Thread: F**k the Troops

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Ha! Not a thug. More like an intellectual with an attitude, a cool voice, and massive biceps.

uh, this made me laugh.

if he was an intellectual he probably would use this intellect to address the root of the conflict rather than 'violence to prevent future violence.'

Originally Posted by stonedape

What justification do we have for supporting our uniformed killers? They only one I see is that they are "protecting us", which is bull. They are in another country fucking with people's shit. The only thing this war protects is imperialism. Apparently it is alive and well.

If imperialism is alive and well, why do we not need a military to protect our freedom?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Civilians, so-called "insurgents" that are only violent against us because we're invading their homes, putting embargo's and sanctions on their countries, etc.

They are the ones who are keeping us there. Their goal is not for us to leave. If it were, they would stop doing their moronic shit. Their goal is to prevent the democracy from staying in power. They are anti-democracy. The Iraqi people who are not brainwashed Islamofascist nut salads love us for taking the Hussein regime out of power and giving the people rights.

You know that the insurgents target innocents, right? Are you okay with that? What is it accomplishing?

Originally Posted by cygnus

i'm not asking what the cure for world hunger is, and obviously fighting and the military are connected

What is the difference between ending world hunger and curing world hunger? I said I don't know how to do that. I don't know if it can ever happen. However, I did make a the very relevant point that spending money on military is not stopping us from spending a world leading amount of money on fighting (not in the military sense) world hunger. Understand?


For those who do not think your country needs a military to protect your country's freedom, please explain how else to avoid this little problem...

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

Originally Posted by stonedape

So people who use violence to enforce their ideals aren't thugs if they where a uniform? What is it that makes it ok for people in the military to use violence but not ok for others(talking about war, not the example with the wall)?

Civilians

This is a load of shit. Killing people is killing people regardless of weather or not you get paid for it. In fact, if someone is paying you to do it, it's even worse because then your doing it because someone else told you to, so it's not impulse but a calculated move. To some extant there are people who have been brainwashed(/are naive as has been said) and to some degree it's not their fault. But that's even more of a reason to verbally abuse them. These people need to realize what it is they are doing, and it seems that some can and some can't.

What is it that we need protection from? Why do we need to fight for freedom?(I don't think we do)

What justification do we have for supporting our uniformed killers? They only one I see is that they are "protecting us", which is bull. They are in another country fucking with people's shit. The only thing this war protects is imperialism. Apparently it is alive and well.

"So people who use violence to enforce their ideals aren't thugs if they where a uniform? What is it that makes it ok for people in the military to use violence but not ok for others(talking about war, not the example with the wall)?"

I never said anything remotely close to this. If a Marine beats his wife, he goes to jail just as any other person would. Obviously killing enemy combatants on a battlefield is a little different than murdering in cold blood back home. Military personnel aren't allowed to walk around America punching people in the face because of their uniform, what makes you think they are exempt from the law?

"This is a load of shit. Killing people is killing people regardless of weather or not you get paid for it. In fact, if someone is paying you to do it, it's even worse because then your doing it because someone else told you to, so it's not impulse but a calculated move. To some extant there are people who have been brainwashed(/are naive as has been said) and to some degree it's not their fault. But that's even more of a reason to verbally abuse them. These people need to realize what it is they are doing, and it seems that some can and some can't."

Get off your high horse. It boggles my mind that people can be this self-righteous. How exactly is killing on impulse better than killing by calculation? American soldiers are not mercenaries, mercenaries are mercenaries (private contractors.) So why do you people keep talking about the money? If there is one thing in life that I am absolutely sure of, it is this: NOBODY joins the Marines/Army/Navy/Coast Guard for the money. Some people may join for benefits, they may join to stay out of jail, they may join to pay for college, they may join to prevent homelessness, but they do not join because the money is good. And infantry men join infantry because they believe in what they do, they understand the necessity of their existence. The people who only want to exploit the militaries benefits usually look for the easiest job in the military, you won't find people like that in the infantry. Bring your nose out of the sky and realize that the majority of people know exactly what they are getting into when they join the military. It is insulting beyong belief that you assume they are too brainwashed/naive to realize what they are doing.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Civilians, so-called "insurgents" that are only violent against us because we're invading their homes, putting embargo's and sanctions on their countries, etc.

They are no longer civlians when they pick up an AK-47 and aim it at an American soldier. Is that your idea of non-threatening?

Originally Posted by cygnus

uh, this made me laugh.

if he was an intellectual he probably would use this intellect to address the root of the conflict rather than 'violence to prevent future violence.'

It was a joke, he never threw anybody through a concrete wall, obviously. He's a Marine Corps drill instructor, not a psychologist.

oh, UM i thought you made a typo so i didn't understand that at first. i just mean to say that regardless of the tie between military and "fighting hunger" (haha) spending, there's no way we'll make a dent in this or poverty at the rate we're going.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

For those who do not think your country needs a military to protect your country's freedom, please explain how else to avoid this little problem...

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

it looks like there have been a decent number of invasions carried out by the US... you don't think we provoke other nations by being aggressive? and i don't think everyone here is saying that we should abolish military all together for the time being - excessiveness in military spending is more of the issue. if the military were used (far) differently from the way it is used now, then maybe i'd hold it in higher esteem.

I was just giving you a hard time for saying it. I know he probably wouldn't throw me through a wall or hit me. Which is exactly why I would say it to his face, and why I wouldn't be scared to do it.

Working in the miliarty for benefits is the same thing as being paid. Benefits is in the same bag as being paid, so it counts.

To me, there is a huge difference between killing someone in self defense and killing someone for any other reason, including being paid for it. Killing someone is probably the worst thing you could ever do. You can't really blame someone for trying to survive however.

Originally Posted by stonedape

This is a load of shit. Killing people is killing people regardless of weather or not you get paid for it. In fact, if someone is paying you to do it, it's even worse because then your doing it because someone else told you to, so it's not impulse but a calculated move. To some extant there are people who have been brainwashed(/are naive as has been said) and to some degree it's not their fault. But that's even more of a reason to verbally abuse them. These people need to realize what it is they are doing, and it seems that some can and some can't.

What is it that we need protection from? Why do we need to fight for freedom?(I don't think we do)

What justification do we have for supporting our uniformed killers? They only one I see is that they are "protecting us", which is bull. They are in another country fucking with people's shit. The only thing this war protects is imperialism. Apparently it is alive and well.

you are the one who is talking shit my friend. They are not payed to kill random people, they are payed to kill those who would kill us. You dont think that having a military in and of itself helps keep a country safe? You dont have to look very far back in history to see which countries are the ones that get invaded.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If imperialism is alive and well, why do we not need a military to protect our freedom?

What I'm saying is that the military creates imperialism. Without standing armies you can't have imperialism. I think we would be doing more to protect freedom by ending war then by continuing it.

The military is an arm of the government. Government limits freedom, it does not provide it. How can violence created by a group of people who aim to limit freedom create freedom? Why would you expect it to?(referring to your arguments about Iraq, not war generally).

If we want to protect freedom lets fix things here at home. Let's spend all the money we put towards the military on education and see what happens. Let's do something about the lack of freedom here before we go around telling everyone else how to do it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

For those who do not think your country needs a military to protect your country's freedom, please explain how else to avoid this little problem...

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

Militia's
Who has a large enough military to occupy the entire fucking US anyway?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

They are no longer civlians when they pick up an AK-47 and aim it at an American soldier. Is that your idea of non-threatening?

Is it only because they aim it at American soldiers? How about Canadian? Mexican? Australian? Zimbabwean? Italian? Indian? Pakistani? Russian? Japanese? Chinese? Thai? Vietnamese? Cuban? (This was largely rhetorical. I sensed nationalism in you)

The only reason they are "threatening" now is because they're defending themselves from American soldiers dicking around in their homelands. To the country as a whole, they are not threatening.

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology."

- Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, former top leader of the Al Qaeda faction of the Iraqi insurgency

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology."

- Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, former top leader of the Al Qaeda faction of the Iraqi insurgency

But how is violence the proper answer to this? Should we really stoop to this level of dualistic politics?

Originally Posted by stonedape

What I'm saying is that the military creates imperialism. Without standing armies you can't have imperialism. I think we would be doing more to protect freedom by ending war then

Keep dreaming.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Is it only because they aim it at American soldiers? How about Canadian? Mexican? Australian? Zimbabwean? Italian? Indian? Pakistani? Russian? Japanese? Chinese? Thai? Vietnamese? Cuban? (This was largely rhetorical. I sensed nationalism in you)

The only reason they are "threatening" now is because they're defending themselves from American soldiers dicking around in their homelands. To the country as a whole, they are not threatening.

It doesn't make a difference who they aim at, I said American because we are talking about the American military. And it doesn't matter why they are shooting at us, as long as they are shooting at us we will shoot back. I don't know why you would put threatening in quotation marks, how is that not a threat? The fact is we would not have shot them had they not picked up arms against us, simple as that.

Originally Posted by stonedape

But how is violence the proper answer to this? Should we really stoop to this level of dualistic politics?

It is the only answer.

Originally Posted by Alric

Working in the miliarty for benefits is the same thing as being paid. Benefits is in the same bag as being paid, so it counts.

What I mean is a person who is not desperate does not join for the money. In other words, the military is not a "sweet gig." They join for personal reasons.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It is the only answer.

we must drain the excess heat from your blood with these leeches, caprisun. it is the only way to make you well.

Originally Posted by stonedape

But how is violence the proper answer to this? Should we really stoop to this level of dualistic politics?

We don't want violence. We just want the democracy to be preserved. It is the insurgents who want violence, so we have to fight back to keep the new freedom going.

Originally Posted by cygnus

we must drain the excess heat from your blood with these leeches, caprisun. it is the only way to make you well.

Are you suggesting that we could come to some kind of diplomatic agreement with Al Qaeda? Neither side is willing to compromise their values, it will lead to violent conflict.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Are you suggesting that we could come to some kind of diplomatic agreement with Al Qaeda? Neither side is willing to compromise their values, it will lead to violent conflict.

you said it is THE ONLY ANSWER. you can't possibly believe that.

Originally Posted by cygnus

you said it is THE ONLY ANSWER. you can't possibly believe that.

It isn't a matter of belief, it's just the way it is. What alternatives did you have in mind?

i'm not an authority on the topic. it's just presumptuous to say it is the only option and it's just the way it is. that is all.

Originally Posted by cygnus

i'm not an authority on the topic. it's just presumptuous to say it is the only option and it's just the way it is. that is all.

But he illustrates the problem. We don't know what else to do, and nobody has a better suggestion. Crazy nut cases with guns and bombs are killing whomever to cry out against and distrupt democracy. What are we supposed to to? Until we find a better suggestion, we are going to kill and capture insurgents.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology."

- Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, former top leader of the Al Qaeda faction of the Iraqi insurgency

Is it wrong to them because of how they perceive it from the United States' examples or is it wrong because they've analyzed how Democracy works and decided so?

When you have a country invading a region under the guise of spreading "freedom" but not actually doing so, coupled with a few crazy religious clerics, you can't expect peace. Why can't we just leave them alone?

Was the Middle East calling us out prior to the creation of Israel (or even up until the 60's), or planning to attack us?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The fact is we would not have shot them had they not picked up arms against us, simple as that.

Apply that to Middle Eastern citizens and you have your answer to everything about middle eastern issues.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We don't want violence. We just want the democracy to be preserved. It is the insurgents who want violence, so we have to fight back to keep the new freedom going.

"Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."

Democracy IS violence. The violence of the ruling/majority over the minority.

Originally Posted by cygnus

i just mean to say that regardless of the tie between [spending on the military and humanitarian purposes], there's no way we'll make a dent in this or poverty at the rate we're going.

it looks like there have been a decent number of invasions carried out by the US... you don't think we provoke other nations by being aggressive? and i don't think everyone here is saying that we should abolish military all together for the time being - excessiveness in military spending is more of the issue. if the military were used (far) differently from the way it is used now, then maybe i'd hold it in higher esteem.

this is what i said earlier.

like you mentioned, UM, there are plenty of nutters with guns out there (and there probably will be for some time until we reach the star trek: tng standard of living ). self-defense is a necessary part of the human condition, but some elements of this situation may have been avoidable had we gone about it differently earlier on.

we aren't left with only one choice because there is only one inherent choice - to fight - it's (partly) because of previous activities conducted by our government, and because apparently few people have an incentive to come up with a way to really implement non-violent measures. assuming some level of hostility will be there, we have more than enough military resources at our disposal and could easily make adjustments so that we are more balanced in how we distribute our wealth.

is that reasonable?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Democracy IS violence.

Thank you for your opinion.

Originally Posted by cygnus

like you mentioned, UM, there are plenty of nutters with guns out there (and there probably will be for some time until we reach the star trek: tng standard of living ). self-defense is a necessary part of the human condition, but some elements of this situation may have been avoidable had we gone about it differently earlier on.

we aren't left with only one choice because there is only one inherent choice - to fight - it's (partly) because of previous activities conducted by our government, and because apparently few people have an incentive to come up with a way to really implement non-violent measures. assuming some level of hostility will be there, we have more than enough military resources at our disposal and could easily make adjustments so that we are more balanced in how we distribute our wealth.

is that reasonable?

I don't really understand what you are suggesting we do about the insurgency.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Thank you for your opinion.

Anytime.

Fuckin crazy mother fuckers. Unsubscibed.
Never going to read all that lol.