of force majeure.

Okay: Still doesn't make it right.

Okay: Still doesn't make it right.

Given that it's a fait accompli, whether or not it was 'right' is a bit of a moot point, it's done and over with. We can sit here and maunder on all night about whether it was 'right' or not, and it's not going to change anything.

Okay: Still doesn't make it right.He wasn't saying that it was right. :rolleyes:
He even stated that when you accused him of saying that the first time.

Given that it's a fait accompli, whether or not it was 'right' is a bit of a moot point, it's done and over with. We can sit here and maunder on all night about whether it was 'right' or not, and it's not going to change anything.

It might. They could be tried for this.

Ive learned in my time here on NSG that the actions of one mean thats how everyone else feels.

This is why:
All Muslims are terrorists
All marines are sociopathic murderers who rape young japanese school girls
All blacks are criminals
etc

He wasn't saying that it was right. :rolleyes:
He even stated that when you accused him of saying that the first time.

To be sure, I didn't accuse him of it.

This is why:
All Muslims are terrorists
All marines are sociopathic murderers who rape young japanese school girls
All blacks are criminals
etcI agree 100%!

Ive learned in my time here on NSG that the actions of one mean thats how everyone else feels.

This is why:
All Muslims are terrorists
All marines are sociopathic murderers who rape young japanese school girls
All blacks are criminals
etc

To be sure, I'm pointing out the actions of THESE PARTICULAR morons.

It might. They could be tried for this.

I am pretty sure they can't be charged with commandeering a domicile for the purpose of getting cover from fire. If anything the Iraqi family is lucky that the soldiers didn't charge in shooting first on the assumption that the whole block was hostile. Which if I was taking fire from everywhere I might assume.

It might. They could be tried for this.

Sure, it might. Lots of things could happen. That's the beauty of starting a sentence with 'they/it/she/he could..." whatever you say after that is true.

Which is when Mr. Probability sneaks up and takes a bite out of your ass.

To be sure, I didn't accuse him of it.I misread the meaning of your post in response to him. Sorry.

(Forgive me, I'm running two hours of sleep, and writing a paper on Guantanamo Bay. It's really fucking with my head. :()

I am pretty sure they can't be charged with commandeering a domicile for the purpose of getting cover from fire. If anything the Iraqi family is lucky that the soldiers didn't charge in shooting first on the assumption that the whole block was hostile. Which if I was taking fire from everywhere I might assume.

So... Invaders enter their house, use illegitimate and undue force, and they, the innocent civilians, should count themselves LUCKY they didn't get killed?

And yet the war was for the human rights of the people there, innit?

Cute.

I misread the meaning of your post in response to him. Sorry.

(Forgive me, I'm running two hours of sleep, and writing a paper on Guantanamo Bay. It's really fucking with my head. :()

Holy shit.

So... Invaders enter their house, use illegitimate and undue force, and they, the innocent civilians, should count themselves LUCKY they didn't get killed?

And yet the war was for the human rights of the people there, innit?

Cute.

War is Hell...Bad things happen. Course you will never know...you would rather get shot then shoot...so meh...

War is Hell...Bad things happen. Course you will never know...you would rather get shot then shoot...so meh...

Let me make a quick intra-lingual translation of the bolded:

"It's okay when we do it, as we can blame the war WE started."

I see.

Let me make a quick intra-lingual translation of the bolded:

"It's okay when we do it, as we can blame the war WE started."

I see.

Actually a better translation is: In conflict don't hold grudges because everyone fights to win

Let me make a quick intra-lingual translation of the bolded:

"It's okay when we do it, as we can blame the war WE started."

I see.

That's a load of bollocks.

The guys on the ground didn't start the war, they're just the ones put in shitty situations on a daily basis by it. Then condescending arses like your self go online to take a shit all over them for trying to keep themselves alive.

Actually a better translation is: In conflict don't hold grudges because everyone fights to win

Apperantly you disagree with holding people accountable too.

Then condescending arses like your self go online to take a shit all over them for trying to keep themselves alive.

Trying to keep themselves alive does NOT justify threatening other people and endangering their houses.

That's a load of bollocks.

The guys on the ground didn't start the war, they're just the ones put in shitty situations on a daily basis by it. Then condescending arses like your self go online to take a shit all over them for trying to keep themselves alive.

No one is blaming them for starting the war. But there is nothing wrong with holding people accountable for their actions. "War is hell" and "You dont know what its like" are a good defense.

Actually a better translation is: In conflict don't hold grudges because everyone fights to win

The people in the crossfire be damned, innit?

I'm the translator here.

No one is blaming them for starting the war. But there is nothing wrong with holding people accountable for their actions. "War is hell" and "You dont know what its like" are a good defense.

H2 is:

"It's okay when we do it, as we can blame the war WE started."

Holy shit.I have to present both sides of the argument in this one, and presenting the "zOMG, We're releasing teh Ebil Terist into society!" argument is just...almost unbearable. :(

H2 is:

Thats not what he is saying at all.

Trying to keep themselves alive does NOT justify threatening other people and endangering their houses.

People > Property.

I think you would be arguing the same thing if this wasn't about American soldiers involved in your personal pet peeve.

It's war people, what the hell do you expect. Be Good, Get Good, Or Go Home.

I have to present both sides of the argument in this one, and presenting the "zOMG, We're releasing teh Ebil Terist into society!" argument is just...almost unbearable. :(

Poor thing. :(

Thats not what he is saying at all.

It's not?

I found it telling that he didn't address that part of my post in his reply to me.

People > Property.

I think you would be arguing the same thing if this wasn't about American soldiers involved in your personal pet peeve.

I would be arguing the same thing about any occupation force. Regardless, the rights of the guy sent away from his house at GUNPOINT are also personal rights.

It's not?

I found it telling that he didn't address that part of my post in his reply to me.

That's because I argue as it pleases me.

I would be arguing the same thing about any occupation force. Regardless, the rights of the guy sent away from his house at GUNPOINT are also personal rights.

Didn't the Portuguese conquer Brazil...so aren't you an occupying force...shouldn't you be getting out of Brazil and giving it back to the natives?

I would be arguing the same thing about any occupation force. Regardless, the rights of the guy sent away from his house at GUNPOINT are also personal rights.

Fair point, what would you have done in the soldiers place?

Thats not what he is saying at all.

That was an exact quote.

That's because I argue as it pleases me.

If I've misrepresented you then you should point out my error lest I start building a strawman.

Didn't the Portuguese conquer Brazil...so aren't you an occupying force...shouldn't you be getting out of Brazil and giving it back to the natives?

Okay, since I got this shit before, I'll say in all caps so it's understood.

SCREW. THE. PORTUGUESE.

The soldiers weren't BORN in Iraq. That's sorta one of the 196 reasons why they are AMERICAN soldiers. I was BORN in here.

If I've misrepresented you then you should point out my error lest I start building a strawman.

*Sighs*

I'll have to explain tactics, won't I? Okay.

I figured someone would point it out. I wasn't disappointed. It'd be stronger as I myself wouldn't be the one pointing it out. So there.

That was an exact quote.

I missed the part where he said the American soldiers started the war. I merely saw him saying AMERICA started the war. That a few marines and their allies have had their feather's ruffled chose to interpert that to better fit their agenda isnt fair. Nor does it make it what he actually said.

Fair point, what would you have done in the soldiers place?

Sign language IF we absolutely HAD to enter. One thing the American troops should do would be to print, in Arabic, such requisition notices and others when needed, and pass around to help surpass such language barriers without threatening to SHOOT a person.

*Sighs*

I'll have to explain tactics, won't I? Okay.

I figured someone would point it out. I wasn't disappointed. It'd be stronger as I myself wouldn't be the one pointing it out. So there.

And then someone agreed with me, 1 all as far as I can see. Perhaps not the best tactic if all it can generate is a draw.

What did you mean by your statement then?

And then someone agreed with me, 1 all as far as I can see. Perhaps not the best tactic if all it can generate is a draw.

What did you mean by your statement then?

"It's okay when America does it, it can blame the war it started."

Okay, since I got this shit before, I'll say in all caps so it's understood.

SCREW. THE. PORTUGUESE.

The soldiers weren't BORN in Iraq. That's sorta one of the 196 reasons why they are AMERICAN soldiers. I was BORN in here.

So if American soldiers rape Iraqi women...then it is ok for those children to suppress the natives, since they were born there. Hmm not sure if the Generals want to wait that long;)

Sign language IF we absolutely HAD to enter. One thing the American troops should do would be to print, in Arabic, such requisition notices and others when needed, and pass around to help surpass such language barriers without threatening to SHOOT a person.

And if the person is just plain uncooperative? At least for the Iraqis the American troops ask to check the place. We, on personal experience, just kicked down the door and searched the house.

Sign language IF we absolutely HAD to enter. One thing the American troops should do would be to print, in Arabic, such requisition notices and others when needed, and pass around to help surpass such language barriers without threatening to SHOOT a person.

You want soldiers to perform property conveyency in a hot zone?

Also, do you have a source for the soldiers threatening to shoot the people?

And if the person is just plain uncooperative? At least for the Iraqis the American troops ask to check the place. We, on personal experience, just kicked down the door and searched the house.

Assuming you HAD any business BEING there in the first place, the reaction would be another card informing them politely that they have to cooperate or be prosecuted. NOT shot at. Prosecuted.

So if American soldiers rape Iraqi women...then it is ok for those children to suppress the natives, since they were born there. Hmm not sure if the Generals want to wait that long;)

Ah, "suppressing the natives", that's what you call it now, innit?

Please. If American soldiers rape Iraqi women, they should be sent to prison, and the other prisoners informed of why they are there.

You want soldiers to perform property conveyency in a hot zone?

Also, do you have a source for the soldiers threatening to shoot the people?

1- As opposed to threatening people? Yes.

2- The OP.

"It's okay when America does it, it can blame the war it started."

So why not just say that instead of using emotive language?

Or is this another "tactic" I'm not grasping?

Assuming you HAD any business BEING there in the first place, the reaction would be another card informing them politely that they have to cooperate or be prosecuted. NOT shot at. Prosecuted.

By there, you mean Iraq, right? I'm not an American soldier, I've never been there.

By there, you mean Iraq, right? I'm not an American soldier, I've never been there.

Sorry, yes, Iraq.

So why not just say that instead of using emotive language?

Or is this another "tactic" I'm not grasping?

No, that's merely a metonymy.

1- As opposed to threatening people? Yes.

2- The OP.

You should check you sources, the solider doesn't threaten to shoot them, he says they have 5 minutes to leave or he'll put them out. He never points his weapon at them or threatens to shoot them.

The soldiers also have a translator with them explaining the situation to the owners of the property.

The soldiers also have a translator with them explaining the situation to the owners of the property.

If they had an interpreter (translators translate written texts, interpreters translate speech and roll in the money), why the hell did they pat the guns in the first place?

No, that's merely a metonymy.

We is a metonym foe American?

I did not know that.

We is a metonym foe American?

I did not know that.

*Sighs*

"We Americans" in this case. In context, yes.

If they had an interpreter (translators translate written texts, interpreters translate speech and roll in the money), why the hell did they pat the guns in the first place?

When did they pat their guns?

when did they pat their guns?

op.

op.

What point in the video?

war is rude. killing people who have done nothing to deserve to die is rude. the marine corps job is to kill whoever they are pointed at by their comander in chief and their chain of command. and either not ask questions, or accept court martial if they ever individually develop a conscience.

so i think the question is silly. how can they possibly be expected to be contrary to what is asked, nay demanded, of them in the first place?

Marines are marines. There are officers that are supposed to be smart and some of them are and there the followers, E-1, E-2, etc. that are supposed to be not smart but some of them are. Marines are just like you and me deep down and without the high kill scores. Some are nice, save sick children, wounded civilians without proper authority and some are just idiotic assholes.

Marines are marines. There are officers that are supposed to be smart and some of them are and there the followers, E-1, E-2, etc. that are supposed to be not smart but some of them are. Marines are just like you and me deep down and without the high kill scores. Some are nice, save sick children, wounded civilians without proper authority and some are just idiotic assholes.

true enough as far as it goes, but still doesn't over ride the reality, as stated above, of what is demanded of them.

Some of them will be. In a group they're doubtless more impolite than on their own, but that's people for you, eh.

Its a nonsensical question. Its like asking if telephone repairmen like the color blue,because you have a video of a telephone repair man going oh blue, thats a nice color.