WildWeasel
Spaceman
Well, it's nice that all of you have such formed opinions, but the people have spoken. Canada, here we come.
Iraq or N. Korea? Or neither?
- Thread starter Maniac II
- Start date
WildWeasel
Spaceman
Yeah, you'll have to excuse Ghost. He's foreign.
Aries
Vice Admiral
so you know for a fact that they didn't support terrorism when there is proof that they have in the past support terrorist attacks against the US.
the public isn't trained in operational security. if the public is to know EVERYTHING, they must first be trained in opsec, and that will never happen and even if it did, it would just be cause for more shouting of "facisit gov"
right. if anyone is having a case of aggression, it is the N. Koreans. 'give us what we want or we will use our nukes' is basically what they are saying. since the Korean war is still on, and the US hasn't done anything since the 50's, it's a pretty good bet that we weren't gonna do anything to them
well, congress ,and, more importantly, the supreme court doesn't think it is illegal, so i guess it isn't illegal
all the UN is doing is being a royal pain in the ass to anyone who thinks differently than it does. the US thinks that following through on what is says (the resolutions against iraq) is right and good. the UN doesn't. the UN is a worthless piece of shit organization that should never have been made. that's what the UN is
so the jobs that the war provided didn't help the economy? why did we have to bail out europe? WW2. and the marshall plan's main goal was to help europe recover FROM WW2, not the US economy.
for a the small percentage of southerners who owned slaves, yes it is the same honor. for the majority who didn't, it wasn't the same honor. and those who after the civil war didn't wake up and see that the times had changed, well, they had no honor. this will probably shock you, but the civil war wasn't about slavery. it was about states rights. the focus only shifted to slavery when lincoln freed the slaves in the southern states to prevent france and england entering the war. i'm sure you will twist this around to fit your own purposes, so i'll just say draw your own conclusions from this, but read it carefully
really. my 10th grade geography teacher (who, BTW, was from south vietnam and who quite clearly remembers getting shot at by the N. vietnamese, even though he was just trying to get away like the rest of his family) always said the monks burned themselves in protest of the war, not the gov. and if no one wanted us there and the N. vietnamese didn't kill anyone, how come many S. vietnamese wanted to get away to the US and many of those who didn't were jailed and some executed. also, if no one wanted us there, how come many of the native tribespeople of vietnam helped us even more than the south vietnamese. and the VC, even though being south vietnamese, were enemies of south vietnam, and as such shouldn't be counted in the death toll of south vietnamese citizens. and we bombed s. vietnam more than n. vietnam because that is where the fighting was.
well, the fall of the french monarchy was probably one of the best things that happend to the french people. what happened immediatly after the fall of the monarchy was a small group of zelots got control of the gov. the american revolution had no bering on those zelots taking over. as for the br. monarchy, i'm just wondering how you got that our revolution retained the monarchy, when it really lead to greater parliment control?
we would have had to invade without the a-bomb. it is as simple as that. those were the only two ways to make japan surrender unconditionally, which is the only way they could have. more civilians would have died as a result of any invasion. and the intent of truman was to save lives and make the japanese surrender. that was his intent. did this happen, yes. did we have to invade and add a couple more million to the killboard of WW2, no. simple as that
where did you get baby killer and murderer? soldiers arn't murderers unless they kill non-combatants. when soldiers kill other soldiers IN COMBAT, it isn't murder. if put into a court of law, the verdict would be not guilty becasue it would be self defense. if i don't kill him, he sure as hell will kill me. simple as that.
Aries
Vice Admiral
calm down. your libel to get banned yourself for stuff like that. don't get me wrong, it pisses me off too, for my father is in the army, one of my uncles was in the navy, both my grandfathers were in the navy and their brothers were in the army and none of them shot babies or killed innocent people, which murder is. but remember, you can't blame people for believing the propoganda that the peace loving people of north vietnam put out during the war 
after all, the US is inheriantly immoral and an uncivilized country (that last part is dripping with scarcasim if you don't get it)
and it was from napoleon
after all, the US is inheriantly immoral and an uncivilized country (that last part is dripping with scarcasim if you don't get it)and it was from napoleon
ya i got it. i guess people have a right to their own opinoin. If i dont post again after, you'll know why.... since it isnt my first offence, its my second. And you wanna know what tops it off... They're both from today. Like i said maybe i struck a gold mine... or maybe just trouble's door 
Tell your dad that one of your message board buddies appreciates his service to his country.
I have great admiration for those who make the commitment to their country to put on the uniform and stand in harms way. However i have no tolerance for those who are willing to send those individuals into a situation where they will die-for motives that can only be described as short-sighted and greedy. I don't want your father, or my friends who are reservists, active duty military and ROTC to have to got to war. Yes, the military is a necessity, but a war on Iraq is not. This is gonna sound really callous, but it's not our country. Tyranny can not go on forever, eventually Saddam Hussein will be gone and the Iraqis will be all to glad to be rid of him, but what will happen then?
I think some of this animosity between the military (and by extention their families, friends, etc) is that there are a lot of activists (more like extremists) who view the military as a tool of opression by the government. Or, as a symbol of government authority, and therefore a target for thier ire. I do believe that more times than we would like to remember, the US military has been used to stop the people whom ideologiacally we should have supported (y'know those poor huddled massed yearing to be free-in their own country). But I have little quarrel with the soldier who followed his orders not knowing how many people would die as a result. I don't fault the pilots who were given bad intel and hit civilians-it's not thier fault they were over there. It's the fault of the REMFs in the government who's rich daddies got them out of combat duty, or who had "debilitating medical conditions" preventing them from serving. It's them I want to see impeached and imprisoned. But until then, the military is obligated to follow the orders of the civilian government-and I can only fault them so far for that.
I have great admiration for those who make the commitment to their country to put on the uniform and stand in harms way. However i have no tolerance for those who are willing to send those individuals into a situation where they will die-for motives that can only be described as short-sighted and greedy. I don't want your father, or my friends who are reservists, active duty military and ROTC to have to got to war. Yes, the military is a necessity, but a war on Iraq is not. This is gonna sound really callous, but it's not our country. Tyranny can not go on forever, eventually Saddam Hussein will be gone and the Iraqis will be all to glad to be rid of him, but what will happen then?
I think some of this animosity between the military (and by extention their families, friends, etc) is that there are a lot of activists (more like extremists) who view the military as a tool of opression by the government. Or, as a symbol of government authority, and therefore a target for thier ire. I do believe that more times than we would like to remember, the US military has been used to stop the people whom ideologiacally we should have supported (y'know those poor huddled massed yearing to be free-in their own country). But I have little quarrel with the soldier who followed his orders not knowing how many people would die as a result. I don't fault the pilots who were given bad intel and hit civilians-it's not thier fault they were over there. It's the fault of the REMFs in the government who's rich daddies got them out of combat duty, or who had "debilitating medical conditions" preventing them from serving. It's them I want to see impeached and imprisoned. But until then, the military is obligated to follow the orders of the civilian government-and I can only fault them so far for that.
The chickenhawk rogues gallery:
http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html
and this one:
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm
Oh, and on topic I say Monaco.
http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html
and this one:
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm
Oh, and on topic I say Monaco.
Dang, you'd of thought that after having an ace from WW 2, as a father, Bush would have served in his countries military. Honestly, i dont know about you, but i think to get a president to know what its like to be one of the men fighting in other countries, they should have a one of the requirements for a president is four years active duty in a selected branch of the military ( this does not include coast gaurd, since in time of peace they are part of the department of transportation, not department of defense). But that is just my opinion, the opinion of an unimportant cadet (actually soon to be 2nd lieutenant 
)
)