BF2S Forums How true is this statement?

I don't know if I read and understood it correctly, but someone up there basically posted that we believe we're not at war because it's not in our doorstep. To usmarine's proactive statement, thanks to that it's not in our doorstep. In my opinion, not a lot of people really care about this war because it's not happening that close to them. Sure we all know someone who has gone and come back, or not, but it's still not us. Until it happens to us, not a lot will really care. As time progresses, parts of America has just become more and more selfish and less selfless. People don't join the military to serve, they join it for college. That's not what the military is meant for. And that's why everyone has this false image of the military being an asshole, because it's not selfless kids you see in there.. it's selfish kids. I'm not talking about ALL of it though, although we do know that that's whats going on in there.

Basically, as long as everyone back home is still able to enjoy everything that they want to enjoy, no one really cares what happens in someone elses home. This is speaking in a general sense. Of course we'll have the 10% trying to do the good deed, but the other 90 would rather just have some starbucks and screw everyone else. Semper I, America.

That's just my opinion.

Did you know that?

Its impossible to win an occupational war
The USA was the terrorist in Iraq before the war, as the military was sending cruse missiles at cafes where Saddam was reported to be dining
The bomb killing the occupying force in Iraq comes from Saudi Arabia(97% of the time, 3% is from Iran).

Now you know

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Americans were not morally behind WWII until Japan attacked the US.

And should they have been?  We entered at a good point in time.

We waited till the Germans had worn out a lot of their forces and until the Japanese began to stretch themselves thin.  In the meantime, we were building up our own military.

We timed our involvement very well.  I can't say the same for Iraq.

When we finally did decide to get involved, we had to wage bloody battle across the Pacific and Europe to take back what was lost. Were we really better off for having gotten involved late in the game?

Yes, because we didn't have a powerful enough military to enter at the beginning.  We needed time to build up our defenses.

Turquoise wrote:

Bullshit.  If you really cared about the deaths of millions, you'd be advocating we enter the Sudan or the Congo.

If Bush, Blair, and any of the other world leaders in this mess had high morals, they wouldn't be invading countries for the benefit of their military industrial complexes or for trade interests.  This is about money, not morals.

Also, if it were about morals, that "dead, murderous, vile being that had no morals" wouldn't have been an ally of this country's government for all those years. Saddam's lack of morality sure didn't bother Reagan, or Rumsfeld.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

Also, if it were about morals, that "dead, murderous, vile being that had no morals" wouldn't have been an ally of this country's government for all those years. Saddam's lack of morality sure didn't bother Reagan, or Rumsfeld.

Saddam was the MAN when he was buying billions of $$$$ of weapons from the US. He was killing thousands  then in a war he started, backed by the US with Iran. Saddam drawing out a war with Iran, which Iran didn't want, resulted in the death of many more ppl than the Kurds he gassed, which is about the only viable, credible reason to invade left outta the crock of shit laid before the international community prior to the invasion.
All was OK as long as the oil kept flowing and the military hardware contracts kept flying back to the US. That's why Rumsfeld is shaking his hand, to ensure Iraqi oil money kept going into the pockets off the rich organisations he represented, cus it sure as hell wasn't going into the Iraqi peoples pocket.........nothings changed as far as that's concerned.

Last edited by JahManRed (2007-02-24 13:17:13)

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

Is that the only thing you liberals can stand on? FFS, he killed 100,000's of thousands of people and threatened to kill more! WAKE THE FUCK UP GUYS! Its not like i don't like you for having  an opinion that the Iraq war is wrong, but man, i just don't understand how after so many years living in a world filled with men like him and others all they wasnt to do is KILL you and your family if they had the chance!...

I have very high morals, most service men and women do, and your opinion might differ, but President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and God I wish i had a list of all the other nations leaders that do support the freedom of the Iraqi people, they all have high morals. SO please, find something other than he didn't have an quick way to send troops to America to attack us, as a basis to defend that, dead, murderous, vile being that had no morals!... *Sigh rant over,

Difference between Darfur and Iraq.  Iraq has oil.  Don't go talking about your fucked up "high morals," because that is complete bullshit.  You don't free people from dictating oppressors by killing thousands of them.  And certainly cannot feel good about yourself for "freeing the Iraqis" unless you completely ignore the genocide going on right now in Darfur.

High morals... give me a break.

Seems like you are talking about some other issue. But you completely miss the point often on these topics, and  I'm not surprised here. I am a ^(Former) Marine, if I had orders to go to Darfur, I would gladly serve my oath there as well. Are you ready to go help them? I do have a huge feeling of sympathy and empathy for those poor souls that don't have 1/1000th of the resources that you and I are blessed with. So Mr. Communist, how can you justifiably question my morals? Try sticking to the topic, or starting your own about the Service of US Forces and why you think we are unable to have high morals, since we aren't serving in Darfur, as well.

I think the whole Iraq has oil Darfur doesn't have anything we need kinda sums it up.  You can only play the morality card if we're helping someone and not getting oil out of it.

Back on topic, what am I supposed to do?  No, I'm not at war, my country is.

i'm curious.  do the people that can't seem to take their lips off BushCo's cock like to spit or swallow.  inquiring minds want to know.

oug wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Some of us like to be proactive.

You understand what this means right?

Apparently you think I don't, so please explain then.

Turquoise wrote:

I was wrong to say that, but I'm reserving that remark for Teflon only.

Ok.  One thing though, can we all have reserved comments?  I want to always call bubbalo a cunt.

usmarine: yeah.  i didn't see anything other than the sycophantic (here's time to look up that word) diatribe with which you were edifying us, so i thought i would say something that was a) truthful and b) not mumbling (since i don't have my mouth lip-sealed-against bush's pubic hair)  tell me... does he grab the back of your head, or does he allow you to pull off when you can't breathe anymore?

one other question:  why are we in iraq?

who said anything about voting for him?  you clearly support this debacle of a war.  way to assume.

Reverend Quj wrote:

who said anything about voting for him?  you clearly support this debacle of a war.  way to assume.

I support the troops, not the decisions politicians made.  way to assume.

Reverend Quj wrote:

so answer my question:  why are we in iraq?

Like I know the real answer?  I, along with everyone else here, are not in the Presidents cabinet.  Go ask them.