Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

Yeah, Sal, that makes sense. That's one of those things you don't do in America. Pretty much every criticism of the military is prefaced with "Now, I have nothing against individual soldiers who are just doing their jobs and defending our country..."

I just get annoyed because the WBC doesn't do crap that's as bad as other hate groups. They don't lynch anyone. All they want to do is get attention, and everyone gives it to them. I'm certain other hate groups envy the voice the WBC has gotten from their infamy.

[Hanslanda]

A great man once said, "Gentle people sleep well in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their part." There is a reason Americans are so protective of individual soldiers. We know how very much we owe them.

[penguinofhonor]

Well it's become a weak spot that people are using to manipulate the public.

[SalmonGod]

A great man once said, "Gentle people sleep well in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their part." There is a reason Americans are so protective of individual soldiers. We know how very much we owe them.

Self-fulfilling prophecy.  "Rough men" believe they're doing what's necessary to protect their own from the big bad world in the course of following orders that they're trained not to question... and this is true for both sides of any conflict.  Strip away this notion (fueled by self-interested leaders) and everyone can sleep well in their beds at night...

[Telgin]

Just saw Prometheus.  My face throughout the whole movie was either or .

The more I think about it, the less I can decide if it should stay or .

[scriver]

A great man once said, "Gentle people sleep well in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their part." There is a reason Americans are so protective of individual soldiers. We know how very much we owe them.

What exactly do you owe them, though? There hasn't been a war on American soil for what, over a hundred years? So it sure can't be because the "rough men" protects them, unless your definition of "protection" is doing violence on gentle people during the night in other countries.

[Dutchling]

iTunes cleared it's library again.

>rage<

[Lagslayer]

A great man once said, "Gentle people sleep well in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their part." There is a reason Americans are so protective of individual soldiers. We know how very much we owe them.

What exactly do you owe them, though? There hasn't been a war on American soil for what, over a hundred years? So it sure can't be because the "rough men" protects them, unless your definition of "protection" is doing violence on gentle people during the night in other countries.

Have you considered that maybe there hasn't been so much fighting over here because we have a military that could completely curbstomp anyone if they try? There's also that issue of Pearl Harbor, where we tried to be neutral and they dragged us into it anyways. Then there's also 9-11, unless you are one of the truthers.

[Aklyon]

iTunes cleared it's library again.

>rage<

iTunes is just meh in general as a thing to use.

[Loud Whispers]

Have you considered that maybe there hasn't been so much fighting over here because we have a military that could completely curbstomp anyone if they try? There's also that issue of Pearl Harbor, where we tried to be neutral and they dragged us into it anyways. Then there's also 9-11, unless you are one of the truthers.

Military? So it has nothing to do with the major ballistics fest all over the world :d
I mean literally everyone except maybe Australia (because Australia) has a guillotine hovering over it's face.
As for neutrality, it's no hidden fact just how much USA profited from weapons dealing.
I'd much rather have no "gentle men" laying idle in their daily lives whilst "rough men" kill civilians needlessly, for "their protection." :|

[Lagslayer]

Have you considered that maybe there hasn't been so much fighting over here because we have a military that could completely curbstomp anyone if they try? There's also that issue of Pearl Harbor, where we tried to be neutral and they dragged us into it anyways. Then there's also 9-11, unless you are one of the truthers.

Military? So it has nothing to do with the major ballistics fest all over the world :d
I mean literally everyone except maybe Australia (because Australia) has a guillotine hovering over it's face.
As for neutrality, it's no hidden fact just how much USA profited from weapons dealing.
I'd much rather have no "gentle men" laying idle in their daily lives whilst "rough men" kill civilians needlessly, for "their protection." :|

"the world" whines when we don't get involved in these things, then bitches if we actually try to stabilize anything. We aren't Europe's attack bitch. And I suppose you'd want us to instead ignore the terrorists because they use the "civilians" as literal human shields? And besides, most of the governments over there are directly funding the terrorists anyways. The extremists may not be the majority (I hope), but they have a deathgrip on the region.

[Loud Whispers]

"the world" whines when we don't get involved in these things, then bitches if we actually try to stabilize anything. We aren't Europe's attack bitch. And I suppose you'd want us to instead ignore the terrorists because they use the "civilians" as literal human shields? And besides, most of the governments over there are directly funding the terrorists anyways. The extremists may not be the majority (I hope), but they have a deathgrip on the region.

Again, this is justification for the killing of civilians. Even ordered killings of known civilians, even if it would result in the death of a suspected terrorist.
And you'd want to pursue a broken organisation with little resources even when the civilian body count numbers over the hundreds of thousands? The governments there are funding the terrorists? The ones the US government put in power?
War =/= Stabilizing

[Lagslayer]

Again, this is justification for the killing of civilians. Even ordered killings of known civilians, even if it would result in the death of a suspected terrorist.
And you'd want to pursue a broken organisation with little resources even when the civilian body count numbers over the hundreds of thousands? The governments there are funding the terrorists? The ones the US government put in power?
War =/= Stabilizing

If I have to choose between their survival and ours, I think I know which one I'm going for.

Perhaps leaving them to their own devices AGAIN was a mistake. It never worked. As soon as the occupying force pulls out, they just go back to doing what they were doing before, fucking with everyone else. The region is inherently unstable and dangerous, it seems.

edit: it's been like this for hundreds of years.

[scriver]

Have you considered that maybe there hasn't been so much fighting over here because we have a military that could completely curbstomp anyone if they try? There's also that issue of Pearl Harbor, where we tried to be neutral and they dragged us into it anyways. Then there's also 9-11, unless you are one of the truthers.

A woman sits down next to a man on a Stockholm park bench. Every so often, the man picks out a whistle and blows it. After a while, the woman ask him "Why are you blowing that whistle?"
"To scare away the tigers."
"How do you know it works?"
"Well, have you seen any tigers around?"

Correlation and causation et al. Sweden hadn't been in a war for over 200 years before we invaded Afghanistan with NATO, and it's not like we don't have desirable resources (iron and uranium for starters) or had an unimportant strategic position, and we were neutral for most of those years, with only a tangential relation with the US/NATO after WWII. And nobody invaded us either.

And besides, most of the governments over there are directly funding the terrorists anyways.

And the US is directly or indirectly funding many of those governments.

If I have to choose between their survival and ours, I think I know which one I'm going for.

There is no real reason you should live when they don't. Besides, that was never the choice anyway.

Perhaps leaving them to their own devices AGAIN was a mistake. It never worked. As soon as the occupying force pulls out, they just go back to doing what they were doing before, fucking with everyone else. The region is inherently unstable and dangerous, it seems.

edit: it's been like this for hundreds of years.

You never left them to their own devices. The US put Saddam Hussein in power. The US funded the proto-al Quaida organisation. The US overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government and installed the Shah. Every single problem the US, and the world, now faces in and from that region stems from American, and before that Brittish, interference in the region.

[Lagslayer]

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

Go forwards or backwards in time at your leisure, but read this first.

Granted, it's a bit of a clusterf***, but all of history is. You can't blame us any more than you can blame everyone else. As far as I'm concerned, this is a fight for survival. Good and evil be damned, the lines between them are too poorly defined at this scale.

This really needs it's own thread. Let the rage thread be about rage instead of debate.