dedelus
Member
+4|6893
if a site/location for donations goes up count me in for a donation of some sort.
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6876|Westminster, California
Can you believe somebody - karma pointed me and said this?!  about my first post here?
"you're an asshole, no offense. actually, yes, lots of offense. "

There are many questionable   things I've said in threads, but sheesh!...
rdx-fx
...
+955|6831

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

And who'll be sending care packages to the other side?
U.S. Army soldiers, but the packages are only gonna be 5.56 mm in size
Awww, come on.  They deserve a little variety too.
7.62mm is a much better present.

I hear they'd love to get some uranium for xmas.
Depleted Uranium can be arranged...  (in a variety of fun colors and sizes.  30mm GAU-8, 120mm M1A2)



Torin wrote:

A decision to join the military is a decision to support the president's military decisions, which is what I don't agree with.
My Army service almost exactly coincided with President Clinton's terms in office - 1992 to 2000.
I most assuredly did not enjoy the way that President employed the U.S. Army during that timeframe.
Feh.. BJ Clinton.. most powerful man in the free world, and the best he can get is Lewinsky?!  WTFO, c'mon.. his hero, JFK, at least had Marylin Monroe

It was never about supporting the person in the Oval Office.  I disagreed with Clinton's politics about as much as I disagree with the current administration's politics.  It's service to the American people.  It's not Bush's  Army, it's the U.S. Army.

For me, the Army was a good way to pay for college, and an honorable profession that the men of my family have served in for generations.  (Including being on 3 sides of WW-2: German, Russian, and American).
If your family can't pay for your college tuition, the U.S. military is a decent option.


Back on Topic
This is a great thread.
Think it should be sticky'd on debate/serious.

Another way to help out;
If you know any GI's, help their families out too.
Makes life easier for the deployed family guys, if they know their wife/kids are taken care of.
Volunteer to watch the kids for an evening, so the wife can get out of the house..
Offer to do the grocery shopping for them, (and pick up the tab)..
Let the wife rant about whatever  - so the deployed guy doesn't have to hear as much about it..
(shoulder to cry on thing, in other words.  deployed guy has been dodging IED's all day, calls wife to hear a friendly voice and gets an ear-full about a backed up sink = he's going to have a hard time mustering the proper understanding )

Last edited by rdx-fx (2006-05-12 17:54:57)

yerded
Bertinator
+255|6876|Westminster, California
"Think it should be sticky'd on debate/serious."

Hows that happen anyway?
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6801

yerded wrote:

Donate $50.00 to adopt a platoon and I will gladly entertain your morally questionable concerns about the war, otherwise, why don't you put a cork in your cry hole???
Except that by improving morale you are, by default, participating in the war, and assisting the killing of the enemy.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

yerded wrote:

Donate $50.00 to adopt a platoon and I will gladly entertain your morally questionable concerns about the war, otherwise, why don't you put a cork in your cry hole???
Except that by improving morale you are, by default, participating in the war, and assisting the killing of the enemy.
Yeah pretty much...............when you are at  war with your enemy the best thing to do is kill them before they kill you.

What, pray tell, is the the insight that this statement is supposed to bring?
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6801
Merely that this is humanitarian aid, so much as waging war.  It's like and Brit sending food to an Italian during WWII and arguin that there's nothing wrong with being polite.
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6876|Westminster, California

Bubbalo wrote:

Merely that this is humanitarian aid, so much as waging war.  It's like and Brit sending food to an Italian during WWII and arguin that there's nothing wrong with being polite.
Wha?
Are you insane?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

Merely that this is humanitarian aid, so much as waging war.  It's like and Brit sending food to an Italian during WWII and arguin that there's nothing wrong with being polite.
Ahhhhhh let me guess. you join Marconius and unoriginalnuttah in the believe that it is inhumane and a violation of human rights to engage in the defense of ones country.
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6876|Westminster, California

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Merely that this is humanitarian aid, so much as waging war.  It's like and Brit sending food to an Italian during WWII and arguin that there's nothing wrong with being polite.
Ahhhhhh let me guess. you join Marconius and unoriginalnuttah in the believe that it is inhumane and a violation of human rights to engage in the defense of ones country.
Yep,
It's hard to imagine that Americans would symathize with terrorist.
Or should I say americans.

Last edited by yerded (2006-05-12 22:59:33)

Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6801

lowing wrote:

Ahhhhhh let me guess. you join Marconius and unoriginalnuttah in the believe that it is inhumane and a violation of human rights to engage in the defense of ones country.
Because Iraq was the aggressor?
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6956
great thread...  I was bartending one night and an older guy was talking about being in town for a special awards ceremony for Vietnam chopper pilots in Wash DC... he was with his daughter and son in law...
when they asked for the check... i told them your tab is on me... thank you for your service...
The look in his face said it all... 35 years later i gave him the respect that he deserved...  God Bless all our troops and thank you all for keeping us safe...
Love is the answer
xXSarnathXx
Decepticons forever!
+25|6848|Sweden
doesnt u.s military get payed for doin their job? back here i believe the guys and girls serving for real gets some good cash for it.
DazBurt
Kinda Nice Guy!
+10|6901|In The Zone

Torin wrote:

It doesn't have to be a personal decision. Many people join the military I'd imagine for a lot of different reasons, and you and I happen to have different reasons for why we would join the military.
I joined the British Army, not because I wanted to listen to that TW*T, Tony Blair, banging on about some other rubbish, but because I could go somewhere and HELP the people there.  So far I have served in

Bosnia - As part of the UN Peacekeeping, in 1995
Ireland - The original fight against Terrorism, 1996-1997
Kosovo - 1998
Ireland, again in 2000
Afghanistan - Anybody seen that bloke with the beard, 2002
Iraq War - 2003 (looking for another bloke with a 'tache)
More tours of Iraq in 2004 AND 2005 and I am due to go back to Afghanistan pretty soon

If I go to any country throughout the world, and IF I can make the tiniest bit of differance to somebody's quality of life then I am happy with myself.  I might not agree with the way it was acheived but the end result is the same.  People are Free to make their own decissions about how they want to live their lives.

I respect your opinion but I wish some people would look beyond the administraion and take a look at the people on the ground.

Regards

DazBurt
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ahhhhhh let me guess. you join Marconius and unoriginalnuttah in the believe that it is inhumane and a violation of human rights to engage in the defense of ones country.
Because Iraq was the aggressor?
Yup they were. They broke the UN resolutions set forth by the UN that ended the first gulf war. ( call it the peace treaty ) and after a decade of trying for a peaceful solution to this, action was left taken as a last resort.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6801
1)  The fact that they refused to let the UN in doesn't make them the aggressor.  The aggressor is the person who acts aggressively.  Like, say, making an ultimatum

2)  You argue on the one hand that Iraq should have done as the UN said, but on the other that the US doesn't have to do as the UN says and is allowed to wage a war outside it's strictures.  Wtf?

3)  Iraq was no threat to the US, even if it had nuclear weapons (range issues, for a start), therefore on no basis was the war "in the defense of ones country".  Except of course members of the Iraqi army who fought back.  Course, that was more in defense of their leader, but then, the phrase "in defense of one's country" doesn't make sense from that standpoint.
rdx-fx
...
+955|6831

DazBurt wrote:

Torin wrote:

It doesn't have to be a personal decision. Many people join the military I'd imagine for a lot of different reasons, and you and I happen to have different reasons for why we would join the military.
I joined the British Army, not because I wanted to listen to that TW*T, Tony Blair, banging on about some other rubbish, but because I could go somewhere and HELP the people there.  So far I have served in

Bosnia - As part of the UN Peacekeeping, in 1995
Ireland - The original fight against Terrorism, 1996-1997
Kosovo - 1998
Ireland, again in 2000
Afghanistan - Anybody seen that bloke with the beard, 2002
Iraq War - 2003 (looking for another bloke with a 'tache)
More tours of Iraq in 2004 AND 2005 and I am due to go back to Afghanistan pretty soon

If I go to any country throughout the world, and IF I can make the tiniest bit of differance to somebody's quality of life then I am happy with myself.  I might not agree with the way it was acheived but the end result is the same.  People are Free to make their own decissions about how they want to live their lives.

I respect your opinion but I wish some people would look beyond the administraion and take a look at the people on the ground.

Regards

DazBurt
Exactly.
stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|6959|California

i sent an air conditioner last year.. it gets mighty hot in the desert
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

1)  The fact that they refused to let the UN in doesn't make them the aggressor.  The aggressor is the person who acts aggressively.  Like, say, making an ultimatum

2)  You argue on the one hand that Iraq should have done as the UN said, but on the other that the US doesn't have to do as the UN says and is allowed to wage a war outside it's strictures.  Wtf?

3)  Iraq was no threat to the US, even if it had nuclear weapons (range issues, for a start), therefore on no basis was the war "in the defense of ones country".  Except of course members of the Iraqi army who fought back.  Course, that was more in defense of their leader, but then, the phrase "in defense of one's country" doesn't make sense from that standpoint.
1 Iraq was the agressor 15 years ago, the resolutions that they agreed to were in place to stop them from being agressive. the fact that they broke and/or ignored the resolutions (peace treaty ) puts them in an agressive posture again.

2. Nope, I stand by my statements about the UN, there is no conflict there. The US happened to agree with the resolutions set forth. When they were broken, and the UN failed to act upon it, the US acted to protect US interests and its allies.

3.Iraq was a threat to US interests and its allies. How can a rogue govt. with a nuke NOT be a threat to the world?? the whole world is currently jumping through hoops because Iran is trying to build nukes. Tell me the difference. I never bashed the Irai army for defending themselves against our attack of their country. In fact I have more respect for them than I do people who will not take a stand for anything and tell the rest of us what we SHOULD be standing for.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6801

lowing wrote:

1 Iraq was the agressor 15 years ago, the resolutions that they agreed to were in place to stop them from being agressive. the fact that they broke and/or ignored the resolutions (peace treaty ) puts them in an agressive posture again.
Actually, they had disposed of all WMDs, as was proven later (and believed at the time by several key weapons inspectors), and defying these sanctions doesn't make them the aggressor.  Threatening to go to war would make them the aggressor.

lowing wrote:

2. Nope, I stand by my statements about the UN, there is no conflict there. The US happened to agree with the resolutions set forth. When they were broken, and the UN failed to act upon it, the US acted to protect US interests and its allies.
But yes there is.  You expect Saddam to do as the UN says and disarm, but the US does not have to abide by the UNs wishes.  If the US is able to go outside the UN provided it does nothing wrong, Iraq ought be able to aswell.  At present, all we know of Iraq doing wrong is related to the oil for food program, and that came out only recently, *and* is hardly basis for militaty intervention.

lowing wrote:

3.Iraq was a threat to US interests and its allies. How can a rogue govt. with a nuke NOT be a threat to the world?? the whole world is currently jumping through hoops because Iran is trying to build nukes. Tell me the difference. I never bashed the Irai army for defending themselves against our attack of their country. In fact I have more respect for them than I do people who will not take a stand for anything and tell the rest of us what we SHOULD be standing for.
Defending Americas interests is alot different from defending America.  Iraq did not have the capability to attack the US, and therefore was not a threat to it.  If I shoot someone who's trying to kill, I can claim self defense.  If I shoot someone because they own a rival business, I cannot.  Same concept.
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6876|Westminster, California

Bubbalo wrote:

1)  The fact that they refused to let the UN in doesn't make them the aggressor.  The aggressor is the person who acts aggressively.  Like, say, making an ultimatum

2)  You argue on the one hand that Iraq should have done as the UN said, but on the other that the US doesn't have to do as the UN says and is allowed to wage a war outside it's strictures.  Wtf?

3)  Iraq was no threat to the US, even if it had nuclear weapons (range issues, for a start), therefore on no basis was the war "in the defense of ones country".  Except of course members of the Iraqi army who fought back.  Course, that was more in defense of their leader, but then, the phrase "in defense of one's country" doesn't make sense from that standpoint.
I wish I had the authority to ban you from this thread. Wtf does anything your saying have to do with this topic; reminder, it's about supporting the troops, not debating the ethics of the mission, or  U.S. policy. Can't you find another thread to spout your mindless drivvel?
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6876|Westminster, California

DazBurt wrote:

Torin wrote:

It doesn't have to be a personal decision. Many people join the military I'd imagine for a lot of different reasons, and you and I happen to have different reasons for why we would join the military.
I joined the British Army, not because I wanted to listen to that TW*T, Tony Blair, banging on about some other rubbish, but because I could go somewhere and HELP the people there.  So far I have served in

Bosnia - As part of the UN Peacekeeping, in 1995
Ireland - The original fight against Terrorism, 1996-1997
Kosovo - 1998
Ireland, again in 2000
Afghanistan - Anybody seen that bloke with the beard, 2002
Iraq War - 2003 (looking for another bloke with a 'tache)
More tours of Iraq in 2004 AND 2005 and I am due to go back to Afghanistan pretty soon

If I go to any country throughout the world, and IF I can make the tiniest bit of differance to somebody's quality of life then I am happy with myself.  I might not agree with the way it was acheived but the end result is the same.  People are Free to make their own decissions about how they want to live their lives.

I respect your opinion but I wish some people would look beyond the administraion and take a look at the people on the ground.

Regards

DazBurt
Thank you for your service, I'd like to contact you while your deployed in Afganistan, if your interested please pm me.
Random-Hero58
Member
+10|6799|TX
I used to live near there (well sorta) at Edwards Air Force Base. In fact I am going to an Air Show Sunday, love them, been to mannnnny.

http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/americasupportsyou/
http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ameri … index.html
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6801

yerded wrote:

I wish I had the authority to ban you from this thread. Wtf does anything your saying have to do with this topic; reminder, it's about supporting the troops, not debating the ethics of the mission, or  U.S. policy. Can't you find another thread to spout your mindless drivvel?
I'm merely pointing out that feeding soldiers is *not* a humanitarian engagement, and trying to so that whether or not you support the war makes no difference is foolish.
dedelus
Member
+4|6893
Bubbalo, how hard would it be for a country with a nuclear weapon, say Iraq if they ever had gotten one, to put one on a ship, sail it to a major United States port city, and detonate the weapon?  Not even a US port, how about one in Europe, or any where else in the world? 

Do you even know why we're sending care packages to our soldiers over seas?  becasue they aren't even fighting for us.  They're fighting for the rights of others.  Their right to have free speach, to have a freedom of religion, a freedom from from want and by that meaning a nation with a strong economy, and lastly a freedom from fear.  Do you think that if we just pull out and leave the insurgents are just going to do the same?  If you do, you are a f*cking moron. 

But lets get back on topic here, this thread is discuss something nice you can do for US service men, wether they be at home or abroad.  so you can either put up some money or a care package, or shut up.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard