BF2S Forums Do you think that US Soldiers like killing people, seriously?

TheEqualizer wrote:

First, my friends aren't rednecks.  Second, the people I quoted did a perfect job saying what I wanted to say.

I’ll grant the redneck comment may have been out of line, but you essentially were trawling through a thread quoting people without actually saying anything productive.  Surely you can express your own views?

Horseman 77 wrote:

Which does not mean they won't Aid New Zealand, just that they are not compelled.

And if they go out of their way to say that, that doesn’t say to you that maybe they’re maybe thinking about not bothering?

Horseman 77 wrote:

They didn't seem to have a problem with our ships there before?

That isn’t a question, and has the US never changed policy?  In this case, the change is a result of:

1)    Testing by the US and French of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific
2)    New Zealand’s opposition to the US relations with the USSR
3)    A change in government in New Zealand

Horseman 77 wrote:

Lost there national Viscara have they?

Their instead of there, and Viscara isn’t a word.  Do you mean viscera (note the lower case “v”, you seem to have issues with capitalisation)?  That doesn’t seem to make sense though, so could you try explaining again?

Horseman 77 wrote:

lot of that going around. ps your wrong again 41. STFU please.

I’ll assume that the 40 you started with are correct, meaning that you’re back to 40, as to be successful you have to prove that the US would definitely defend anyone, whereas in this case evidence suggests that they wouldn’t.

Horseman 77 wrote:

Read the post where you call someone who doesn't share your opinion a "REDNECK" than stfu because that's how you started with me. Unwarranted insults.

I’ll grant that “redneck” was a little harsh, but the posts weren’t contributing to the conversation at all.  There are cases were I’ll make a post in response, and you’ll immediately post an insult (the classic being your one word “asshole” response)

Horseman 77 wrote:

You do realize that previous to that they were allied with Nazi Germany? Yet We did Aid them and they never aided us. So you are wrong again 42 STFU please!

Previous to to 22/6 they had a non-aggression pact with Germany.  Between 22/6 and 7/12 they were at war with Germany whilst the Americans twiddled their thumbs.

The means we’re still at 40.

Horseman 77 wrote:

But ..We did Aid them and they never aided us. So you are wrong again 43 STFU please!

You fought on our side, for your ends.  You aided yourselves which happened to be useful to Australia.  And besides, given that the US was also fighting in Africa and Australia held Tobruk which played a big part in halting the German advance, saying we never helped you is an insult to every ANZAC that was there.

That’s two, so that becomes 39.

Horseman 77 wrote:

The point was we already did Aid them so you are wrong again 44 so STFU please.

No, you aid South Vietnam, against North Vietnam.  You have not helped Vietnam, and if there is any continuity, it is from North Vietnam to Vietnam.

39.

Horseman 77 wrote:

Wrong the people who had made up the Vietcang were virtually elimanated. Totaly fucking uniformed, Ignored quote, didn't address it, Wrong again 45 so STFU please

No, the South Vietnamese component were either killed, sent to camps, or “re-educated”

39.

Horseman 77 wrote:

Why did you bring up yet another thread where you were totally destroyed? Total nonsense, You couldn't follow the post, I never mentioned clinton, even in the post he is referencing, He talks about militias? references nonexistent battles.
Is this tyke insane? He seems totally ignorant of current events, contradicts his other posts where he says the insurgents/Militia are winning against a modern army. So which is it?

No, you brought up the fact that Clinton got worried when an A-10 went missing in another topic, and here referenced it.  Also, I don’t contradict my other posts: in case you haven’t noticed, Iraqi insurgents aren’t fighting pitched battles.  Regardless, you seem to be completely immune to sarcasm (typically a symptom of those too dumb to understand it)

Horseman 77 wrote:

I know I said all of this to you in another post,

Where?

Horseman 77 wrote:

Lebanon was not in peril. Just stop allowing PLO bases and rocket attacks from their side of the border,

Ah, right.  Now, why where the Palestinian in Lebanon, exactly?

Horseman 77 wrote:

Tibet? Fuck that. They would have joined forces to repel our help. They were a closed nation.

There are two problems with this statement:

1)    You did not say you would help all nations who asked for it, you said you would help all nations who were “in peril”
2)    Given that the Tibetan monks were willing to sacrifice their next incarnation in order to fight the Chinese, I think they would have accepted help from the US

Horseman 77 wrote:

History shows we do the most and are the most altruistic in our goals

Like when you supported an unpopular dictator in Iran, or when you cut Cuba off because they were fighting corporate control?

Horseman 77 wrote:

where was your country in any of those events that ( You brought up ) for instance?

During Lebanon, we were busy being concerned about Indonesia being aggressive above us, as well as realising that we didn’t have the strength to go in alone (unlike the US)

At the start of Tibet, we were busy worrying about the fact that China was getting bigger and more powerful, towards the end of 1950 we were busy backing you up in Korea.

Of course, neither of these points is relevant: what Australia did is irrelevant to whether America back’s up any country in peril.

Horseman 77 wrote:

Reputed by who? you ? Chinese are there to study! Wow That is quite the resume! They are celebrating the tenth anniversary of the lightbulb with a commemorative Sharpened stick!

Given that they have the money to send their students wherever they want, that’s a pretty stupid statement.

Horseman 77 wrote:

You still exist only because of our aid in WWII.

Actually, documents recovered after the war showed that Japan never intended to invade Australia, as they deemed it too difficult due to long supply lines, large amounts of desert, and the calibre of Australian troops they had faced.

And before I go:

Horseman 77 wrote:

Reputed by who? you ? Chinese are there to study! Wow That is quite the resume! They are celebrating the tenth anniversary of the lightbulb with a commemorative Sharpened stick!
I would say that The USA is easily the best over all, if not the best at everything.

This is nonsensical (as well as the typos):

Horseman 77 wrote:

No other country can compare on even 1/2 the level, and That is no delusion. You only still exist because of our aid in WWII. Just to give you one example.  I challange you to name any two countries who have accomplished as much and done as much good.

Which is exactly the challenge I would have been given by a citizen of the Roman Empire, a Colonialist British, etc. etc.

Also non-sensical:

Horseman 77 wrote:

ps. Is Monash the Medical Collage ( for lack of knowledge of you terms, that's what we call them here) Your Mom however seems like she has her act together, Tell her we said keep up the good work. Did she find you on the doorstep?

And we would call it a “University”, the part doing medicine being the “Faculty of Medicine”.  Of course, we’d also say “mum” instead of “mom”.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-07-07 22:58:27)

lowing, it was invaded.  Your argument merely means that it was a provoked invasion.

Personally, I don't see why anyone would like to kill. The only reason why soldiers would need to kill is if they are being opposed (and by opposed, I mean being fired at). Anyone that actually enjoys death and is in favor of killing really needs to get their head checked...there's nothing enjoyable about death.

Of course, Patton was pretty bloodthirsty (he was the "Old soldiers never die........." guy, wasn't he?)

That was his " Mac's " last speech to West Point Class of 64, I think ?. Did sound blood thirsty tho. the part about fading away, shudder!

Helios?

Also, thank you lowing.  Patton was the one who was in Africa and then was Supreme Commander of Allied forces?  He seemed an alright general.

First off, somebody gave me a negative karma and just said "f-ing spammer" and didn't leave their name.  Oh well.  It's not like karma affects my self-esteem.  I guess I deserve it for breaking the spamming rule.  There's no need to use anonymous profanity though.

Bubbalo, I was just so sick of everybody tearing down our soldiers every chance they get.  Just because I didn't express my own views in my own words at the time doesn't mean I'm not capable of doing so.  You can learn a lot from other people, especially if you listen more than you talk. 

Now back to the topic,

I doubt US soldiers like killing people.  I've never been in the military so my opinion is lacking firsthand experience.  But given what I know about people in general, it's pretty obvious that soldiers don't like killing people any more than cops, fbi, or even civilians like killing people.  If soldiers enjoyed killing people and enjoyed war, then I think there is something wrong with them.

I don't know a lot about military training and philosophy but someone earlier mentioned how they are trained to kill, which makes perfect sense to me.  It's either kill or be killed.  I've never killed anyone and I doubt I would enjoy it, but if it's between me and the enemy, I would have to choose to take out the enemy. 

I appreciate all those who have served and are currently serving in the armed forces.  It's all-volunteer military and they have sacrificed and put their lives in danger whether they agreed with the war or not.  That takes guts.  They are better men than I am.  I am so proud of them.  There may be a bad egg here or there just like in every neighborhood around the world, but in general they are heroes.  I am raising my son to honor and support our military heroes rather than degrade them.  Whether you agree with the war or not, you can always support the troops by shaking their hand and thanking them for their service or sending them care packages, etc.  To all those here in the military........Thank you for your service!

I think, as long as the court order doesn't involve you breaking the law, it can be pretty much anything.  Don't quote me on that cuz I'm none too sure, but I think it's basically along those lines.  Oh, and the civil rights stuff, they can't break those if any of them pertain to the order.  Well, I guess they can, but if you get an appeal, I'd imagine you'd win.  Like I said, I'm none too sure on that, but I believe there's really not much for restrictions on it.  If the judge looked at you and court ordered you to go take a crap, you'd have to.  If the court order told you to walk up to a 7-foot tall, 300 pound simoan with less than 2% body fat and call him a pimple on richard simmons's mother's ass, you'd have to.

the things that scare kids lol " the nerf generation "

Bubbalo wrote:

Serves me right for posting in the earlie morning.

Does this also apply to the post above " hopefully " ?

Bubbalo wrote:

No, it doesn't.

sad...

America loves to go to war, They're next target is Iran.