well said[pWa]Recon wrote:
being a soldier, and having gone to war for my country, i say NO, do any of you know what it is like to dream the same dream over and over again, until you are walking down the street with your wife and kids and you spaz out and hit the ground, because your dream is not playing out for you in real time, full color, no holds barred action as if you were back in the mix.... maybe 2% of you do, until you have this first hand knowledge, shut the fuck up, and keep your ASS HAT statements to your self about "the red mist" (jarhead) and baby killers ( LBJ), i don't want to hear it, people in america.... soldiers fight for your freedom so you have the RIGHT TO PROTEST the war, we fight for you to say whatever your little minds think about an elected office... we fight for the freedom that allows you to be on this message board in the first place..... do you think that China can just google whatever it wants to..... nope.... less freedoms..... your freedom of speech is a soldiers curse, due to this we take your comments with a grain of salt (or sand, depending if you have been to the sand box) and say we fight for YOU, the civilians, so you can curse us, and spit on us... and another thing..... while you spit on us.... we stand still, hold our ground, and remember that this land was formed on the blood of our country's leaders, soldiers, and HONOR. remember this before you deside to cut down a soldier for keeping your civil freedoms just that... free, remember that before you protest another soldiers furnal, remember that the next time you see our flag waving above your head, that soldiers bleed the red stripes to keep the white(civilians in general) stripes pure, and the field of blue and white held in union. Truth, Honor, and the HIGHEST ESPRIT` De Corps.
~Recon
Poll
Do you think that US Soldiers like killing people, seriously?
| Yes | 29% | 29% - 102 | ||||
| No | 51% | 51% - 179 | ||||
| I don't know | 11% | 11% - 39 | ||||
| Do not wish to comment | 8% | 8% - 28 | ||||
| Total: 348 | ||||||
Whoa, after returning to this thread the results of the poll dissapoint me. 87 yes votes? Are these people joking?
Soldiers follow orders. They are trained to follow orders, not to kill.
Soldiers follow orders. They are trained to follow orders, not to kill.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
No Flecco, soldiers are trained to kill and not be kill while following orders. They may not like it but it's their job and they have to do it.
Barely even remember writing this, but thanks for today's neg anyway, whoever-you-are! Yours might well be the longest karma explanation I've ever seen, but you would have posted it if you had any faith in your ability to demonstrate how "well proven" your view is. Coward.spastic bullet wrote:
I think bias tends to be in the eye of the beholder. But I guess whether someone else is "still possessed of their senses" is as well! It comes down to whether you take in a wide enough frame of reference to exercise reasonable judgement. If all you watch (or read) is FOX, how are you even going to know they're to the right of basically everybody else?CameronPoe wrote:
Spastic Bullet - I don't think anyone who is still possessed of their senses could ever describe the odious neo-con voicepiece 'FOX News' as unbiased. Scary channel. It is THE US-Israel-Big Money propaganda machine. I trust Horseman knows that it is biased too.
PS I'm not trying to say there are not equally biased liberal news channels.
My guess is that most FOX News viewers know it has a tilt, but believe the tilt is "necessary" to offset what FOX News calls the "liberal media". From an outsider perspective, it's a vicious circle of sorts, but a reasonably sound and innovative strategy nonetheless, on the part of FOX News. They're basically locking down the loyalty of their audience by painting themselves as the sole arbiter of fairness and balance. Ironic, but who even knows what that means anyway? Thanks, Alanis!
By never failing to mention the "liberal media", you can gradually create a widespread impression that such a thing "indisputably" exists. If enough people believe it, you've succeeded in moving the debate further right with nothing more than simple repetition, because most people don't want to be too far from the "middle" of any debate.
Not only that, but it has become self-perpetuating. The phrase "liberal media" shows up in posts here almost as often as "Bush" or "Iraq", generally accompanied by an assertion of the "fact" of its "indisputable" existence. Occasionally, someone might present an instance of journalistic negligence as "proof" (like Dan's Rather enjoyable brush with justice), but that's about it. It's mostly re-repetition and forceful assertion.
I don't doubt there are "liberal" journalists working in the media, and maybe even a lot of them, but it's never explained why their bosses can't rein them in or, if "they're all liberals too", why the owners can't fire them for bias. Are we supposed to believe owners of multinational media concerns generally tilt left, relative to the general population? Give me a fucking break.
Whether any "equally biased liberal news channels" actually exist is a matter of perspective, but if you accept the implicit assumptions of the question, it will mostly come down to where you perceive the middle to be. Some Americans seem to think they get in their car every day and drive right down "the middle of the road" and it all works out okay, so who knows?
they love it i for one am apart of the U.S army and we do enjoy killing iraqs we call hem "bags of shit" but that may be just my regiment, we also kill their dogs we use them as target practice.
Dunno what training the military you are talking about does but I know the ADF does regular peacekeeping operations for our neighbours. They aren't ordered to kill anybody while on that type of deployment unless in self defence. Graduation from ADFA in Australia ensures almost any job you want because there they are trained to do alot of things (clerical work, IT, eletrical trades, carpentry, bricklaying, mechanics, engineering... All depends on the courses and specialities you take), not just to fire a weapon/cause harm to other people.Miller wrote:
No Flecco, soldiers are trained to kill and not be kill while following orders. They may not like it but it's their job and they have to do it.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I know I would kill anyone who killed my dog, but thats not a political or religious thing.
Jan. 1981 " Shoot the dog and I shoot you it's as simple as that and there is the dog " No takers....
Jan. 1981 " Shoot the dog and I shoot you it's as simple as that and there is the dog " No takers....
This seems some what fanciful, they give different types of training in any branch of service, they even have a band. But it seems some people have lost sight of what the military is for. You can't always decide when and where you may be forced to fight.Flecco wrote:
Dunno what training the military you are talking about does but I know the ADF does regular peacekeeping operations for our neighbours. They aren't ordered to kill anybody while on that type of deployment unless in self defence. Graduation from ADFA in Australia ensures almost any job you want because there they are trained to do alot of things (clerical work, IT, eletrical trades, carpentry, bricklaying, mechanics, engineering... All depends on the courses and specialities you take), not just to fire a weapon/cause harm to other people.Miller wrote:
No Flecco, soldiers are trained to kill and not be kill while following orders. They may not like it but it's their job and they have to do it.
Further, almost every other Nation in the world can train or adjust the training of its forces knowing the USA will come to its aid if it is in peril. Hopefully IMHO this will change soon.
Also, unlike almost any other nation, the USA must be prepared to fight alone for the fact that No other nation would be able or willing to assist it in time of need. we don't really care if this changes.
Ok just to clarify something here, there actually is a shit ton of VX and Sarin gas in Iraq that we have found. I have very reliable sources in Iraq (ie. friends). I have never personally seen any when I was there. The reason we havent released this news publically is simple, if we were to say anything publically about this what do you think the terrorists would try to do? I'm pretty sure they would try and steal some. From what my buddies are telling me in Iraq is that we are trying to find a way to round it all up and either transport it out of Iraq or find a safe way to destroy it all before we go out and tell everybody about it. Which makes perfect sense to me. Yea I know what everybodys gonna say, well if you found it why wouldnt you declare this publically to give Pres. Bush some good PR for a change? Like I said if we did that then the terrorists would get a major woody and try to get there grimy little hands on some and use it on the US troops there.joker3327 wrote:
No VX or Sarin......hmmmm ask the Kurds he used it on..........oh you cant he wiped em all out....the reason you can spout your shit in here is because solders like us secure your freedom of speech....Im not trying to shut you up...just think before you open your mouthIkarti wrote:
Not to mention he was sitting on oil and didn't have any VX. I know what VX does, and if Mr. Saddam didn't have any VX, or Sarin, or what have you, then what threat did he pose?2ndLt.Tucker wrote:
Then you are pretty close minded. We don't just fight for your freedoms. We fight so that you, your family and friends can be safe and out of harms way. And Ikarti it is your typical attitude that us soldiers despise. You have no idea of what goes on in combat much less all the reasons we are there. That man was breaking UN sanctions on weapons, massacring his own people, spending all his money on crap other than for his people. He gave aid to foreign terrorists and helped them to gain power. Now here is where the safety part comes in because if you have any idea what VX nerve gas or even a biological weapon release as a small amount can do to a population you might think differently. VX nerve gases fatal dose is at 250 microns. A drop from a tear dropper is 500 microns. Just takes that much of it to kill several people. Released in a major city it could kill 100's of thousands of people. And trust me soldier's see alot more than the media ever shows. Media promotes their agenda and their political views. Us as soldier's seem to be nothing more than stories to them.
And for you to be thinking that we are killing nothing but Iraqi's is absurd. Most of the terrorists over there are fighting a "Holy War" and are from countries other than Iraq. So its not just the Iraqi's getting killed. Most of their casualties have come from suicide bombings of the terrorists. So if you dont know what it is like to be shot at, watch a friend get shot, and hear about or watch your buddies die. Then shut up. We don't enjoy killing by any means but it is either us or them. And most of us choose them. Id like to see what kind of respect you have when you see 16 polished caskets go by you. Its a silence of heartache and respect that is impossible to ever experience somewhere else.
40,000 civilian casualities is pretty high to be claiming you're killing other things that Iraqis. I know that combatants from other countries have flooded in, and I know there's sectarian violence as well, but I also know that the military really doesn't give a damn either.
And as for the pity story about being shot at and all that...no one forced you to sign up for it. It's a job like any other. It pays the bills, I understand. But you never hear firefighters get bitter about fighting fires, do you?
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, those extra courses are exactly that. Specialisastions or other forms of service available. Australia has followed the US of A into just about every conflict in recent years. My argument was that soldiers do not enjoy killing people, it is part of the job if they are deployed. They are not just trained to kill others either but to carry out a wide range of tasks. A good example is the natural disaster cleanup operations that I've seen armies deployed to help because those are the only organisations with the logistical strength and the capacity to carry out such large operations (recent earthquake and tsunami cleanup operations).Horseman 77 wrote:
This seems some what fanciful, they give different types of training in any branch of service, they even have a band. But it seems some people have lost sight of what the military is for. You can't always decide when and where you may be forced to fight.Flecco wrote:
Dunno what training the military you are talking about does but I know the ADF does regular peacekeeping operations for our neighbours. They aren't ordered to kill anybody while on that type of deployment unless in self defence. Graduation from ADFA in Australia ensures almost any job you want because there they are trained to do alot of things (clerical work, IT, eletrical trades, carpentry, bricklaying, mechanics, engineering... All depends on the courses and specialities you take), not just to fire a weapon/cause harm to other people.Miller wrote:
No Flecco, soldiers are trained to kill and not be kill while following orders. They may not like it but it's their job and they have to do it.
Further, almost every other Nation in the world can train or adjust the training of its forces knowing the USA will come to its aid if it is in peril. Hopefully IMHO this will change soon.
Also, unlike almost any other nation, the USA must be prepared to fight alone for the fact that No other nation would be able or willing to assist it in time of need. we don't really care if this changes.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Iran, North Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, New Zealand, Russia, China..................Horseman 77 wrote:
Further, almost every other Nation in the world can train or adjust the training of its forces knowing the USA will come to its aid if it is in peril. Hopefully IMHO this will change soon.
You will note I said " the USA will come to its aid if it is in peril "Bubbalo wrote:
Iran, North Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, New Zealand, Russia, China..................Horseman 77 wrote:
Further, almost every other Nation in the world can train or adjust the training of its forces knowing the USA will come to its aid if it is in peril. Hopefully IMHO this will change soon.
You should really try and Read, Comprehend, Digest and Respond in that order.
Note: have fun finding the contradictions in his examples. Here are a few.
USA came to The USSR's aid when they were in peril from Nazi Germany.
USA Stopped the Japanese southward march toward Australia New Zealand saving them the terrible fate
of Japanese occupation. Rape, medical experiments etc.
Vietnam was two separate countries North Vietnam and South Vietnam. When the USA left the conflict, the North Vietnamese forces overran South Vietnam and a blood bath ensued, many fled anyway they could. So many took to the Open Seas in any craft ( seaworthy or not ) that the term "Boat People" was coined for them. The ones that didn't were forced into re-education camps. In an effort to keep records skulls were stacked in neat piles.
Ironically the people who suffered the Worst were the Vietcong. The new Government didn't want their infrastructure to exist. It didn't trust them. ( sound familiar? the missing A10 ? )
I know I said all of this to you in another post You deliberately try to appear dense as some deluded form of argument. How do you miss so much history? Please tell me you are only in your fourth year of School, if not, you are a sad product of a failing system somewhere.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-07-07 07:00:52)
I already have. After New Zealand decided it wouldn't allow nuclear armed or powered ships into it's ports, the US argued that this contravened the ANZUS treaty, and as such it was not compelled to assist NZ in the event of an attack. I don't really think there's any question on any of the others.Horseman 77 wrote:
You will note I said " the USA will come to its aid if it is in peril "
I find it funny that you say this, when many of your comments consist of insulting me without actually responding to what I've said.Horseman 77 wrote:
You should really try and Read, Comprehend, Digest and Respond in that order.
The US began mobilisation on 7th Dec. 1941. Germany invaded USSR on 22nd June 1941. This meant there was almost a six month gap between German invasion of Russia and American mobilisation, and you argue that they entered into the war to help Russia?Horseman 77 wrote:
USA came to The USSR's aid when they were in peril from Nazi Germany.
After Japan attacked the US, despite the fact that they'd been marching south long before then.Horseman 77 wrote:
USA Stopped the Japanese southward march toward Australia New Zealand saving them the terrible fate of Japanese occupation. Rape, medical experiments etc.
But now it isn't, and the US would not defend the current Vietnam. It might help with an invasion, though.Horseman 77 wrote:
Vietnam was two separate countries North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
Incorrect. The people who suffered worst were the rebels who came from South Vietnam and were anti-Communist, who would take great insult at being called Vietcong.Horseman 77 wrote:
Ironically the people who suffered the Worst were the Vietcong.
Ok, let's make that link. By the logic you use to imply that Clinton was dastardly, the US Army is a group of Communist militants. Quick, Horseman, better assemble the militia, them varmints is gonna capture America! Oh, that's right, militia are useless in modern pitched battles, yet pro-gun ralliers use an antiquated document to argue they should have the right to bear arms.Horseman 77 wrote:
The new Government didn't want their infrastructure to exist. It didn't trust them. ( sound familiar? the missing A10 ? )
Where?Horseman 77 wrote:
I know I said all of this to you in another post
I'm sorry, I can't quite here you.Horseman 77 wrote:
You deliberately try to appear dense as some deluded form of argument.
I've missed so much history? Where was the US when China invaded Tibet? Where was the US when Israel occupied Lebanon? Why do the Israelis still have the Golan heights? The US defends countries only when it pleases the US to do so.Horseman 77 wrote:
How do you miss so much history?
And yet Australia is reputed to have one of the best education systems in the world, to the point that my mother is assisting Monash export it's medical course, and people travel from China and the Middle East to study here. Oh wait, you'd better not read that Horseman. It might shatter your delusion that the US is the best at everything the whole wide universe!Horseman 77 wrote:
Please tell me you are only in your fourth year of School, if not, you are a sad product of a failing system somewhere.
Amen.tangoxmas44 wrote:
the US military is the most awesome thing that fights for our country. They fight for OUR country. They fight for you. For people that don't understand that,I pity you. These are the men and women that you should idolize. They put themselves in danger so you don't have to. They are true American heroes. Fudge you if you think otherwise.
Amen.JG1567JG wrote:
I almost forgot what this post was about with all this bullshit on here but Thanks again for all of you that served or are serving our Great Country. Go ahead all you liberal fucks give me negative Karma for loving my country and the men who have served to protect everything that we hold dear.
Amen.chuuby wrote:
i skipped a lot of the thread. just wanted to say to the starter of this thread. THANK YOU for everything you have done. just want to add....if you like your freedom thank a vet.
Oh, FFS Equalizer, say something or go thump your chest with all your redneck friends.
First, my friends aren't rednecks. Second, the people I quoted did a perfect job saying what I wanted to say.
See what I mean about this asshole ? You argee with anyone but him and you are instantly a " Redneck " the stupid little fuck has no idea what the term means and that it really isn't even an insult to an educated man.
By try he must!
By try he must!
Umm, sorry to interrupt the flaming war, but I'm not sure people can honestly answer this question unless they are actually serving for the US and have killed at least one person. Then I think you can answer this poll honestly.
I'd be interested to know how the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually helped you to accrue any freedoms. As for actual freedom in America, it would seem you're less than informed. Your country censors it's media, indoctrinates everyone young and old into a cult (saluting the flag etc) and powers the vision that it's alright to step on whoever you want on your way to the top. Your "free" country is slowly poisioning the globe, and all around me I see posts from Americans saying "we can whatever we want" or "you're all just jealous". Well here's some striking news for you, you can't do whatever you want, and I'd consider living in America a worse punishment than jail.[pWa]Recon wrote:
being a soldier, and having gone to war for my country, i say NO, do any of you know what it is like to dream the same dream over and over again, until you are walking down the street with your wife and kids and you spaz out and hit the ground, because your dream is not playing out for you in real time, full color, no holds barred action as if you were back in the mix.... maybe 2% of you do, until you have this first hand knowledge, shut the fuck up, and keep your ASS HAT statements to your self about "the red mist" (jarhead) and baby killers ( LBJ), i don't want to hear it, people in america.... soldiers fight for your freedom so you have the RIGHT TO PROTEST the war, we fight for you to say whatever your little minds think about an elected office... we fight for the freedom that allows you to be on this message board in the first place..... do you think that China can just google whatever it wants to..... nope.... less freedoms..... your freedom of speech is a soldiers curse, due to this we take your comments with a grain of salt (or sand, depending if you have been to the sand box) and say we fight for YOU, the civilians, so you can curse us, and spit on us... and another thing..... while you spit on us.... we stand still, hold our ground, and remember that this land was formed on the blood of our country's leaders, soldiers, and HONOR. remember this before you deside to cut down a soldier for keeping your civil freedoms just that... free, remember that before you protest another soldiers furnal, remember that the next time you see our flag waving above your head, that soldiers bleed the red stripes to keep the white(civilians in general) stripes pure, and the field of blue and white held in union. Truth, Honor, and the HIGHEST ESPRIT` De Corps.
~Recon
Which does not mean they won't Aid New Zealand, just that they are not compelled. They didn't seem to have a problem with our ships there before? Lost there national Viscara have they? lot of that going around. ps your wrong again 41. STFU please.Bubbalo wrote:
After New Zealand decided it wouldn't allow nuclear armed or powered ships into it's ports, the US argued that this contravened the ANZUS treaty, and as such it was not compelled to assist NZ in the event of an attack. I don't really think there's any question on any of the others.
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.Bubbalo wrote:
I find it funny that you say this, when many of your comments consist of insulting me without actually responding to what I've said.
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!Bubbalo wrote:
The US began mobilisation on 7th Dec. 1941. Germany invaded USSR on 22nd June 1941. This meant there was almost a six month gap between German invasion of Russia and American mobilisation, and you argue that they entered into the war to help Russia?
Horseman 77 wrote:
USA Stopped the Japanese southward march toward Australia New Zealand saving them the terrible fate of Japanese occupation. Rape, medical experiments etc.
But ..We did Aid them and they never aided us. So you are wrong again 43 STFU please!Bubbalo wrote:
After Japan attacked the US, despite the fact that they'd been marching south long before then.
Horseman 77 wrote:
Vietnam was two separate countries North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
The point was we already did Aid them so you are wrong again 44 so STFU please.Bubbalo wrote:
But now it isn't, and the US would not defend the current Vietnam. It might help with an invasion, though.
Horseman 77 wrote:
Ironically the people who suffered the Worst were the Vietcong.
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 pleaseBubbalo wrote:
Incorrect. The people who suffered worst were the rebels who came from South Vietnam and were anti-Communist, who would take great insult at being called Vietcong.
Horseman 77 wrote:
The new Government didn't want their infrastructure to exist. It didn't trust them. ( sound familiar? the missing A10 ? )
The point you missed is that tyrants, Governments who oppress and people who abuse power and trust sooner or later cannot trust anyone. Has anyone ever had to escape from the USA like they tried to escape from the USSR, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Get real.Bubbalo wrote:
Ok, let's make that link. By the logic you use to imply that Clinton was dastardly, the US Army is a group of Communist militants. Quick, Horseman, better assemble the militia, them varmints is gonna capture America! Oh, that's right, militia are useless in modern pitched battles, yet pro-gun ralliers use an antiquated document to argue they should have the right to bear arms.
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?
I know I said all of this to you in another post, You deliberately try to appear dense as some deluded form of argument. How do you miss so much history?
Again you side step and ignore rebuttals to the statements to avoid the existing argument and segway into a New line of Debate,Bubbalo wrote:
I've missed so much history? Where was the US when China invaded Tibet? Where was the US when Israel occupied Lebanon? Why do the Israelis still have the Golan heights? The US defends countries only when it pleases.
Lebanon was not in peril. Just stop allowing PLO bases and rocket attacks from their side of the border,
Like Gaza, return israeli soldier and they are not in peril,
Tibet? Fuck that. They would have joined forces to repel our help. They were a closed nation.
History shows we do the most and are the most altruistic in our goals, where was your country in any of those events that ( You brought up ) for instance?
Please tell me you are only in your fourth year of School, if not, you are a sad product of a failing system somewhere.
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!Bubbalo wrote:
And yet Australia is reputed to have one of the best education systems in the world, to the point that my mother is assisting Monash export it's medical course, and people travel from China and the Middle East to study here. Oh wait, you'd better not read that Horseman. It might shatter your delusion that the US is the best at everything the whole wide universe!
I would say that The USA is easily the best over all if not the best at everything. No other country can compare on even 1/2 the level That is no delusion. You still exist only because of our aid in WWII. Just to give you one example. I challange you to name any two countries who have acomplished as much and done as much good.
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?
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-07-07 10:54:55)
both bubbalo and horseman r teh stooopid!!!!!! a duuuuuuuuuuhr!
no because its crule and they just want peace they just fight to protect our country they only kill someone if they are tring to kill them.. and you see videos of troops saying oh yeah, sweet, ect.. to an explotion its beacuse its loud and cool looking thats it.
Kenario has been banned again, That leaves you as the only person here who backs his views and you call him stupid.