Page 2 of 4
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:17 pm
by Harrison
I hate hippies.
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:41 pm
by Lyion
Araby wrote:I think everyone understands this. When people join our military I also think they assume that they will always be in good hands and that everything they do will be in honor and respect for our country. Much of our military consists of young adults with no college education and the intent of getting one...and don't expect to end up in situations they don't feel good about, that are clearly not what they thought they would ever become involved in. And so many die.
Funny, the military polls reflect something completely different. Also, it is understood that it's dangerous. Have you ever wondered why 90% of the prior military here support W and the war, and the people who do not and complain the most never served? It's similar to this in the real world, too. The biggest complainers never served.
Araby wrote:There is a huge unhappiness right now about what is happening in Iraq and I am as equally as unhappy with the fact that countless lives have been lost due to poor decisions and a lack of preparation for this war (ambush) and this picture reminds me of how pissed I really do get.
There are questions, but certainly not huge unhappiness. This war was extraordinarily well run, and the problems stem from the area of the world and the fight we are currently engaged with against an organization that unfortunately is getting a lot of funding from places like Syria, Saudi, and Sudan.
Araby wrote:I fucking support the troops I want the government to support them too and do what they have to do to get this over with and get our men the hell out of there.
Amen. But if you really want lasting peace then you'll be more concerned with success and stability in the Middle East.
The military leadership is doing what they can to get our troops out. Next year they'll start to come home, and it won't be like Vietnam, where we really weren't prepared and didn't finish the mission. Dying is terrible. Dying in vain is worse.
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:37 pm
by Rust
lyion wrote:There are questions, but certainly not huge unhappiness. This war was extraordinarily well run, and the problems stem from the area of the world and the fight we are currently engaged with against an organization that unfortunately is getting a lot of funding from places like Syria, Saudi, and Sudan.
The 'war' went great. It's the 'peace' that has been run like shit, and has been seeing body bags coming home, and thousands dealign with major, crippling injuries.
They were lied to, and sent in harms way for lies. Those responsible should be dragged out and shot.
--R.
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:43 pm
by Arlos
Every single person I know in RL who's served is even more against the war than I am, and that includes those who served on active duty in Iraq in the first Gulf War.
-Arlos
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:49 pm
by Harrison
Ok, we know you and your hippy friends don't like war. We get it.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:18 am
by Captain Insano
Hahah harrison.
All said and done casualties aside... I think our aggressive stance towards the middle east is actually working.
Almost every day I see new articles in the news about groups of muslims talking about going after those that support or perpetrate terror in the world. In other words they are finally starting to take the actions of their own people against other nations seriously and policing their own. Lets ask ourselves why they are coming to this conclusion so rapidly. Could it be that maybe the masses of muslims in the middle east are tired of getting rocked by the western world? Maybe they are sick of seeing their cities blown up and their families killed. Could they finally be reaching the conclusion that a little tolerance is in order?
Who knows for sure, but time will tell. The middle east and the muslim community are by religion extreme in their actions. Therefore our response to any aggression needs to be even more extreme.
In closing I support war in the middle east and the continued ravaging of the followers of islam and the nations that support terrorism. I hope we grind them into dust for the last 100 years of violence they have committed against innocent westerners abroad.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:38 am
by Zanchief
Finawin gets all his political ideology from Cartman I think. I hope he does at least because it isn't the least bit informed.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:40 am
by brinstar
Arlos wrote:Every single person I know in RL who's served is even more against the war than I am, and that includes those who served on active duty in Iraq in the first Gulf War.
-Arlos
Harrison wrote:Ok, we know you and your hippy friends don't like war. We get it.
so the only thing that makes you a hippie is not liking war? your retardry balloons by the day.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:50 am
by Harrison
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:59 am
by Harrison
And to answer your question...
No...
But it certainly does add to the pile of things that DO make you one. War is necessary. War is inevitable with humans. War is the only fucking thing that gets through to these types of people.
They've been in-fighting for thousands of years. Do you honestly think talk is going to get through to them? They will perceive that as weakness, and cause more harm. Actions speak louder than words. This is no exception.
I don't like war either. Who does?! It is inevitable and a necessity in certain situations. The middle east is one of those situations.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 7:07 am
by Zanchief
Harrison wrote:And to answer your question...
No...
But it certainly does add to the pile of things that DO make you one. War is necessary. War is inevitable with humans. War is the only fucking thing that gets through to these types of people.
They've been in-fighting for thousands of years. Do you honestly think talk is going to get through to them? They will perceive that as weakness, and cause more harm. Actions speak louder than words. This is no exception.
I don't like war either. Who does?! It is inevitable and a necessity in certain situations. The middle east is one of those situations.
Forgive me if I ignore Harrison McInternetNerd’s guide to foreign policy.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 7:56 am
by kaharthemad
Arlos wrote:Every single person I know in RL who's served is even more against the war than I am, and that includes those who served on active duty in Iraq in the first Gulf War.
-Arlos
Strange I know quite a few Marines, and Navy personel alike. All of them support the war. Then again all of them also serve with distinction. And hey! whaddaya know I served in the first war as did most of my friends.! We support it too!.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:26 am
by Lyion
Those referencing many vets who do not support Iraq generally never served themselves. Amazing how that works out.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:53 am
by Arlos
Good for you Kahar. Last I checked, I don't know you in RL. As I said, those veterans I *DO* know in RL universally oppose the war, usually far more strongly than I do, and this includes those who are CURRENTLY serving. Nice backhanded suggestion that I'm lying though there Lyion, I appreciate random ad hominem attacks on my honesty and truthfulness, very Mindia-esque of you.
Oh, and Harrison, I know your education is lacking-to-nonexistant, but reading comprehension is your friend, K? I've only mentioned dozens of times that I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, as well as the first gulf war. I do not, and WILL not support the current war in Iraq, however, period.
-Arlos
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:59 am
by Tuggan
Harrison wrote:And to answer your question...
No...
But it certainly does add to the pile of things that DO make you one. War is necessary. War is inevitable with humans. War is the only fucking thing that gets through to these types of people.
They've been in-fighting for thousands of years. Do you honestly think talk is going to get through to them? They will perceive that as weakness, and cause more harm. Actions speak louder than words. This is no exception.
I don't like war either. Who does?! It is inevitable and a necessity in certain situations. The middle east is one of those situations.
So uh... when are you enlisting Harry?
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 3:12 pm
by Harrison
As soon as you're done delivering pizza's and fighting "the man"(tm) who is always trying to keep a niggah down!
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:10 pm
by brinstar
and a fine upstanding citizen you are
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:34 pm
by Lyion
lyion wrote:Those referencing many vets who do not support Iraq generally never served themselves. Amazing how that works out.
Hmm, nothing personal or ad hominem there, at all. If one isn't a vet, then don't speak for us. They don't belong in that category and never will.
Its not really akin to a college person directly insulting someone who isn't educated, it's 100 times deeper.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:19 pm
by Narrock
If they re-instituted the draft, and Arlos got drafted, I would laugh my ass off for days.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:28 pm
by Phlegm
Mindia wrote:If they re-instituted the draft, and Arlos got drafted, I would laugh my ass off for days.
nah.. Arlos would get a deferment because he is in college and he is probably over the drafting age. Prime candidate for the draft would be Harrison since he is not in college and is barely working.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:31 pm
by Narrock
"Every able-bodied male 18-40..." I read that somewhere about the draft.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:40 pm
by Phlegm
Mindia wrote:"Every able-bodied male 18-40..." I read that somewhere about the draft.
From the Selective Service System:
Since 1980, the Selective Service System has discharged its mission of preparing to manage a draft if and when Congress and the President so direct. The House action proves that the Selective Service has gotten no such direction. That being the case, the Agency will maintain its readiness as required by law, and to register young men between the ages of 18 and 25. That mission has been reaffirmed frequently by successive Administrations and by Congress under the leadership of both parties.
Dont forget about the deferments. Student deferment, medical deferment, my daddy is a big shot with pull deferment, and the alway popular Canadian deferment.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:42 pm
by Phlegm
here's more:
If and when the Congress and the President reinstate a military draft, the Selective Service System would conduct a National Draft Lottery to determine the order in which young men would be drafted.
The lottery would establish the priority of call based on the birth dates of registrants. The first men drafted would be those turning age 20 during the calendar year of the lottery. For example, if a draft were held in 1998, those men born in 1978 would be considered first. If a young man turns 21 in the year of the draft, he would be in the second priority, in turning 22 he would be in the third priority, and so forth until the year in which he turns 26 at which time he is over the age of liability. Younger men would not be called in that year until men in the 20-25 age group are called.
Because of the enormous impact of this lottery, it would be conducted publicly, with full coverage by the media. Accredited observers from public interest groups will have full access to observe the proceedings.
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:48 pm
by Narrock
Phlegm wrote:Mindia wrote:"Every able-bodied male 18-40..." I read that somewhere about the draft.
From the Selective Service System:
Since 1980, the Selective Service System has discharged its mission of preparing to manage a draft if and when Congress and the President so direct. The House action proves that the Selective Service has gotten no such direction. That being the case, the Agency will maintain its readiness as required by law, and to register young men between the ages of 18 and 25. That mission has been reaffirmed frequently by successive Administrations and by Congress under the leadership of both parties.[/b]
Dont forget about the deferments. Student deferment, medical deferment, my daddy is a big shot with pull deferment, and the alway popular Canadian deferment.
The one I was referring to was much older than 1980. I got the ages wrong. It's actually 18-45, not 40. It goes back to Federal law of 1792. Somebody posted about it in another message board.
Every able-bodied male aged from 18 to 45 is, by federal law, a member of the militia. That has been the case since 1792.
"Militia," from Merriam-Webster: "4 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service"
Furthermore, you can't use "a well-regulated militia" to limit "the right of the people." It's incorrect English.
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
Similarily, you cannot use the above sentence to restrict the reading of books to registered voters only.
The well-regulated part means the government has a responsibility to ensure uniform order, methods, and armament (as opposed to an unorganized (read unregulated) ragtag and less effective militia).
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:53 pm
by Phlegm
Well, if they go to a draft, it's the 1980 system that they will use.