# Politics and News > Rants, Opinions, Observations >  Time to Stop the Military as Heroes Wankfest

## Network

_Protecting our freedoms_ in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were they?  You know those commie North Vietnamese were sure to conquer the vast lands of the US.

All three of those wars were great successes, right?  Military...duped kids fighting for democracy abroad in conflicts that have nothing to do with the imaginary borders called the USA.

Stop indoctrinating the children to think it is a noble profession to go kill and die for nothing.  Stop your comic book bullshit about the glories of war.  Stop lying about spreading freedom and liberty while destroying it at home.  Wankers

----------

The XL (02-05-2013)

----------


## garyo

Well said, 50k young men died in Viet Nam for nothing, and it's still for not.

----------


## Network

> Well said, 50k young men died in Viet Nam for nothing, and it's still for not.


Right on, and so many of those were FORCED to their death through the draft.  At least the majority now make their own decision, with a nice propaganda shove.  All in a nation that we never hear a peep about today.  Freakin' Vietnam...

And I'm unpatriotic for speaking the truth?  No, pro-war flag-wavers are antihuman for destroying the lives of mere children by rooting on the annihilation of imaginary threats.

----------

garyo (02-05-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

I don't think we should be sticking our nose on so much of others' business.

----------


## Network

They have troops guarding borders 1000s of miles across the ocean and leave our borders wide open.  What does that really tell you?  

They are openly backing terrorist cells affiliated with and including Al Qaeda against sovereign nations in Libya and Syria.  You'll find articles from the NY Times and the CFR's Foreign Affairs lauding the efforts of the terrorists in helping overthrow those regimes.  What does that tell you?

It tells me that we don't want our boys dying as terrorist martyrs...for one.

----------



----------


## Karl

> They have troops guarding borders 1000s of miles across the ocean and leave our borders wide open.  What does that really tell you?  
> 
> They are openly backing terrorist cells affiliated with and including Al Qaeda against sovereign nations in Libya and Syria.  You'll find articles from the NY Times and the CFR's Foreign Affairs lauding the efforts of the terrorists in helping overthrow those regimes.  What does that tell you?
> 
> It tells me that we don't want our boys dying as terrorist martyrs...for one.


Well please do not denigrate the honorable men and women who serve in our armed forces rather you should denigrate the reckless politicians who send them out on these failure to die for nothing for it is them who hand down the marching orders

----------

Archer (02-09-2013),countryboy (02-07-2013)

----------


## OceanloverOH

OK, as a 20-year veteran of the armed services, I'm gonna jump in here.  

 @Network, you are certainly entitled to your opinion; I for one would never call you unpatriotic after just reading a few words you posted.  But I, and thousands more intelligent adults like me, am also entitled to my opinion.  Protecting America, and supporting America's ideals, which is what the military is all about; IS a noble profession, and just cannot be dismissed as "comic book bullshit".  No, I was not drafted; and no, I was not sent off to fight a war.  But I would have, had the timing been different and the rules just a bit more progressive at that time.  And I would have been proud to do so.  Let me say that again.  AND I WOULD HAVE BEEN PROUD TO DO SO.  My Dad, a retired Marine, went to VietNam 3 times, and helped close down military operations there.  He and I have discussed VietNam many times.  Neither of us agreed with that war....but it was the result of a signed treaty, and as Americans, we KEEP our promises.  People who gravitate to the miltary aren't necessarily getting a "propaganda shove".  Some of us believe wholeheartedly in the concept of the United States of America.  We believe in and unfailingly uphold the promises our leaders have made to other countries and treaties our government signed in good faith, pledging our support (and our lives if necessary) to protect their freedoms.....and by protecting theirs, we are protecting our own.

I absolutely agree with you about the border crisis....leaving our borders unprotected to invasion is wrong on sooooo many levels....and it has been one of my beefs with our leaders for the last 20 years.  As far as articles about support of terrorist activity, you KNOW if you look hard enough, you can find articles saying just about anything, biased and slanted to match the author's politics....don't believe everything you read.  

So please, before you throw rocks at the military, understand that many of us are also patriotic and love our country, much the same as you, but in a totally different way.  Thanks.

----------

Agravan (02-05-2013),countryboy (02-07-2013),Fearandloathing (02-05-2013),KSigMason (02-06-2013)

----------


## Network

I didn't throw rocks at the military, I simply said stop worshiping them, which we still do.  Stop the propaganda for the global force for democracy, as they state is the goal.  Ever occurred to you that democracy is an idiotic idea?    

Almost all of the WWII vets are dead.  Since WWII, we've been the worldwide police force accomplishing nothing but a socialist democratic revolution, which I am opposed to. Oh, and we've managed to create a parasitic military industry helping to bankrupt our nation.  Saying that they are fighting for freedom and our liberties in the US is a massive joke.

----------


## OceanloverOH

> I didn't throw rocks at the military, I simply said stop worshiping them, which we still do.  Stop the propaganda for the global force for democracy, as they state is the goal.  Ever occurred to you that democracy is an idiotic idea?    
> 
> Almost all of the WWII vets are dead.  Since WWII, we've been the worldwide police force accomplishing nothing but a socialist democratic revolution, which I am opposed to.  Saying that they are fighting for freedom and our liberties in the US is a massive joke.


I tried to be polite and carefully explain how others may view things....but bucko, there's a HUGE difference between support and worship.  If democracy is an idiotic idea to you, leave; nobody is forcing you to stay in America.  Maybe Kenya would be more to your liking. Fighting for our liberties and freedom a "massive joke"?  You and your ilk are the massive joke....kicking back and enjoying all the numerous freedoms you have today, at somebody else's hard-won expense throughout history.

----------

Agravan (02-05-2013),countryboy (02-07-2013)

----------


## Network

> I tried to be polite and carefully explain how others may view things....but bucko, there's a HUGE difference between support and worship.  If democracy is an idiotic idea to you, leave; nobody is forcing you to stay in America.  Maybe Kenya would be more to your liking. Fighting for our liberties and freedom a "massive joke"?  You and your ilk are the massive joke....kicking back and enjoying all the numerous freedoms you have today, at somebody else's hard-won expense throughout history.



We're *not a democracy*.  I said that *claiming* they are fighting for *our liberty* is a massive joke.  Bring on the next brainwashed child-killer...

----------


## OceanloverOH

Brainwashed child-killer?  I've already told you I'm retired military and proud of it.  I don't appreciate you stooping to insults.

----------


## Network

You stooped to the insults.  I returned the favor.

----------


## OceanloverOH

When did I insult you?  When I said you and your ilk are the massive joke?  I was responding to your statement "Saying that they are fighting for freedom and our liberties in the US is a massive joke."  But, I wasn't careful in wording my response, and for that I apologize.  I should have responded, "*The claims of* you and your ilk are the massive joke....."

----------


## Network

Now you can tell me what Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan had to do with our liberties...for starters.  Now you can also clarify your support for social democracy, which has bankrupted the entire western world.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> _Protecting our freedoms_ in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were they?  You know those commie North Vietnamese were sure to conquer the vast lands of the US.
> 
> All three of those wars were great successes, right?  Military...duped kids fighting for democracy abroad in conflicts that have nothing to do with the imaginary borders called the USA.
> 
> Stop indoctrinating the children to think it is a noble profession to go kill and die for nothing.  Stop your comic book bullshit about the glories of war.  Stop lying about spreading freedom and liberty while destroying it at home.  Wankers


I agree that all three of those wars were catasrophes..


But you go too far in suggesting that we are indoctrinating children.

If you have evidence to that effect, present it.  I will not accept the statement on face value.  Frankly, I see the opposite in the American classroom, more of your style of demeaning the soldier,....

----------

Agravan (02-05-2013),OceanloverOH (02-05-2013)

----------


## Network

> I agree that all three of those wars were catasrophes..
> 
> 
> But you go too far in suggesting that we are indoctrinating children.
> 
> If you have evidence to that effect, present it.  I will not accept the statement on face value.  Frankly, I see the opposite in the American classroom, more of your style of demeaning the soldier,....


Hollywood movies on a weekly basis,  Zero Dark Thirty (the myth of killing Tim Osman), sporting events with military trotting around with flags and having air force flyovers, holidays, commercials with a shiny new sword and new suit, but most of all conservative neocon talking heads and their endless articles of fear-mongering.  The entire corporate media's fakery and involvement in the Iraq WMD hoax.  

I'd tell you what else they did, but it would take too long.

----------


## Albert Reincarnated

Honor the enlisted ranks, NCOs, and junior officers.  The generals are miserable failures.  Obama and Panetta should commit suicide in shame.

----------

OceanloverOH (02-05-2013)

----------


## Network

War is a racket.  The most destructive and immoral racket imaginable.  It makes bankers look holy, although central bankers do profit greatly from it and enable/influence it.





> *Nayirah Testimony* refers to the controversial testimony given before the non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990, by a female who provided only her first name, Nayirah. In her emotional testimony, *Nayirah stated that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital*, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die. Though reporters did not then have access to Kuwait, her testimony was regarded as credible at the time and was widely publicized. It was cited numerous times by United States senators and the president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War.
> 
> Her story was initially corroborated by Amnesty International[1] and testimony from evacuees. Following the liberation of Kuwait, reporters were given access to the country and found the story of stolen incubators unsubstantiated. However, they did find that a number of people, including babies, died when nurses and doctors fled the country.
> 
> *In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيره الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has largely come to be regarded as wartime propaganda.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)
> *

----------


## OceanloverOH

> Now you can tell me what Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan had to do with our liberties...for starters.  Now you can also clarify your support for social democracy, which has bankrupted the entire western world.


Is the word "please" not part of your vocabulary?  Can we just discuss this?  I never said Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan have anything to do with our _personal_ liberties, except in the abstract sense of keeping our promise to fight for another country's freedom (Vietnam) and keeping America safe by neutralizing a threat (Afghanistan).  These conflicts have to do with complex politics.  They have to do with treaties, and promises, and agreements between governments.  And just so you know, I NEVER agreed with the Iraq conflict.....that was, in my opinion, Bush-revenge politics.  I'm not a war-monger.  I don't agree with war, except as a last resort.  But I am a supporter of keeping our promises, and I totally support the military whose job it is to carry that out.  

As far as democracy, I support democracy as it was initally intended....here's the dictionary definition that I subscribe to:  "government by the people and for the people of the nation; a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections".  "Socialist" democracy is a twisted version of the original concept....and because we have a Socialist president, we're going further and further in that direction.

----------



----------


## Network

This is the club from which your Secretaries of State and Defense are selected...






> http://www.cfr.org/about/corporate/roster.html
> *Corporate Members*
> 
> (as of February 05, 2013)
> 
> *Founders*
> 
> Bank of America Merrill Lynch 
> Chevron Corporation 
> ...

----------


## OceanloverOH

> This is the club from which your Secretaries of State and Defense are selected...


_MY_ Secretaries of State and Defense?  I was under the impression that you are also an American, which would make them _YOUR_ Secretaries of State and Defense too.  Or are you another nationality?

----------


## Network

It wasn't meant to be an ominous statement.  But they aren't really mine.  I don't vote for the people who I know will appoint them.  I guess that is *forced* upon me by _your ilk_.

----------


## OceanloverOH

We all vote; majority ilk rules.  Just like I didn't vote for Barack Obama; but he's my president all the same, whether I like it or not.

----------


## Network

> We all vote; majority ilk rules.  Just like I didn't vote for Barack Obama; but he's my president all the same, whether I like it or not.



Sounds like a bad deal.  I believe in the rule of law.  The natural rule of law.  The law you once knew when you were young, before the state beat it out of you.

----------



----------


## The XL

Every time I hear that our military is currently fighting for our freedoms, I get sick to my stomach.

----------

Network (02-05-2013)

----------


## Network

> Every time I hear that our military is currently fighting for our freedoms, I get sick to my stomach.



You're tag-teamed now, Ocean!  

I didn't mean to call you a child-killer btw, I just didn't have the vocabulary or patience at the time to explain that glorifying our nonstop military aggression is influencing kids to make bad decisions, with the failure of leadership in this once great nation.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> Honor the enlisted ranks, NCOs, and junior officers.  The generals are miserable failures.  Obama and Panetta should commit suicide in shame.


Movies?

That's your "evidence"?

There are far more films depicting the stupidity of war than what you purport.

Show us where we are "indoctrinating children."

So far you've offered opinion backed by lint.

----------


## Network

> Movies?
> 
> That's your "evidence"?
> 
> There are far more films depicting the stupidity of war than what you purport.
> 
> Show us where we are "indoctrinating children."
> 
> So far you've offered opinion backed by lint.




I haven't seen them all, especially the newest ones.  All the previews sure seem to be all HooRah!

That's only one piece of the puzzle.  History Channel just spent an entire weekend right before Obama's inauguration telling the history of our glorious leaders, giving the most praise to Lincoln and FDR.  Gee, I wonder if they were involved in war.  That's just a tiny bit of what the History Channel has been doing.  They have a sniper show bragging about impressive kills, dog fighters, etc..

Now you tell me about the anti-war propaganda you've seen.  Because I've seen approximately zero.  They may show some of the horrors of war, but in the end the guys with the right jersey on were heroes.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

Check it out, Network. Here's how this works.

Yes, pretty much every war we fought after WWII was BS of the highest degree, and yes, the civilian deaths in those immoral, unnecessary wars was and is unconscionable. Yes, the idea that our military always fights for our freedoms is a pathetic joke. Not a single post-WWII war had a damn thing to do with our freedoms. All of that is true, and you are not wrong for saying it.

Now that I've given you credit, I'm siding with @OceanloverOH. While all the above is true, _do not_, *ever*, insult and demean the troops. You want to shit on someone for all that crap, shit on the politicians, but stay the fuck away from the troops until you put yourselves in their boots and put your ass on the battlefield. It's easy to sit at your computer and bitch about the troops, but it's a lot damn harder to put up with the shit they put up with. THEY are not child-killers, our government is.

----------

Agravan (02-06-2013),OceanloverOH (02-06-2013)

----------


## The XL

My only problem with the troops is they fall for the bullshit, at least initially.  As brave as they are, they aren't helping us, they're helping the imperialistic globalists.   Their decision to sign up hurts us, big time.

I don't question their courage, I question their intellect for falling for the propaganda, and not doing their research before making such a ridiculously rash decision.  It breaks my heart every time a soldier dies or comes back with a serious mental or physical problem, it truly does.  They are not the only ones that suffer from this foreign policy, but they enable it by giving the globalists the manpower to pursue their sick agenda.  There are people that suffer from the blowback that comes from these polices, of which they enable, people who did not choose to get involved in these wars.  Like all the people at 9/11, and those who got sick and died later, like my father.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> My only problem with the troops is they fall for the bullshit, at least initially.  As brave as they are, they aren't helping us, they're helping the imperialistic globalists.   Their decision to sign up hurts us, big time.
> 
> I don't question their courage, I question their intellect for falling for the propaganda, and not doing their research before making such a ridiculously rash decision.  It breaks my heart every time a soldier dies or comes back with a serious mental or physical problem, it truly does.  They are not the only ones that suffer from this foreign policy, but they enable it by giving the globalists the manpower to pursue their sick agenda.  There are people that suffer from the blowback that comes from these polices, of which they enable, people who did not choose to get involved in these wars.  Like all the people at 9/11, and those who got sick and died later, like my father.


When your choice is to be dirt poor and unable to afford college or join the military and get free college, it's hard to say no to Door 2.

----------

Fearandloathing (02-05-2013)

----------


## The XL

> When your choice is to be dirt poor and unable to afford college or join the military and get free college, it's hard to say no to Door 2.


That doesn't change the reality of their actions and the consequences they have on unwilling parties.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> They have troops guarding borders 1000s of miles across the ocean and leave our borders wide open.  What does that really tell you?  
> 
> They are openly backing terrorist cells affiliated with and including Al Qaeda against sovereign nations in Libya and Syria.  You'll find articles from the NY Times and the CFR's Foreign Affairs lauding the efforts of the terrorists in helping overthrow those regimes.  What does that tell you?
> 
> It tells me that we don't want our boys dying as terrorist martyrs...for one.




that you should be grateful you have peaceful neighbors?

Give thanks the only whuppin' Canada ever gave you was in 1812 when they burned down the Capitol and in hockey of course.....

----------


## Fearandloathing

> You're tag-teamed now, Ocean!  
> 
> I didn't mean to call you a child-killer btw, I just didn't have the vocabulary or patience at the time to explain that glorifying our nonstop military aggression is influencing kids to make bad decisions, with the failure of leadership in this once great nation.


Nor the grace, intellect or simple fucking manners.

Frankly, calling someone a baby killer is the action of a complete ASSHOLE.

Have a nice day and stay away from those indoctrination movies....

----------

OceanloverOH (02-06-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

> They have troops guarding borders 1000s of miles across the ocean and leave our borders wide open.  What does that really tell you?  
> 
> They are openly backing terrorist cells affiliated with and including Al Qaeda against sovereign nations in Libya and Syria.  You'll find articles from the NY Times and the CFR's Foreign Affairs lauding the efforts of the terrorists in helping overthrow those regimes.  What does that tell you?
> 
> It tells me that we don't want our boys dying as terrorist martyrs...for one.


It tells me that the federal government is not interested in saving lives, and boarders don't need to be guarded in the first place.

----------



----------


## Maximatic

> I agree that all three of those wars were catasrophes..
> 
> 
> But you go too far in suggesting that we are indoctrinating children.
> 
> If you have evidence to that effect, present it.  I will not accept the statement on face value.  Frankly, I see the opposite in the American classroom, more of your style of demeaning the soldier,....


There doesn't need to be an organized effort in order for it to be true that children are being indoctrinated to believe that everything the government does is good. It is true.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but, even though it may sound like it, I don't think @Network is saying that soldiers are to blame for wars, or trying to demonize them. He's saying that glorifying the soldier can send the message to malleable minds that war is good and noble, and that that's a bad impression to give them. And he's right. It is a bad impression to give them. War is not good and noble. At best, it's a necessary evil. At worst, it's pure evil, and it's necessity is only ever contrived by evil people.

----------


## The XL

I'd say video games like COD and things of the like glorify war and combat to younger folk.  I think those games are a big tool in recruiting, intended or not.

----------


## OceanloverOH

> My only problem with the troops is they fall for the bullshit, at least initially.  As brave as they are, they aren't helping us, they're helping the imperialistic globalists.   Their decision to sign up hurts us, big time.
> 
> I don't question their courage, I question their intellect for falling for the propaganda, and not doing their research before making such a ridiculously rash decision.  It breaks my heart every time a soldier dies or comes back with a serious mental or physical problem, it truly does.  They are not the only ones that suffer from this foreign policy, but they enable it by giving the globalists the manpower to pursue their sick agenda.  There are people that suffer from the blowback that comes from these polices, of which they enable, people who did not choose to get involved in these wars.  Like all the people at 9/11, and those who got sick and died later, like my father.


I'm sorry that your father died as a result of 9/11, XL, that is tragic.  You have my warmest regards.

I don't think I exactly understand what you're saying about those that make a "rash decision" to embrace a military career, XL.  Are you suggesting that NOBODY should volunteer to serve their country, that we should be WITHOUT a military force, just so the globalists won't have the manpower to pursue their agenda?  OK, so no military.  Now what?  North America is one big fat sitting duck.

----------


## The XL

> I'm sorry that your father died as a result of 9/11, XL, that is tragic.  You have my warmest regards.
> 
> I don't think I exactly understand what you're saying about those that make a "rash decision" to embrace a military career, XL.  Are you suggesting that NOBODY should volunteer to serve their country, that we should be WITHOUT a military force, just so the globalists won't have the manpower to pursue their agenda?  OK, so no military.  Now what?  North America is one big fat sitting duck.


You make a good point.  We're fucked if we do, fucked if we don't, really.  As long as people keep voting in these bought politicians, we'll continue to have this foreign policy.  

It's just, I mean at this point, these young people have to know the deal, right?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You make a good point.  We're fucked if we do, fucked if we don't, really.  As long as people keep voting in these bought politicians, we'll continue to have this foreign policy.  
> 
> It's just, I mean at this point, these young people have to know the deal, right?


I know from personal experience that regardless of what they know (most of my military friends are libertarians - I'm going to see if they want to join our team), if the military offers a way out of bad circumstances, they'll take it.

----------


## The XL

Even knowing what they're doing is ultimately hurting the country?  If so, that seems a bit selfish.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Even knowing what they're doing is ultimately hurting the country?  If so, that seems a bit selfish.


What they are doing isn't hurting the country. That's the government.

----------

Mainecoons (02-07-2013),OceanloverOH (02-06-2013)

----------


## Agravan

Network, have you ever served? I don't know if this has been asked and answered, but Have you? How about you XL? Have you served?
I suspect the answer to both is no.  As has been said here, it is easy for you to criticize those who choose to wear a uniform for whatever reason. These people do not join for a poitical party or ideology, they join for myriad reasons, be it tradition, self betterment, honor, etc. That you chose not to serve is your choice. that does not automatcally make you better, smarter or ,somehow, more moral than those who do serve. many of us that served have a deep love for this country, maybe not the government, but the concept of the United States of America. No one criticizes you for your choice, so you should t least respect the fact that these men and women have made their own choices. These choices may lead to their deaths in yet another senseless war, but serving your country in the military is, in fact, a noble profession regardless of how you choose to portray them. It is the government that is putting them in situations where they may have to kill or be killed. If you're angry, direct your anger where it belongs, but our servicemen and women, past and present, are heroes.

*Rudyard Kipling*

*Tommy*

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
    O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
    But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
    The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
    O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
    For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
    But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
    The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
    O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
    Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
    But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
    The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
    O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
    While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
    But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
    There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
    O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
    For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
    But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
    An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
    An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

----------

OceanloverOH (02-06-2013)

----------


## KSigMason

You may not agree with the conflicts we fight in, but many do respect the sacrifices we go through in serving the country.

----------

Agravan (02-06-2013),OceanloverOH (02-07-2013)

----------


## kk8

> Every time I hear that our military is currently fighting for our freedoms, I get sick to my stomach.


*
Well, I got this far on the thread...reading yours and networks posts and I am sick to my stomach.    Whenever the fight is somewhere other than here (the homeland) that means that they truly are fighting for our freedoms.  The Freedom not to be blown up when you walk out your door...the enemy is real and you people think it's a joke.  I despise ungrateful people.  You and network are truly ungrateful.  You enjoy the safety of not having a bomb dropped on your head while you are watching the academy awards and sipping merlot or watching the super bowl drinking a cold one, because our men in uniform are in a hell hole somewhere else trying to find the people who would no sooner set your body on fire and hang you from a bridge.

We have our freedoms because of our men in uniform not in spite of them.  If you have a problem with policy fine so do most.  But shut your pie hole's about our military who truly are fighting for your right to sit in your cozy heated/air conditioned home where you are able to get up get a cold drink from the tap or fridge, make a ham sandwich, take a shower and have sex with your wife/husband.  While the men/women allowing you that freedom are sleeping in sand flea ridden hand dug hole's in the freezing desert!  

I thank a soldier every time I see one, I have respect for what they are doing and I am thankful that we have been and women willing to risk their lives for me and my family.  Next time I see one I will be sure to thank them for your right to be an ignorant tool.  I really can't blame you though, I feel you have no idea what you are even saying....for when and if the time comes when our military no longer want to risk themselves for a nation of utter ingrates....then you will know how much of a fool you've been.  But, I'm sure nothing I have said will make you stop and think of what your free speech has allowed you to say here today, and the insults that you have given to the men/women who have more balls than you ever will.
*

----------

Agravan (02-07-2013),Mainecoons (02-07-2013),OceanloverOH (02-07-2013)

----------


## Mainecoons

The military is being misused and victimized by a runaway, statist and fascistic Federal government like everyone else.  Some people here just can't seem to recognize who the real enemy is.

----------


## countryboy

> I didn't throw rocks at the military, I simply said stop worshiping them, which we still do.  Stop the propaganda for the global force for democracy, as they state is the goal.  Ever occurred to you that democracy is an idiotic idea?    
> 
> Almost all of the WWII vets are dead.  Since WWII, we've been the worldwide police force accomplishing nothing but a socialist democratic revolution, which I am opposed to. Oh, and we've managed to create a parasitic military industry helping to bankrupt our nation.  Saying that they are fighting for freedom and our liberties in the US is a massive joke.


Worship? Get a fucking grip man. We don't "worship" the military, not sure where you get that idea. It's no joke youngster.

----------


## countryboy

> Hollywood movies on a weekly basis,  Zero Dark Thirty (the myth of killing Tim Osman), sporting events with military trotting around with flags and having air force flyovers, holidays, commercials with a shiny new sword and new suit, but most of all conservative neocon talking heads and their endless articles of fear-mongering.  The entire corporate media's fakery and involvement in the Iraq WMD hoax.  
> 
> I'd tell you what else they did, but it would take too long.


It's ironic that you with your perverted position on the military, would accuse anyone of "indoctrination". Perhaps you should look in a mirror.

----------


## countryboy

> You're tag-teamed now, Ocean!  
> 
> I didn't mean to call you a child-killer btw,* I just didn't have the vocabulary or patience* at the time to explain that glorifying our nonstop military aggression is influencing kids to make bad decisions, with the failure of leadership in this once great nation.


That is obvious to even a casual observer.

Fucking kids think they know it all.

----------


## countryboy

> It tells me that the federal government is not interested in saving lives, and boarders don't need to be guarded in the first place.


Boarders? What boarders are you talking about?

----------


## countryboy

> There doesn't need to be an organized effort in order for it to be true that children are being indoctrinated to believe that everything the government does is good. It is true.
> 
> He can correct me if I'm wrong, but, even though it may sound like it, I don't think @Network is saying that soldiers are to blame for wars, or trying to demonize them. He's saying that glorifying the soldier can send the message to malleable minds that war is good and noble, and that that's a bad impression to give them. And he's right. It is a bad impression to give them. War is not good and noble. At best, it's a necessary evil. At worst, it's pure evil, and it's necessity is only ever contrived by evil people.


We don't glorify soldiers, we honor and respect them. I know those are foreign ideals to a youngster such as yourself, but you can look up what they mean on the interwebs.

----------

KSigMason (02-07-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> Network, have you ever served? I don't know if this has been asked and answered, but Have you? How about you XL? Have you served?
> I suspect the answer to both is no.  As has been said here, it is easy for you to criticize those who choose to wear a uniform for whatever reason. These people do not join for a poitical party or ideology, they join for myriad reasons, be it tradition, self betterment, honor, etc. That you chose not to serve is your choice. that does not automatcally make you better, smarter or ,somehow, more moral than those who do serve. many of us that served have a deep love for this country, maybe not the government, but the concept of the United States of America. No one criticizes you for your choice, so you should t least respect the fact that these men and women have made their own choices. These choices may lead to their deaths in yet another senseless war, but serving your country in the military is, in fact, a noble profession regardless of how you choose to portray them. It is the government that is putting them in situations where they may have to kill or be killed. If you're angry, direct your anger where it belongs, but our servicemen and women, past and present, are heroes.
> 
> *Rudyard Kipling*
> 
> *Tommy*
> 
> I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
> The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
> ...


I'm pretty sure you have to be 18 years old to sign up. Pretty sure 12 year old girls cannot sign up.  :Wink: 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

----------


## Maximatic

> *
>   Whenever the fight is somewhere other than here (the homeland) that means that they truly are fighting for our freedoms.
> *


This is just completely false.
Our government has destroyed much more of our freedom than any foreign power.

----------

The XL (02-07-2013)

----------


## Agravan

> This is just completely false.
> Our government has destroyed much more of our freedom than any foreign power.


Maybe, but , again, it's the federal government, not our soldiers destroying our freedoms.

----------

kk8 (02-08-2013),KSigMason (02-07-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> *Whenever the fight is somewhere other than here (the homeland) that means that they truly are fighting for our freedoms.*


So, if the government decided to go to war with Israel, the military would be fighting for our freedom?

----------


## Coolwalker

We should not be fighting anywhere with any nation that has not attacked us. Our military should be defenders, not aggressors. having myself served, I know the perils of being a ground-pounder.

----------

birddog (02-07-2013),KSigMason (02-07-2013),OceanloverOH (02-07-2013)

----------


## birddog

> We should not be fighting anywhere with any nation that has not attacked us. Our military should be defenders, not aggressors. having myself served, I know the perils of being a ground-pounder.


I agree.  I was not a "ground pounder,"  but I was a "life-saver."

----------

Coolwalker (02-07-2013),OceanloverOH (02-07-2013)

----------


## The XL

> *
> Well, I got this far on the thread...reading yours and networks posts and I am sick to my stomach.    Whenever the fight is somewhere other than here (the homeland) that means that they truly are fighting for our freedoms.  The Freedom not to be blown up when you walk out your door...the enemy is real and you people think it's a joke.  I despise ungrateful people.  You and network are truly ungrateful.  You enjoy the safety of not having a bomb dropped on your head while you are watching the academy awards and sipping merlot or watching the super bowl drinking a cold one, because our men in uniform are in a hell hole somewhere else trying to find the people who would no sooner set your body on fire and hang you from a bridge.
> 
> We have our freedoms because of our men in uniform not in spite of them.  If you have a problem with policy fine so do most.  But shut your pie hole's about our military who truly are fighting for your right to sit in your cozy heated/air conditioned home where you are able to get up get a cold drink from the tap or fridge, make a ham sandwich, take a shower and have sex with your wife/husband.  While the men/women allowing you that freedom are sleeping in sand flea ridden hand dug hole's in the freezing desert!  
> 
> I thank a soldier every time I see one, I have respect for what they are doing and I am thankful that we have been and women willing to risk their lives for me and my family.  Next time I see one I will be sure to thank them for your right to be an ignorant tool.  I really can't blame you though, I feel you have no idea what you are even saying....for when and if the time comes when our military no longer want to risk themselves for a nation of utter ingrates....then you will know how much of a fool you've been.  But, I'm sure nothing I have said will make you stop and think of what your free speech has allowed you to say here today, and the insults that you have given to the men/women who have more balls than you ever will.
> *


The "enemy" you speak of exists due to blowback.  It would disappear tomorrow if we minded our business. We have not been in a necessary conflict in a very long time.  It's because of gullible morons like you that we are in the spot we're in.   It truly makes me cringe when I see people still believing the propaganda to the point that you're worried 'bombs would be dropped on our heads' if not for our imperialistic foreign policy.  Seriously, how fucking stupid are you?  You speak like you care about the soldiers, but realize that you have blood on your hands.  People like you have enabled these conflicts, and allowed the government to get away with our wars and foreign policy.  Your no patriot, you're a traitor.


I already said they are brave people, so spare me all the talking points and bullshit that comes along with it.  And brave as they may be, they are nothing more than pawns right now, pawns that aren't keeping us safe.  Whether you like it or, it's the reality of the it.  So deal with it.

I'm not sure why I'm even wasting time with you, you're probably one of those geniuses who thinks they 'hate us because of our freedom.'

----------


## The XL

> So, if the government decided to go to war with Israel, the military would be fighting for our freedom?


Lol, that statement from kk8 was one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

----------


## Agravan

> The "enemy" you speak of exists due to blowback.  *It would disappear tomorrow if we minded our business*. We have not been in a necessary conflict in a very long time.  It's because of gullible morons like you that we are in the spot we're in.   It truly makes me cringe when I see people still believing the propaganda to the point that you're worried 'bombs would be dropped on our heads' if not for our imperialistic foreign policy.  Seriously, how fucking stupid are you?  You speak like you care about the soldiers, but realize that you have blood on your hands.  People like you have enabled these conflicts, and allowed the government to get away with our wars and foreign policy.  Your no patriot, you're a traitor.
> 
> 
> I already said they are brave people, so spare me all the talking points and bullshit that comes along with it.  And brave as they may be, they are nothing more than pawns right now, pawns that aren't keeping us safe.  Whether you like it or, it's the reality of the it.  So deal with it.
> 
> I'm not sure why I'm even wasting time with you, you're probably one of those geniuses who thinks they 'hate us because of our freedom.'


Really? You actually think that if we pulled all of our troops out of every nation in the world, that all conflict would stop? Wow, talk about not having any idea how the world operates. 
I can see there's no point in arguing with geniuses like you that have figured out the solution for millenia of warring among humans. Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya now....

----------

countryboy (02-07-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Really? You actually think that if we pulled all of our troops out of every nation in the world, that all conflict would stop? Wow, talk about not having any idea how the world operates. 
> I can see there's no point in arguing with geniuses like you that have figured out the solution for millenia of warring among humans. Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya now....


He's only wrong on a point of technicality. Other than the British are really the only ones who deliberately sought out conflict with us in our history. The Barbary Pirates attacked our ships because they were pirates. Mexico attacked us in 1846 because we annexed Texas, _their territory_. We were the aggressors. 

Spanish-American War, 1898? We attacked Spain even though Spain did not do anything to us. We were the aggressors.

World War I? Germany only attacked us because we were sending money and weapons to Britain to help them win the war against Germany. We were the aggressors.

World War II? Japan attacked us on Pearl Harbor because we starved their economy of natural resources, despite them causing no harm to us. We were the aggressors.

On and on through history our government has provoked nations into hostility with us. While Britain and the Barbary States show that we will never be conflict free, they ALSO show that if we just minded our own damn business, our conflicts would be minor and rare.

----------

The XL (02-07-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Really? You actually think that if we pulled all of our troops out of every nation in the world, that all conflict would stop? Wow, talk about not having any idea how the world operates. 
> I can see there's no point in arguing with geniuses like you that have figured out the solution for millenia of warring among humans. Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya now....


Would all conflicts stop?  No.  Would conflicts regarding us stop?  Yeah, they would.  And that's all that matters.  We're the Unites States of America, not the Unites States of the World.  At least not yet.  

I'm not talking about the world, so all of your points are irrelevant.  The world policing is what starts our problems in the first place.  Humans are vicious creatures, so war and death will continue to spread between peoples and nations.  However, we have the biggest stick, and no one wakes a sleeping giant minding it's own business.  However, they will fight back when that giant is imposing their will on them.

This even works on a much smaller scale.  Does the class bully ever fuck with the 260 lbs linebacker?  No.  they'll go for the weaker kids.  Well, we're the linebacker, and no one would fuck with us, normally.  The problem is, we're the bullies imposing our will, and they're simply fighting back.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (02-07-2013)

----------


## Agravan

> He's only wrong on a point of technicality. Other than the British are really the only ones who deliberately sought out conflict with us in our history. The Barbary Pirates attacked our ships because they were pirates. Mexico attacked us in 1846 because we annexed Texas, _their territory_. We were the aggressors. 
> 
> Spanish-American War, 1898? We attacked Spain even though Spain did not do anything to us. We were the aggressors.
> 
> World War I? Germany only attacked us because we were sending money and weapons to Britain to help them win the war against Germany. We were the aggressors.
> 
> World War II? Japan attacked us on Pearl Harbor because we starved their economy of natural resources, despite them causing no harm to us. We were the aggressors.
> 
> On and on through history our government has provoked nations into hostility with us. While Britain and the Barbary States show that we will never be conflict free, they ALSO show that if we just minded our own damn business, our conflicts would be minor and rare.


So, fulfilling treaty obligations makes us the aggressor? We should not have aided the Brits? We should have kept on providing Japan with war material so they could continue their slaughter? We should never honor our treaty obligations? I know we don't now, but we used to be a country that could be depended on.

By the way, Texas was not a territory of Mexico when we JOINED the union. Texas was a sovereign nation at the time. We were not annexed, we joined. Know your history.

----------

Coolwalker (02-07-2013)

----------


## Agravan

> Would all conflicts stop?  No.  Would conflicts regarding us stop?  Yeah, they would.  And that's all that matters.  We're the Unites States of America, not the Unites States of the World.  At least not yet.  
> 
> I'm not talking about the world, so all of your points are irrelevant.  The world policing is what starts our problems in the first place.  Humans are vicious creatures, so war and death will continue to spread between peoples and nations.  However, we have the biggest stick, and no one wakes a sleeping giant minding it's own business.  However, they will fight back when that giant is imposing their will on them.
> 
> This even works on a much smaller scale.  Does the class bully ever fuck with the 260 lbs linebacker?  No.  they'll go for the weaker kids.  Well, we're the linebacker, and no one would fuck with us, normally.  The problem is, we're the bullies imposing our will, and they're simply fighting back.


So you really think muslims would quit blowing up our embassies? Or should we not have embassies in other countries? Do you really think an isolationist America would be safe in today's world?
Sticking your head in the sand does nothing but expose your ass for an ass kicking.

----------

KSigMason (02-07-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> So, fulfilling treaty obligations makes us the aggressor? We should not have aided the Brits? We should have kept on providing Japan with war material so they could continue their slaughter? We should never honor our treaty obligations? I know we don't now, but we used to be a country that could be depended on.


We should follow Jefferson's advice: peace and friendship with all, alliance with none.




> By the way, Texas was not a territory of Mexico when we JOINED the union. Texas was a sovereign nation at the time. We were not annexed, we joined. Know your history.


Mexico still considered it part of their territory, and it's still annexation, whether they (not you, you weren't around) volunteered to join or not. All annexation is is the acquisition or incorporation of territory.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> So you really think muslims would quit blowing up our embassies? Or should we not have embassies in other countries? Do you really think an isolationist America would be safe in today's world?
> Sticking your head in the sand does nothing but expose your ass for an ass kicking.


The only people talking about isolationism are you Republicans/conservatives. We are not.

----------


## Agravan

> We should follow Jefferson's advice: peace and friendship with all, alliance with none.
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico still considered it part of their territory, and it's still annexation, whether they (not you, you weren't around) volunteered to join or not. All annexation is is the acquisition or incorporation of territory.


I'll concede to the dictionary definition of annexation. You just made it sound like texas was forceably annexed. it joined the Union by treaty the first time, but _was_ forceably annexed the second time. It is also irrelevant what Mexico thought was their territory or not. Texas fought a war of independence much like the US did. If they were stupid enough to start a war over Texas joining the Union, how does that make the US the aggressor?




> The only people talking about isolationism are you Republicans/conservatives. We are not.


How, exactly , are we the ones talking about isolationism? because we don't want to become Europe II?
Hell, Bubba, I still believe in Manifest Destiny  :Smile:

----------


## The XL

> So you really think muslims would quit blowing up our embassies? Or should we not have embassies in other countries? Do you really think an isolationist America would be safe in today's world?
> Sticking your head in the sand does nothing but expose your ass for an ass kicking.


We're taking an ass kicking now.

They don't hate us because of our freedoms.  This is all blowback.

----------


## Coolwalker

Three reasons we need a strong military:

1. A strong military prevents another world war.

2. A strong military safeguards international commerce and trade.

3. A strong military creates jobs.

----------

Agravan (02-07-2013),KSigMason (02-07-2013)

----------


## Agravan

> We're taking an ass kicking now.
> 
> They don't hate us because of our freedoms.  This is all blowback.


Believe what you will. You're entitled to your opinion. Even when its wrong.  :Smile:

----------


## Maximatic

> So, fulfilling treaty obligations makes us the aggressor? We should not have aided the Brits? We should have kept on providing Japan with war material so they could continue their slaughter? We should never honor our treaty obligations? I know we don't now, but we used to be a country that could be depended on.
> 
> By the way, Texas was not a territory of Mexico when we JOINED the union. Texas was a sovereign nation at the time. We were not annexed, we joined. Know your history.


Seriously, since WW2, which use of the US military can be said to be in fulfillment of a treaty obligation?

----------


## Agravan

> Seriously, since WW2, which use of the US military can be said to be in fulfillment of a treaty obligation?


The military has been used wrongly since WWII.
I was responding to our entry into WWI and WWII, not since.

----------


## Maximatic

> Believe what you will. You're entitled to your opinion. Even when its wrong.


Blowback is the best way to explain why Islamists would focus all the effort that went into 911 all the way over here instead of focusing it on some country they want to attack over there, on the other side of the world, where they live, that they need to be attacking first. There are plenty of infidels between here and Mecca that they skipped over in order to knock down a couple of towers in NY. It doesn't make any sense unless you consider the possibility that the reason they themselves give for that attack is, in fact, the reason for it.

----------

The XL (02-07-2013)

----------


## Coolwalker

> Blowback is the best way to explain why Islamists would focus all the effort that went into 911 all the way over here instead of focusing it on some country they want to attack over there, on the other side of the world, where they live, that they need to be attacking first. There are plenty of infidels between here and Mecca that they skipped over in order to knock down a couple of towers in NY. It doesn't make any sense unless you consider the possibility that the reason they themselves give for that attack is, in fact, the reason for it.


Their basic reasons are religious, always have been, always will be. They are zealots. Tagging something with a name does not alter the premise.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I'll concede to the dictionary definition of annexation. You just made it sound like texas was forceably annexed. it joined the Union by treaty the first time, but _was_ forceably annexed the second time. It is also irrelevant what Mexico thought was their territory or not. Texas fought a war of independence much like the US did. If they were stupid enough to start a war over Texas joining the Union, how does that make the US the aggressor?


Diplomacy. Regardless of Texas being independent, Mexico still thought it was theirs. We bought Alaska and the Louisiana Purchase. Rather than just annex Texas and say "fuck you guys" we should have had stronger diplomatic talks with Mexico.




> How, exactly , are we the ones talking about isolationism? because we don't want to become Europe II?
> Hell, Bubba, I still believe in Manifest Destiny


You're talking about isolationism in regards to our foreign policy. You consistently call it Isolationism, when it isn't. It's Non-Interventionism.

As for Europe, Europe has never been Isolationist OR Non-Interventionist.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Three reasons we need a strong military:
> 
> 1. A strong military prevents another world war.
> 
> 2. A strong military safeguards international commerce and trade.
> 
> 3. A strong military creates jobs.


Completely off-topic. Nobody is arguing against a strong military.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Their basic reasons are religious, always have been, always will be. They are zealots. Tagging something with a name does not alter the premise.


That's bullshit and ignores the historic realities. They didn't give a shit about us until we started fucking with them in 1953.

----------


## Maximatic

> Their basic reasons are religious, always have been, always will be. They are zealots. Tagging something with a name does not alter the premise.


I'm already assuming that.

----------


## Coolwalker

> That's bullshit and ignores the historic realities. They didn't give a shit about us until we started fucking with them in 1953.


Historic realities be damned. Arabs hate Christians and have for a few thousand years. They also hate Jews and anyone who is not of the Muslim faith. 911 was just an attention grabber by a spoiled rich Arab. You play it any way you want, but I lived in Morocco and for a short period of time in Algeria and believe me, they do not like us. Personally I can't stand them either...bunch of backward Mo-Rabs.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Historic realities be damned.


It's this foolish attitude that is getting our troops and our civilians killed. You cannot play your millennia-old religious war with MY country and MY friends. Go form your own damn country so you can play Crusader. You won't do it here, not anymore.

----------

The XL (02-07-2013)

----------


## Magnum

America and it's Allies stand for freedom. _Attack the West, and your regime will end._ This simple message and the skill and the bravery of the American (and Allied) soldiers who enforce it, is what keeps civilization alive against the many savages and barbarians all over the world who would destroy it.

----------

Agravan (02-07-2013),Coolwalker (02-07-2013),Trinnity (02-08-2013)

----------


## KSigMason

> I'm pretty sure you have to be 18 years old to sign up. Pretty sure 12 year old girls cannot sign up. 
> 
>   Someone correct me if I'm wrong.


  In the Guard you can sign up at 17 with parental consent. I did that and  went through Basic as a minor. Kind of a culture shock for me, but  ultimately good for me. I then went back to high school for my Senior  year then the day after graduation went to my advanced schooling. I was  18 by then.




> We should not be fighting anywhere with any  nation that has not attacked us. Our military should be defenders, not  aggressors. having myself served, I know the perils of being a  ground-pounder.


 I was an Intel nerd and sent you ground-pounders to fight or capture a  target. Then I operated UAVs and the leaders of the convoys and tactical  teams would always come to my office before departing to ensure I could  provide overwatch with direct communication to the operators. They  loved us.




> The only people talking about  isolationism are you Republicans/conservatives. We are not.


When it comes to perspectives of International Relations I'm a Realist and that's how I feel about our involvement in the world.

----------

Trinnity (02-08-2013)

----------


## Coolwalker

> It's this foolish attitude that is getting our troops and our civilians killed. You cannot play your millennia-old religious war with MY country and MY friends. Go form your own damn country so you can play Crusader. You won't do it here, not anymore.


You obviously missed what I wrote about "defending" instead of being aggressors. You are so full of piss and vinegar that you can't see straight. Relax, breathe deeply...this is _our_ country and will remain so until we dissolve the military, then it will be someone else country.

----------


## Agravan

> Diplomacy. Regardless of Texas being independent, Mexico still thought it was theirs. We bought Alaska and the Louisiana Purchase. Rather than just annex Texas and say "fuck you guys" we should have had stronger diplomatic talks with Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking about isolationism in regards to our foreign policy. You consistently call it Isolationism, when it isn't. It's Non-Interventionism.
> 
> As for Europe, Europe has never been Isolationist OR Non-Interventionist.


We? You weren't there either, remember? So, you think the US should have bought Texas (a sovereign nation) from Mexico and avoided a war? The United States-Texas treaty was legal whether Mexico believed it to be or not. What you're basically saying is that if another nation wanted to annex the US, they would first have to buy it from Britain?
Mexico thinking that Texas still belonged to it does not make the US the aggressor in that conflict. That you are so quick to paint the US as aggressors in each and every conflict seems to be an indication of the hatred you have for our country. I know the US has been the aggressor at times (The War of Northern Aggression, for example) but we have either been honoring treaty obligations (Vietnam), NATO or UN obligations (Korea), or reacting to 9/11. Libya, Sudan, possibly Syria - yes we are aggressors in those conflicts and had no business being there, but that's ok, it was obama that got us into those messes so it's all good.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You obviously missed what I wrote about "defending" instead of being aggressors. You are so full of piss and vinegar that you can't see straight. Relax, breathe deeply...*this is our country* and will remain so until we dissolve the military, then it will be someone else country.


Really? It sure as hell doesn't feel that way. I don't feel very much like I own some of this country when I have to see my friends come home in pine boxes just because some people in this country think the Crusades weren't enough. I had no say in that.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> We? You weren't there either, remember? So, you think the US should have bought Texas (a sovereign nation) from Mexico and avoided a war? The United States-Texas treaty was legal whether Mexico believed it to be or not. What you're basically saying is that if another nation wanted to annex the US, they would first have to buy it from Britain?
> Mexico thinking that Texas still belonged to it does not make the US the aggressor in that conflict. That you are so quick to paint the US as aggressors in each and every conflict seems to be an indication of the hatred you have for our country. I know the US has been the aggressor at times (The War of Northern Aggression, for example) but we have either been honoring treaty obligations (Vietnam), NATO or UN obligations (Korea), or reacting to 9/11. Libya, Sudan, possibly Syria - yes we are aggressors in those conflicts and had no business being there, but that's ok, it was obama that got us into those messes so it's all good.


You would do really well to not assume you know how I feel about this country and our government. I love this country and I hate Obama. Libya, Sudan, and inevitably Syria are just as illegitimate as most of our other conflicts. 

I never said we were the aggressors in EVERY conflict. I'm merely pointing to historical reality. I believe we should have gotten involved in WWII. That doesn't mean I'm going to sit here and justify every action of ours. 

Iraq was not a response to 9/11 because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Neither did Afghanistan. If our decade-plus wars were about 9/11, we'd have gone after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We didn't, because it wasn't about 9/11.

----------


## Maximatic

> When it comes to perspectives of International Relations I'm a Realist and that's how I feel about our involvement in the world.


As opposed to what? That statement just doesn't mean anything. No one believes himself to be an unrealist.

----------


## Coolwalker

> Really? It sure as hell doesn't feel that way. I don't feel very much like I own some of this country when I have to see my friends come home in pine boxes just because some people in this country think the Crusades weren't enough. I had no say in that.


The date I was drafted in to the Army was October 19, 1966 along with 66,000 others on the same day. The largest single draft day in history. Don't begin to tell me or anyone else _who has served_ about pine boxes.

----------


## Roadmaster

> The date I was drafted in to the Army was October 19, 1966 along with 66,000 others on the same day. The largest single draft day in history. Don't begin to tell me or anyone else _who has served_ about pine boxes.


   Do you think the draft will come back?

----------


## Coolwalker

> Do you think the draft will come back?


Not unless it is really needed. That is political death to agree to the draft. Do I believe it is right? Yes, I do. I feel all citizens should serve their country for at least two years. Do I want one more young man or woman dying? No.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> The date I was drafted in to the Army was October 19, 1966 along with 66,000 others on the same day. The largest single draft day in history. Don't begin to tell me or anyone else _who has served_ about pine boxes.


I believe I just did. Deal with it. You are not the only person who gets to be upset about dealing with their loved ones coming home dead for useless wars.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Not unless it is really needed. That is political death to agree to the draft. Do I believe it is right? Yes, I do. I feel all citizens should serve their country for at least two years. Do I want one more young man or woman dying? No.


Just saying everyone of my uncles and dad were drafted. Back then ok but fighting civil wars we have no business in, no. Fighting for the interest of corporations, no. People always said they didn't take all brothers but one of my grandmothers had all her sons gone at one time all 8 of them. The draft should never come back unless it's defending our country, imho.

----------


## Coolwalker

> Just saying everyone of my uncles and dad were drafted. Back then ok but fighting civil wars we have no business in, no. Fighting for the interest of corporations, no. People always said they didn't take all brothers but one of my grandmothers had all her sons gone at one time all 8 of them. The draft should never come back unless it's defending our country, imho.


That is pretty much what I said, but I do carry it a bit further as I still believe that everyone should "serve" their country in some form or another. It could be the Peace Corps, it really doesn't matter, but that would require some form of draft. And it should include women as well. Perhaps they would have a choice, they could chose from a list, but  unless they are crippled in some manner, all should serve.

----------

Agravan (02-07-2013)

----------


## Network

obobo.png

----------


## Agravan

> You would do really well to not assume you know how I feel about this country and our government. I love this country and I hate Obama. Libya, Sudan, and inevitably Syria are just as illegitimate as most of our other conflicts. 
> 
> I never said we were the aggressors in EVERY conflict. I'm merely pointing to historical reality. I believe we should have gotten involved in WWII. That doesn't mean I'm going to sit here and justify every action of ours. 
> 
> Iraq was not a response to 9/11 because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Neither did Afghanistan. If our decade-plus wars were about 9/11, we'd have gone after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We didn't, because it wasn't about 9/11.


You're right, Iraq was not about 9/11. It was about saddam's support of terrorism and the fact that he had been taking shots at us for the previous 10 years. It also may have been prevented had Saddam let the inpectors do their job. He didn't so he suffered the consequences. The gulf war, like the Korean war, never really ended, it was just in a ceasefire, whose terms Saddam violated every day.
Ok, I was out of line in saying you hated this country, for that, I apologize. It just seemed to me that you characterized every conflict that we were involved in as being the fault of US aggression when it clearly wasn't. As far as your historical reality, I still think you're wrong. You may not agree with the reasons we went to war, but realistically, we have to honor treaties with allies whether you like it or not. Britain has been one of our truest friends, despite the current commies in charge, so we helped them when they needed it most. Twice.

----------


## Network

polls_bush_laugh1218473430_0908_621318_poll_xlarge.jpeg

george-bush-sour.jpg


ghwbush.jpg

----------


## Network

110421_leon_panetta_ap_605.jpg

----------


## The XL

> That is pretty much what I said, but I do carry it a bit further as I still believe that everyone should "serve" their country in some form or another. It could be the Peace Corps, it really doesn't matter, but that would require some form of draft. And it should include women as well. Perhaps they would have a choice, they could chose from a list, but  unless they are crippled in some manner, all should serve.




Thanks but no thanks, comrade.

----------


## Network

**************************************************  ***
*The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan*

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, 
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?


B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?


Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.


B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html




**************************************************  ***************
*A Council on Foreign Relations Love Letter to Al Qaeda*

After Americans have had their Constitution all but eradicated following the damage supposedly done by al-Qaeda on 9/11, a new narrative is being bolstered by globalists and imperialists everywhere that al-Qaeda is our new best friend in Syria.

Ed Husain, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations think-tank, drips with admiration for the once-labeled extremist killers of all things democratic, holy and good. Husain writes for CFR.org:

The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime's superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/08/...ions-love.html

----------


## Agravan

There will always be the ones that want to bitch about other's service, but refuse to serve themselves. These are just more examples of givers vs takers.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You're right, Iraq was not about 9/11. It was about saddam's support of terrorism and the fact that he had been taking shots at us for the previous 10 years. It also may have been prevented had Saddam let the inpectors do their job. He didn't so he suffered the consequences. The gulf war, like the Korean war, never really ended, it was just in a ceasefire, whose terms Saddam violated every day.


Saddam was our ally until he attacked the Kuwaiti oil fields. See my point?




> Ok, I was out of line in saying you hated this country, for that, I apologize.


Accepted and forgiven.




> It just seemed to me that you characterized every conflict that we were involved in as being the fault of US aggression when it clearly wasn't.


My point was _almost_ every conflict. And it's our government, not our nation, a distinction I have pointed out. To personify things, I view our country as a daughter and our government as her abusive boyfriend. Her, the image of innocence and purity. Him, the image of naked tyranny and oppression.




> As far as your historical reality, I still think you're wrong. You may not agree with the reasons we went to war, but realistically, we have to honor treaties with allies whether you like it or not. Britain has been one of our truest friends, despite the current commies in charge, so we helped them when they needed it most. Twice.


And I believe we should honor our treaties, however, I don't think that justifies glossing over the reality of the situation. Britain was in trouble in WWI of their own making. Had they kept their noses out of it, they would have been fine. But this is the danger Jefferson tried to warn us about when he condemned treaties and alliances. Eventually, you get to the point where you realize that Americans are fighting and dying for a cause not their own.

----------


## The XL

> There will always be the ones that want to bitch about other's service, but refuse to serve themselves. These are just more examples of givers vs takers.


I have every right to bitch when the actions of others affect me and other unwilling people.  Our foreign policy killed my father, who was at 9/11.  And no, he did not consent, he was a victim of the blowback from our foreign policy.

I'll expose our evil foreign policy until the day I die, and have every right to do so.  Deal with it.

You guys defend the policies that killed my father and other unwilling innocents, and you act as if I have no moral high ground to speak up about it.  Seriously, fuck you guys.

----------


## Network

There will always be those who want to fight for proven liars who fail at everything they've attempted for the past half-century.  Then there are the smarter people.

----------

The XL (02-07-2013)

----------


## Agravan

*In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service** surround the globe. 

Now the trumpet summons us again - not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are - but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" - a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself. 

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort? 

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum** danger. I do not shank from this responsibility - I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavour will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world. 

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. 

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.* 
John F. Kennedy - Inaugural Address Jan 20 1961

Whatever happened to this sentiment from Democrats?

----------


## Agravan

> There will always be those who want to fight for proven liars who fail at everything they've attempted for the past half-century.  Then there are the smarter people.


Yes, selfish cowards always consider themselves to be smarter than the brave men and women willing to fight for their beliefs.

----------


## The XL

> There will always be those who want to fight for proven liars who fail at everything they've attempted for the past half-century.  Then there are the smarter people.


Yup.  But it isn't always that simple.  My father was killed because the idiotic general public enabled this foreign policy.  

You guys are the takers.  Give my dad back, mother fuckers.

----------


## Network

> Yes, selfish cowards always consider themselves to be smarter than the brave men and women willing to fight for their beliefs.



What beliefs are those, imperialism and bankruptcy?

Maybe the "sacred charters of the UN"?

----------

The XL (02-07-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Yes, selfish cowards always consider themselves to be smarter than the brave men and women willing to fight for their beliefs.


Not fighting unnecessary wars for globalists and the military industrial complex is hardly selfish.

----------

Network (02-07-2013)

----------


## Agravan

> Yup.  But it isn't always that simple.  My father was killed because the idiotic general public enabled this foreign policy.  
> 
> You guys are the takers.  Give my dad back, mother fuckers.


Look, I agree your father died because of the idiotic policies in place by the morons running our government for past few decades. I am sorry for your loss. But yu are taking your hatred out on the wrong people. blame the government, hell, I do. But the men and women that are out there doing their duty are NOT to blame. I don't support this government and haven't for a long time. it needs to change, bad things happen. Don't let all that hatred eat you up, dude. Get involved, go into politics and make a difference. Change Washington for the better. there are a lot of people that would agree with you but you need to focus your anger at the right people and not lash out at everyone.
Hell, had i known your motivation earlier, I may have agreed with some of your statements but I still support my brothers in arms regadless of the policies of this corrupt government.

----------


## Agravan

> What beliefs are those, imperialism and bankruptcy?
> 
> Maybe the "sacred charters of the UN"?


F*CK the UN.
A little imperialism is a good thing  :Smile:

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> *In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service** surround the globe. 
> 
> Now the trumpet summons us again - not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are - but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" - a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself. 
> 
> Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort? 
> 
> In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum** danger. I do not shank from this responsibility - I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavour will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world. 
> 
> And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. 
> ...


What happened to it? They killed its standard-bearer. 

I intend to bring it back.

----------


## Agravan

> What happened to it? They killed its standard-bearer. 
> 
> I intend to bring it back.


I would support that effort although I usually oppose modern liberals.

----------


## Network

I support the people in the military, that's why I don't want them dying for global democracy.  It's getting harder and harder to understand why they join the military when they keep taking on all of these non-threats to America.  

But like I said in the beginning, they are duped or desperate kids when they join.  Putting an occupation that is about _killing_ up on a pedestal does not seem like a good idea.  It's state propaganda and should be wound down.  I mostly feel sorry for people who joined the military, and that's what this thread was about.  Not spitting on them, but pulling back on the worship.

No one worships me for my occupation, and it doesn't involve guns and bombs.  That doesn't mean that I think they're spitting on me.

----------

The XL (02-07-2013)

----------


## The XL

Yep, I dunno why people are defending these kids signing up.  They're fighting wars for special interests.  They're being used, and we're less safe, to boot.  All of this is blowback.  Every last bit of it.  The US has fabricated all these conflicts unnecessarily.  

I want a strong military.  I don't want an imperialistic one.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I would support that effort although I usually oppose modern liberals.


I'm not a modern liberal. My kind of liberalism has been around longer than this nation  :Wink:  I am, basically, a Thomas Paine.

----------


## Agravan

> I support the people in the military, that's why I don't want them dying for global democracy.  It's getting harder and harder to understand why they join the military when they keep taking on all of these non-threats to America.  
> 
> But like I said in the beginning, they are duped or desperate kids when they join.  Putting an occupation that is about _killing_ up on a pedestal does not seem like a good idea.  It's state propaganda and should be wound down.  I mostly feel sorry for people who joined the military, and that's what this thread was about.  Not spitting on them, but pulling back on the worship.
> 
> No one worships me for my occupation, and it doesn't involve guns and bombs.  That doesn't mean that I think they're spitting on me.


As has been said before, no one worships the military. We honor the service, dedication and sacrifice these young men and women make. If you have not served, you would not understand.
They are not stupid, they are not duped. everyone joins for their own reason. Is it too hard for you to understand and respect their choice as you expect people to understand and respect your choice not to serve? Their choice can get them killed, yet they made the choice freely.

----------

KSigMason (02-08-2013)

----------


## Agravan

> Yep, I dunno why people are defending these kids signing up.  They're fighting wars for special interests.  They're being used, and we're less safe, to boot.  All of this is blowback.  Every last bit of it.  The US has fabricated all these conflicts unnecessarily.  
> 
> I want a strong military.  I don't want an imperialistic one.


You want a strong military, but you don't want anyone to join?

----------


## Network

When I was 18 years old, I probably would've joined a Stone Temple Pilots cult with enough persuasion.  Too young to drink, just the right age to fight for ol' corrupt bankrupt Uncle Sam.

----------


## The XL

> You want a strong military, but you don't want anyone to join?


Not when they're going to be used to fight illegitimate wars, no.  Obviously, a change in foreign policy would have to come first.

----------


## Network

I don't believe in militarism...period.  I don't believe in collectivism.  

I don't believe in nations.  Ouch!

But I'm from another time, where people aren't self-destructive monkeys.

----------


## Maximatic

> I support the people in the military, that's why I don't want them dying for global democracy.  It's getting harder and harder to understand why they join the military when they keep taking on all of these non-threats to America.  
> 
> But like I said in the beginning, they are duped or desperate kids when they join.  Putting an occupation that is about _killing_ up on a pedestal does not seem like a good idea.  It's state propaganda and should be wound down.  I mostly feel sorry for people who joined the military, and that's what this thread was about.  Not spitting on them, but pulling back on the worship.
> 
> No one worships me for my occupation, and it doesn't involve guns and bombs.  That doesn't mean that I think they're spitting on me.


That's right. Look, patriots, governments are a threat to freedom. Anything that glorifies government is a threat to freedom. Standing armies are unique to governments. Soldiers are unique to standing armies. Glorifying the soldier in abstraction glorifies government, and is, therefore, a threat to freedom. This is not to say anything about the soldier in person. There is, of course, a sense in which a man who is willing to fight is a superior man. But you can't let your respect for this personal nobility, or your love for your brothers in arms cloud your judgment. If you really want to guard liberty with everything you have, you must recognize this subtle, but important distinction, and not allow the soldier in abstraction to be glorified. It leads to hardcore statism.

----------

Network (02-07-2013)

----------


## Agravan

> Not when they're going to be used to fight illegitimate wars, no.  Obviously, a change in foreign policy would have to come first.


Because you see a war as illegitimate does not mean it is. Most of us diid not join the military because we were eager to fight in a "illegitimate" war. We joined to serve our country, to get an education, to learn a trade, or for other reasons. No soldier wants a war, but it's a risk we take when we sign up. A lot of youngsters today consider any war to be illegitimate. That's understandable in light of the idealism of youth. You guys denigrate others whenever they mention the inexperience of youth. but fail to realize that we have been there too. We were young and ideasltic at one time, but with age comes experience and the rose colored glasses fade as time goes by. There is really no substitute for being there and doing that. 
Hold on to your idealism for as long as you can. But don't let your idealism keep your eyes closed against the realities of the world we live in. Remember, we tried to change the world too, it does not always go the way you want.

----------


## Maximatic

> You want a strong military, but you don't want anyone to join?


You said the military has been abused since WW2. You should be trying to convince people not to sign up

----------


## Network

> That's right. Look, patriots, governments are a threat to freedom. Anything that glorifies government is a threat to freedom. Standing armies are unique to governments. Soldiers are unique to standing armies. Glorifying the soldier in abstraction glorifies government, and is, therefore, a threat to freedom. This is not to say anything about the soldier in person. There is, of course, a sense in which a man who is willing to fight is a superior man. But you can't let your respect for this personal nobility, or your love for your brothers in arms cloud your judgment. If you really want to guard liberty with everything you have, you must recognize this subtle, but important distinction, and not allow the soldier in abstraction to be glorified. It leads to hardcore statism.



Well said.  

Republicans need to check out the foreign policy of the old right, the founders, and drop these neocons.  They're epic failures and evolved from Trotskyites to boot.

----------


## Roadmaster

> A lot of youngsters today consider any war to be illegitimate


 Correct but the ones lately I can see why they would think this way. But they do need to be trained if a war should come here.

----------


## Agravan

> I don't believe in militarism...period.  I don't believe in collectivism.  
> 
> I don't believe in nations.  Ouch!
> 
> But I'm from another time, where people aren't self-destructive monkeys.


Anarchy, ok. In my opinion anarchy can never really exist. man cannot live with out someform of government. There will always be a leader and rules to follow. Anarchy is a pipedream.

----------

KSigMason (02-08-2013)

----------


## Network

What are legitimate reasons for war?  Thinking deeply about it...  War is between states, not between people.  By golly, I think I've got it.

The 20th century was a statist bloodfest.  The most deadly century in history.  Humans haven't evolved, that's for sure.

I'd love to see a foreign nation occupy a well-armed USA citizenry, when the USA's unprecedented military power can't even defeat goat-herders.

----------


## The XL

> Because you see a war as illegitimate does not mean it is. Most of us diid not join the military because we were eager to fight in a "illegitimate" war. We joined to serve our country, to get an education, to learn a trade, or for other reasons. No soldier wants a war, but it's a risk we take when we sign up. A lot of youngsters today consider any war to be illegitimate. That's understandable in light of the idealism of youth. You guys denigrate others whenever they mention the inexperience of youth. but fail to realize that we have been there too. We were young and ideasltic at one time, but with age comes experience and the rose colored glasses fade as time goes by. There is really no substitute for being there and doing that. 
> Hold on to your idealism for as long as you can. But don't let your idealism keep your eyes closed against the realities of the world we live in. Remember, we tried to change the world too, it does not always go the way you want.


All these wars are illegitimate.  I don't need to worry about my "idealism."  Your idea of reality has put us in too many wars, has left us bankrupt, and has left us with many dead soldiers and innocents.  My youth is an advantage here, as I have not been successfully brainwashed like older folk have.  I also have the reality of losing a loved one to your psychotic foreign policy.  I'm more than informed and qualified to make an accurate observation.  

Nothing will happen if we mind our own business.  We have, by far, the strongest military and nuclear capabilities in the world, and no threats aside from the ones propped up by our foreign policy.  As long as we have the second amendment, our country cannot be successfully invaded, and no one would ever sling nukes, it would be suicide for them.

----------


## Agravan

> You said the military has been abused since WW2. You should be trying to convince people not to sign up


We still need a trained military. We need to change the government, not get rid of the militry.

----------

KSigMason (02-08-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

> Anarchy, ok. In my opinion anarchy can never really exist. man cannot live with out someform of government. There will always be a leader and rules to follow. Anarchy is a pipedream.


Real self governance is possible. There are historical precedents that prove that. People always congeal into groups with leaders, but, as long as the services that governments typically provide are provided (and they can be and have been provided on a voluntary basis), no unilaterally coercive government needs to exist.

----------


## Network

I could make Obama and Bush meme's all day by the way.  They're probably copyrighted, but I don't believe in those either.  

I'll spare you.  lol

I seem to remember who the military supported in the last election.  I don't believe it was one of the global feudalists.  (I can't call them international socialists anymore because it hurts anarcho-socialist feelings).  It was that guy who likes Thomas Jefferson and has a philosophy.  That wanker.

----------


## Agravan

> All these wars are illegitimate.  I don't need to worry about my "idealism."  Your idea of reality has put us in too many wars, has left us bankrupt, and has left us with many dead soldiers and innocents.
> 
> Nothing will happen if we mind our own business.  We have, by far, the strongest military and nuclear capabilities in the world, and no threats aside from the ones propped up by our foreign policy.  As long as we have the second amendment, our country cannot be successfully invaded, and no one would ever sling nukes, it would be suicide for them.


Never discount the lunacy of irrational world leaders. Some would see suicide as a price worth paying to hurt The Great Satan.
"Nothing will happen if we mind our own business." - you have a lot to learn bud...

----------


## Maximatic

> We still need a trained military. We need to change the government, not get rid of the militry.


I think enough people will join without those of us who know that the military is being abused encouraging them to.

----------


## Agravan

> I could make Obama and Bush meme's all day by the way.  They're probably copyrighted, but I don't believe in those either.  
> 
> I'll spare you.  lol
> 
> I seem to remember who the military supported in the last election.  I don't believe it was global feudalists.  (I can't call them international socialists anymore because it hurts anarcho-socialist feelings).


The majority military vote conservative. Please cite stats if you think they supported obama.

----------


## The XL

> Never discount the lunacy of irrational world leaders. Some would see suicide as a price worth paying to hurt The Great Satan.
> "Nothing will happen if we mind our own business." - you have a lot to learn bud...


Even if I was wrong, which I'm not, how much worse could it possibly be?  We're in wars that have cost us tons of money, tons of lives, have raised the potential for blowback, and have resulted in massive loss of our civil liberties.

----------


## Agravan

> Real self governance is possible. There are historical precedents that prove that. People always congeal into groups with leaders, but, as long as the services that governments typically provide are provided (and they can be and have been provided on a voluntary basis), no unilaterally coercive government needs to exist.


ALL government is coercive. Oherwise it can't govern.

----------


## Agravan

> Even if I was wrong, which I'm not, how much worse could it possibly be?  We're in wars that have cost us tons of money, tons of lives, have raised the potential for blowback, and have resulted in massive loss of our civil liberties.


Which civil liberties have you lost?

----------


## Maximatic

Some books, essays, and talks about free market provided defense.

----------


## Network

> The majority military vote conservative. Please cite stats if you think they supported obama.



Please cite why you think I would support Obama.  That's really most of the battle with republicans or democrats, it's the team loyalty.

*Ron Paul Awash in Active Duty Military Donations**http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...tary-donations*

----------


## The XL

> Which civil liberties have you lost?


NDAA, Patriot Act, and the TSA have all been justified by the government, and a lot of the population, because of the war on terror.  I refuse to fly on a plane because I'd rather not run the risk of being sexually assaulted.

----------


## Agravan

> Even if I was wrong, which I'm not, how much worse could it possibly be?  We're in wars that have cost us tons of money, tons of lives, have raised the potential for blowback, and have resulted in massive loss of our civil liberties.


How much worse could it possibly be? I'd rather be fighting them on* their* streets than fighting them on _ours_.

----------


## Maximatic

> Which civil liberties have you lost?


Oh no way. Nevermind the countless violations of article one section eight, which amendment has not been violated?

----------


## Agravan

> Please cite why you think I would support Obama.  That's really most of the battle with republicans or democrats, it's the team loyalty.
> 
> *Ron Paul Awash in Active Duty Military Donations*
> 
> *http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...tary-donations*


Never said you did. i've read enough of your posts to know you don't.

----------


## The XL

> How much worse could it possibly be? I'd rather be fighting them on* their* streets than fighting them on _ours_.


Don't worry about that, an invasion of the United States is impossible due to our military and the second Amendment.  Besides, these enemies would not exist if we had an non interventionist foreign policy.

----------



----------


## Agravan

> NDAA, Patriot Act, and the TSA have all been justified by the government, and a lot of the population, because of the war on terror.  I refuse to fly on a plane because I'd rather not run the risk of being sexually assaulted.


How has the NDAA and patriot act affected you?
the TSA? Yeah, they're a bunch of idiots, but you still have the choice of not flying.

----------


## The XL

> How has the NDAA and patriot act affected you?
> the TSA? Yeah, they're a bunch of idiots, but you still have the choice of not flying.


I don't need something to have directly affected me yet for me to be against it, an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.  The fact that they have that type of power is a danger to liberty.

The war on drugs has not effected me, but I fight strongly against it as well.  I fight for liberty, even if it does nothing for me personally.

----------


## Network

> Never said you did. i've read enough of your posts to know you don't.


Let me tell you a secret, I think Obama would be strutting his roots even harder if our military didn't mostly loathe him.  Totalitarian wankers need foot soldiers who obey.  That's one reason why I respect our military.  

Thanks for a reasonable debate for the most part.  You're up against three flaming liberal(tarians).

----------

OceanloverOH (02-07-2013)

----------


## Agravan

> Don't worry about that, an invasion of the United States is impossible due to our military and the second Amendment.  Besides, these enemies would not exist if we had an non interventionist foreign policy.


Nonsense. You have no sense of world history. There is always someone who will take what you have if you show you don't have the will to defend it.

----------


## Agravan

> I don't need something to have directly affected me yet for me to be against it, an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.  The fact that they have that type of power is a danger to liberty.
> 
> The war on drugs has not effected me, but I fight strongly against it as well.  I fight for liberty, even if it does nothing for me personally.


Believe it or not, I am against those acts as well, just on general principles.
I tend to lean Libertarian on most things, I just disagreed with Ron Paul on his foreign policies.

----------


## The XL

> Nonsense. You have no sense of world history. There is always someone who will take what you have if you show you don't have the will to defend it.


With a strong military and an armed public, we'd be more than defended.  Who are you worried about attacking us anyway?  Iraq, Iran, and everyone else we have messed with/could potentially mess with, all small fry.

Also, there has been no country in the history of the world with the power we possess, so citing history as an example is kind of silly.

----------


## Network

> Nonsense. You have no sense of world history. There is always someone who will take what you have if you show you don't have the will to defend it.



Why do these nations have problems with one another?  Collective sociopathism.  

The USA's been fighting goats for 12 years.  excuse me while I <snicker>

----------


## Maximatic

> How has the NDAA and patriot act affected you?
> the TSA? Yeah, they're a bunch of idiots, but you still have the choice of not flying.


Why do you presume that it should affect us personally before we find it wrong? Doesn't it bother you that the government won't obey the law?

----------

The XL (02-07-2013)

----------


## Agravan

> Let me tell you a secret, I think Obama would be strutting his roots even harder if our military didn't mostly loathe him.  Totalitarian wankers need foot soldiers who obey.  That's one reason why I respect our military.  
> 
> Thanks for a reasonable debate for the most part.  You're up against three flaming liberal(tarians).


No problem. I enjoy a good debate. As I said, I agree with a lot of things you guys have to say, but I have always been a staunch supporter of our military.

----------

OceanloverOH (02-07-2013)

----------


## The XL

> No problem. I enjoy a good debate. As I said, I agree with a lot of things you guys have to say, but I have always been a staunch supporter of our military.


I think a strong military is the biggest defender of freedom.  When used incorrectly and unjustly, however, it turns into an enemy of freedom.  

I want a strong military.  I also want to bud out of the affairs of sovereign nations, especially barbaric, irrational ones.

----------


## Agravan

> Why do you presume that it should affect us personally before we find it wrong? Doesn't it bother you that the government won't obey the law?


Never said that. 
I think this government  is illegitimate and has been for a long time. I think, personally, that it's time to water the tree of liberty again.

----------


## The XL

> Never said that. 
> I think this government  is illegitimate and has been for a long time. I think, personally, that it's time to water the tree of liberty again.


How could you defend an aggressive foreign policy initiated by a government you find illegitimate?

----------

Network (02-07-2013)

----------


## Agravan

> I think a strong military is the biggest defender of freedom.  When used incorrectly and unjustly, however, it turns into an enemy of freedom.  
> 
> I want a strong military.  I also want to bud out of the affairs of sovereign nations, especially barbaric, irrational ones.


Agreed. I say get the hell out of the Middle East (except Israel) and let them slaughter each other.
And no, I don't want to get into a discussion about Israel, let's just leave it at that.

----------


## The XL

Well......supporting Israel by giving them money/weaponry/military aid is gonna bring blowback.  We'd be better off staying the hell out of the Middle East in general.

----------


## Network

> How could you defend an aggressive foreign policy initiated by a government you find illegitimate?



Zeroing in on the bullseye.

----------


## Agravan

> How could you defend an aggressive foreign policy initiated by a government you find illegitimate?


How do you figure I support the foreign policy? I support our troops, not our policies. Although I do believe that if we are going to send our troops in harm's way, don't tie their hands and let them at least have a _chance_ of winning or get the hell out.

----------

Network (02-07-2013)

----------


## The XL

> How do you figure I support the foreign policy? I support our troops, not our policies. Although I do believe that if we are going to send our troops in harm's way, don't tie their hands and let them at least have a _chance_ of winning or get the hell out.


Well, you believe this enemy is legit, and don't agree with Ron Pauls FP, right?

----------


## Network

> How do you figure I support the foreign policy? I support our troops, not our policies. Although I do believe that if we are going to send our troops in harm's way, don't tie their hands and let them at least have a _chance_ of winning or get the hell out.


Well, seems the difference is simply that I (we) think that we should tone down the flag-flying rootin-tootin gung-ho unflinching support and advertisement, glorification of the military.  And you think that _it's not really that loud_.  

We all support them.  I support them being safely at home or training unless there is a serious threat.  I do not support the US being the UN's global force (for good)...meaning.... (for _ever_).

----------

The XL (02-07-2013)

----------


## Agravan

> Well, seems the difference is simply that I (we) think that we should tone down the flag-flying rootin-tootin gung-ho unflinching support and advertisement, glorification of the military.  And you think that _it's not really that loud_.  
> 
> We all support them.  I support them being safely at home or training unless there is a serious threat.  I do not support the US being the UN's global force (for good)...meaning.... (for _ever_).


No, I really don't think it's that loud. As far as being the UN's bitch, I think the UN is the real enemy and we should not only get out of the UN, we should get the UN out of the US.

----------


## Agravan

> Well, you believe this enemy is legit, and don't agree with Ron Pauls FP, right?


Whether the enemy is legit or not, if our boys and girls are placed in harms way, for whatever reason, they should be allowed to win, not just die.

----------


## The XL

> Whether the enemy is legit or not, if our boys and girls are placed in harms way, for whatever reason, they should be allowed to win, not just die.


Ron doesn't want them to die though.  He wants the opposite, he wants them to leave. 

So what exactly is your beef with his foreign policy?

----------


## Network

> No, I really don't think it's that loud. As far as being the UN's bitch, I think the UN is the real enemy and we should not only get out of the UN, we should get the UN out of the US.


lol.  The UN on the military side of things is nothing more than an extension of Anglo-western policy.  Who places sanctions on the rogue nations?  On the gun control and attempts to force some global totalitarian weather controls and Agenda 21 bullshit on the world, the UN....is against the prosperity of the people of the US.

But are they against the leaders of western nations?  No, because the UN is an extension of western international socialist elites in foreign policy, economic policy, and you-name-it-policy.

 The enemy already has the reigns.

----------


## Agravan

> Ron doesn't want them to die though.  He wants the opposite, he wants them to leave. 
> 
> So what exactly is your beef with his foreign policy?


I believe we have interests that need to be protected, treaty obligations that need to be kept and should have a presence in the world. Leave the places where they hate us, stop teir foreign aid and only help those places that are friendly to us. We cannot withdraw to Fortress America, the world is way to small for that.

----------

OceanloverOH (02-08-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> How do you figure I support the foreign policy? I support our troops, not our policies. Although I do believe that if we are going to send our troops in harm's way, don't tie their hands and let them at least have a _chance_ of winning or get the hell out.


I think we all support our troops here.

----------

Agravan (02-07-2013)

----------


## OceanloverOH

> I think we all support our troops here.


I sure as hell hope so, @roadmaster.  Anti-military people really get my panties in a wad.   :Angryfire:

----------

Agravan (02-08-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (02-07-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> I sure as hell hope so, @roadmaster.  Anti-military people really get my panties in a wad.


Yes, they piss me off too. That is what you were saying. :Thumbsup20:  I remember watching when the vets came home  and a few people spitting on them calling them baby killers while behind people. Kids today say it didn't happen but it did. A person can be against a war but they had better respect our military.

----------

OceanloverOH (02-08-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Yes, they piss me off too. That is what you were saying. I remember watching when the vets came home  and a few people spitting on them calling them baby killers while behind people. Kids today say it didn't happen but it did. A person can be against a war but they had better respect our military.


Well, neither me, Network, or anyone else in this thread that hates our foreign policy ever stated that we hated the military, and would never do disgusting things like spit on them when they returned.  

You can expose both our evil foreign policy and the fact that the troops are not currently helping us or making us safe without hating or disrespecting them.  It isn't black or white.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Well, neither me, Network, or anyone else in this thread that hates our foreign policy ever stated that we hated the military, and would never do disgusting things like spit on them when they returned.  
> 
> You can expose both our evil foreign policy and the fact that the troops are not currently helping us or making us safe without hating or disrespecting them.  It isn't black or white.


Didn't think you would.

----------


## KSigMason

> As opposed to what? That statement just doesn't mean anything. No one believes himself to be an unrealist.


In the study of International Relations there are three main perspectives: Realist, Liberal, and Identity.

----------


## KSigMason

> There will always be those who want to fight for proven liars who fail at everything they've attempted for the past half-century. Then there are the smarter people.


I find this seriously offensive and completely ignorant. Just because I served and someone else didn't doesn't make them smarter than me.




> The USA's been fighting goats for 12 years. excuse me while I <snicker>


I wouldn't call it fighting as that would be two-sided, but the Congress has shackled the military and not just let us do our jobs.

----------

Agravan (02-08-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

> In the study of International Relations there are three main perspectives: Realist, Liberal, and Identity.


Ah.

Well, you're right. States are inherently lawless institutions. While natural law prevents most people from attacking one another, and self serving action among individuals tends to promote trade, states must defy natural law in order to exist. With no natural law among states, paranoia seems to win out. There is something to be said for interdependence, though.

Would you mind giving a synopsis of your theory of realism?

----------


## kk8

> The "enemy" you speak of exists due to blowback.  It would disappear tomorrow if we minded our business. We have not been in a necessary conflict in a very long time.  It's because of gullible morons like you that we are in the spot we're in.   It truly makes me cringe when I see people still believing the propaganda to the point that you're worried 'bombs would be dropped on our heads' if not for our imperialistic foreign policy.  Seriously, how fucking stupid are you?  You speak like you care about the soldiers, but realize that you have blood on your hands.  People like you have enabled these conflicts, and allowed the government to get away with our wars and foreign policy.  Your no patriot, you're a traitor.
> 
> 
> I already said they are brave people, so spare me all the talking points and bullshit that comes along with it.  And brave as they may be, they are nothing more than pawns right now, pawns that aren't keeping us safe.  Whether you like it or, it's the reality of the it.  So deal with it.
> 
> I'm not sure why I'm even wasting time with you, you're probably one of those geniuses who thinks they 'hate us because of our freedom.'





> Seriously, how fucking stupid are you? You speak like you care about the soldiers, but realize that you have blood on your hands. People like you have enabled these conflicts, and allowed the government to get away with our wars and foreign policy. Your no patriot, you're a traitor.


WTF?  STUPID?  ME?  How old are you?  You sound like a juvunile delinquent.  I have BLOOD on my hands?  Ohhhh do tell me how....please.   I am a TRAITOR??  A TRAITOR?  Are you freaking serious????  How am I a traitor?  LOL.  What, because I support our military?  You are the biggest idiot I have ever encountered...I hope to God you are only 12rs old.

And your last line is so hysterical.  As if people don't hate us for our freedoms.  You are exactly the type of person that I would LOVE to see dropped in the middle of Iran, N Korea, Egypt (now), Cuba.  Are you too stupid to understand why the governments in these countries hate that the United States is free?  Seriously?   Perhaps, when you got back from N Korea you would learn to appreciate your military, and your fellow Americans.  By the sound of your asinine rant you have a hell of a lot to learn.

From your post it is clear that I made too much sense in my response to you, and I may have made too much of a fool of you....I apologize.  But, with this latest post from you, you have managed to make o fool of your self without any help from me....so congratulations.

----------


## kk8

> Lol, that statement from kk8 was one of the stupidest things I've ever read.


Grow up.....

----------


## KSigMason

> Would you mind giving a synopsis of your theory of realism?


Here are some of my notes from the class:




> The realist perspective uses this example to illustrate what they see as basic truths  the international system is anarchic, forcing states to rely on self-help for protection. Because states exist in a security dilemma, they, like the prisoners, cannot trust one another enough to cooperate.





> Realists are not people who want to go to war or that war is the greatest thing to happen to society.  War is a reality and to seek to avoid war we must understand war.  
> 
> It all boils down to power.  Power = security, the primary goal of the State.





> Anarchy: There is no single legitimate source of power in the system and States engage in self-help
> Balance of Power: States work to prevent domination of the system.
> Security Dilemma: If a state arms to increase its security, it will threaten other states


Machiavelli and Hobbes were realists, but classical while I'm more neo-realist in some of my beliefs.

Henry Morgenthau and Sam Huntington are two of my favorite authors on realism and international relations.

----------


## Maximatic

> Here are some of my notes from the class:
> 
> Machiavelli and Hobbes were realists, but classical while I'm more neo-realist in some of my beliefs.
> 
> Henry Morgenthau and Sam Huntington are two of my favorite authors on realism and international relations.


When I saw your first response, I went and read an essay that compares realism and liberalism, and got most of that from the essay. I was more curious about your own theory. 

I, for example, can't be a liberal because I don't believe that people are inherently good. There are some other tenants of liberalism, that I noticed and can't remember right now, that I just find naive. Hegemonic stability leads to one world government which I detest, and will invariably become tyrannic. But the liberal idea of economic interdependence does, in fact, help to prevent violent conflicts.

I don't really see anything about realism that I disagree with, so far. But I'm also a voluntarist, and I believe that there are things that are true among states and not true among people because states are not driven by the same incentives as people. I spend a lot of time investigating ways for people in a stateless society to defend themselves against against aggressive states.

----------


## KSigMason

> When I saw your first response, I went and read an essay that compares realism and liberalism, and got most of that from the essay. I was more curious about your own theory.


Ah, I'm working on homework for my current course load right now so lengthy posts are going to be far and few.

----------


## Maximatic

> As if people don't hate us for our freedoms.


Would you like to explain why you believe that Muslims hate us for our freedom?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> So, if the government decided to go to war with Israel, the military would be fighting for our freedom?


 @kk8, feel free to answer this.

----------


## kk8

> @kk8, feel free to answer this.


Stupid question.  War with Israel?

----------


## kk8

> Would you like to explain why you believe that Muslims hate us for our freedom?


Stop being obtuse.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Stupid question.  War with Israel?


It's a hypothetical. If our government declared war on Israel, would our military be fighting for our freedom?

----------


## Maximatic

> Stop being obtuse.


I'm not. I really want to see a rational explanation of why you believe that Muslims hate us for our freedom. I know it's been said many times, but that is not a good reason to believe it. Give it your best shot. Explain why you believe it.

----------

