The Military

[BattleCookiee]

Like mentioned before... The US Intelligence Services were already 100% sure Iraq didn't have any banned weaponry...

 

And "fighting a war/keeping peace" is a whole lot different than pick up citizen X, ransack the guy a bit, lock him up for foltering, then act like nothing happened after release

[Commissar]

And all I wanted was some pictures of the newest weapon technologies..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can show you some pictures of a M249 jamming, which is about all it happens to be good for over there, if you like.

 

Actually, if someone could hook me up with a place to host it, got some pretty good video from, oddly enough, the Army's cavalry boys in Fallujah from back in the day.

[213374U]

Hey, I'm left-wing.  Or at least, definitely left of center.

Note the terms "bozo" and "propaganda". I don't like to discard any opinions based simply on political inclination, but I do react strongly against propaganda (as in bending reality to accomodate one's agenda), regardless of the colour.

 

Considering how the Left and Right are in the US, I'd probably be considered left-wing too, even though I'm supposedly right-wing over here.

 

 

It is, however, absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the members of the military involved with fighting the war there should've refused to do so.  As I said, they, like everyone else, believed Iraq to have banned weapons.

I won't get into what reasons could be enough for a soldier to refuse to fight. That's a can of worms I'd rather not open.

[BattleCookiee]

I prefer that kind of propaganda above the propaganda of a power-happy, warmongering, lying, treaty-breaking, allied-ignoring, world-ignoring United States of Amerika

[213374U]

I prefer that kind of propaganda above the propaganda of a power-happy, warmongering, lying, treaty-breaking, allied-ignoring, world-ignoring United States of Amerika

Then you will always be a brainless puppet, in the hands of those who feed you the lies you want to believe.

 

I, myself prefer nothing but the truth.

Edited December 18, 2005 by 213374U

[BattleCookiee]

And yet you spread Pro-US talk...

 

Then you will always be a brainless puppet, in the hands of those who feed you the lies you want to believe.

 

Also rather a brainless puppet of rationality and peace, than a brainless puppet bent on domination of other people and countries by using force...

Edited December 18, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[Hurlshort]

Wow, it's amazing how people here take extremely complex political issues and simplify them to fit their bizarre opinions. Personally, I respect anyone who is willing to give up their personal freedom in order to serve in the military. It's a very difficult job, but it's tremendously important.

 

That doesn't mean I always agree with the decisions of leadership, but I would never blame the defenders of our country for those decisions.

 

Also, what happens if the US pulls out of Iraq? Everyone loves to argue about how they shouldn't be there in the first place, but do you think that insurgency will stop if all the US troops go home tomorrow?

[213374U]

And yet you spread Pro-US talk...

Do I?

 

Read again. I am only debating the necessity of the armed forces.

 

And, at any rate, if I have to choose between the US and some other European country (let alone a country from elsewhere) to have as an ally, I will choose the US, everytime.

Why? Because they are the dominant power. Which means that the chances of my lifestyle being preserved with them on my side are far greater than the alternative.

 

That doesn't mean I blindly support the US, but I know that such subtle differences are difficult for you to take in.

 

 

Also rather a brainless puppet of rationality and peace, than a brainless puppet bent on domination of other people and countries by using force...

I'll just quote Meta, in response to that:

... And there were no more terrorists, and no more arguments and disputes, and we all went to live in the gingerbread house at the end of lollipop lane in the land of chocolate ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[BattleCookiee]

That doesn't mean I always agree with the decisions of leadership, but I would never blame the defenders of our country for those decisions.

 

I am greatfull for defenders and peace-keeping occupaters.

Not for the conquering type of military though. And if you join the US-Army now you are for the conquering of things.

 

If you really wish to help defend your country, become spy, Federal Agent, SWAT-agent, Anti-Terrorist, Riot cop or even normal cop, but not Army Soldier...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Also, what happens if the US pulls out of Iraq?  Everyone loves to argue about how they shouldn't be there in the first place, but do you think that insurgency will stop if all the US troops go home tomorrow?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nah, they are just as happy blowing up Iraqi's.

[BattleCookiee]

Read again. I am only debating the necessity of the armed forces.

 

And, at any rate, if I have to choose between the US and some other European country (let alone a country from elsewhere) to have as an ally, I will choose the US, everytime.

Why? Because they are the dominant power. Which means that the chances of my lifestyle being preserved with them on my side are far greater than the alternative.

 

That doesn't mean I blindly support the US, but I know that such subtle differences are difficult for you to take in.

 

So, you will choose the side of the US because you fear their Wrath and power...

Or do you want to use their power for your own purpose perhaps?

Edited December 18, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[Janmanden]

Also, what happens if the US pulls out of Iraq?  Everyone loves to argue about how they shouldn't be there in the first place, but do you think that insurgency will stop if all the US troops go home tomorrow?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was messed up before the USA forces invaded the place, pull out and let's see. Maybe the USA will simply become a target in America instead of in Iraq. I think it's likely that the US adds more to the problem than it keeps the peace, besides there are other countries in the coalition that doesn't have the same emnity towards them, that might help keep the peace.

[Commissar]

Also, what happens if the US pulls out of Iraq?  Everyone loves to argue about how they shouldn't be there in the first place, but do you think that insurgency will stop if all the US troops go home tomorrow?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was messed up before the USA forces invaded the place, pull out and let's see. Maybe the USA will simply become a target in America instead of in Iraq. I think it's likely that the US adds more to the problem than it keeps the peace, besides there are other countries in the coalition that doesn't have the same emnity towards them, that might help keep the peace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The cold, brutal fact is that we'd prefer to have foreign agents targeting us on foreign soil rather than targeting civilians at home.

 

And the insurgency hasn't shown any hesitation in hitting other members of the coalition. They hate the US, that's to be sure, but their goal is power, so they'll go after anyone in the way.

[213374U]

So, you will choose the side of the US because you fear their Wrath and power...

Or want to use it for your own purpose perhaps?

Now you are finally beginning to understand. I prefer the US as my allies because they suit my purposes better. Having weak allies helps nobody.

 

And while perhaps you don't seem to care about the fact that your way of life could be in jeopardy, other people do. But that requires that you keep your feet on the ground, so it's no wonder.

 

Sorry kid, but that's how the world works. Nobody said it was supposed to be beautiful.

[Hurlshort]

That doesn't mean I always agree with the decisions of leadership, but I would never blame the defenders of our country for those decisions.

 

I am greatfull for defenders and peace-keeping occupaters.

Not for the conquering type of military though. And if you join the US-Army now you are for the conquering of things.

 

If you really wish to help defend your country, become spy, Federal Agent, SWAT-agent, Anti-Terrorist, Riot cop or even normal cop, but not Army Soldier...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

These aren't peaceful countries that the US is occupying. These are countries with serious problems underneath, oppressive regimes and fanatical beliefs. The Taliban used to take archeological sites that were centuries old and destroy them because they did not fit their religious beliefs. Saddam was a hostile guy. Do you think he was trying for world peace?

 

The goal of the US occupiers is to keep the peace and establish a government run by the Iraqi people and for the Iraqi people. The trouble is there are many different factions who all want power, and some have no trouble blowing up innocents to get it.

 

The US has some problems, I agree. There is too much of a focus on the concept of voting and establishing a capitalistic society. Many policy makers struggle to understand that the formula that works for us will not work the same in the Middle East. But the US is not some evil entity trying to conquer the world. The intentions are well-founded.

[BattleCookiee]

Now you are finally beginning to understand. I prefer the US as my allies because they suit my purposes better. Having weak allies helps nobody.

 

Yes. But with this powerfull ally, you have also brought upon yourself an enemy who doesn't fight with the laws of war... and instead targets your citizens in their daily lives. Not something I would prefer...

 

And powerfull doesn't helps if they think you as *expendable* and totally abondon you if it proves them better...

 

And while perhaps you don't seem to care about the fact that your way of life could be in jeopardy, other people do. But that requires that you keep your feet on the ground, so it's no wonder.

 

Yeah, it could be in jeopardy because due to my own countries foolish decission of

sending troops to Irak it faces Terror Attacks...

But is that really a larger danger than the "Americanazion" that plagues Europe?

[Hurlshort]

But is that really a larger danger than the "Americanazion" that plagues Europe?

 

Europeean nations have a pretty bad history in terms of trying to influence the rest of the world. Ever hear the expression, "People in glass houses, shouldn't cast stones."

 

Seriously, let it go, you've got way too much US hostility. It's just a country.

[BattleCookiee]

These aren't peaceful countries that the US is occupying.  These are countries with serious problems underneath, oppressive regimes and fanatical beliefs.  The Taliban used to take archeological sites that were centuries old and destroy them because they did not fit their religious beliefs.  Saddam was a hostile guy.  Do you think he was trying for world peace?

 

Every country has serious problems. And why do they exactly target these oppressive regimes, instead some even worse ones in Afrika or Southern-Amerika? Because they don't target the US ever?

And like told before, the US brought the Taliban to power. No arguing that they were evil all along then...

 

The goal of the US occupiers is to keep the peace and establish a government run by the Iraqi people and for the Iraqi people.  The trouble is there are many different factions who all want power, and some have no trouble blowing up innocents to get it.

 

Yes, now that the occupation has been done there has to be some-one to "clean the mess". And since the NATO and UN don't wan't to abondon people we help. That doesn't make it different that there shouldn't be mess in the beginning...

 

The US has some problems, I agree.  There is too much of a focus on the concept of voting and establishing a capitalistic society.  Many policy makers struggle to understand that the formula that works for us will not work the same in the Middle East.  But the US is not some evil entity trying to conquer the world.  The intentions are well-founded.

 

Intentions are well founded... Sure, with the history, and maybe Afghanistan in mind. But with Iraq and the "future projects of Bush" certainly not...

[BattleCookiee]

Europeean nations have a pretty bad history in terms of trying to influence the rest of the world.  Ever hear the expression, "People in glass houses, shouldn't cast stones."

 

Seriously, let it go, you've got way too much US hostility.  It's just a country.

 

Yes. The colonisation of both Americans, Australia, Afrika and parts of Azia were we opressed people were signs of European "evilness". But everybody learns from mistakes, we won't as easily as in 1939 start massive wars. But apparently the US didn't got the lesson from the colonisations, which the majority is free now... even without massive chaos everywhere.

 

And yes, even my own country did cause massive wars and killing sprees when one of our colonies tried to seperate. The US (and UN) prevented us from actually continuing to wage war there.

 

But so we listened to other countries wishes, somehting the US ain't doing on the current moment...

 

And the US isn't just "another country" because it houses too much power...

[213374U]

Yes. But with this powerfull ally, you have also brought upon yourself an enemy who doesn't fight with the laws of war... and instead targets your citizens in their daily lives. Not something I would prefer...

That is a blatant, outright lie. If you are referring to islamic terrorist groups, those groups target ALL of the West, regardless of their affiliation with the US. We are heretics to them, and their "Jihad" demands that we be converted or cleansed.

 

There have been numerous examples that prove this point, but I will give you one in particular.

 

You see, investigations on the 11/3 terrorist attacks in Madrid (by some Al-Qeda branch or another) revealed that the attacks had been planned long before Spain became involved in the Iraq war, and would have been carried out regardless of the government's stance.

 

Perhaps you would rather do nothing? Perhaps you would rather let them do their thing, or get in their good side?

 

Are you sick or just perverted?

 

 

And powerfull doesn't helps if they think you as *expendable* and totally abondon you if it proves them better...

Well, that's how alliances work. An alliance in which one of the members has nothing to gain isn't an alliance, it's parasitism. And a useful ally won't be considered "expendable". I don't know where did you get your notions on all that stuff, but I would suggest you don't take "Command & Conquer" as the ultimate reference guide for these affairs.

 

 

Yeah, it could be in jeopardy because due to my own countries foolish decission of

sending troops to Irak it faces Terror Attacks...

But is that really a larger danger than the "Americanazion" that plagues Europe?

Now that's just senseless gibberish. How about you go out for some fresh air? Not that it's going to take you back to reality, but if you keep it up, I fear you might suffer a brain hemorrhage.

[Janmanden]

These aren't peaceful countries that the US is occupying.  These are countries with serious problems underneath, oppressive regimes and fanatical beliefs.  The Taliban used to take archeological sites that were centuries old and destroy them because they did not fit their religious beliefs.  Saddam was a hostile guy.  Do you think he was trying for world peace?

Now that we've seen the tension, strife and conflicts brewing in Iraq I guess it kinda makes a diabolical sense, that Saddam was being hostile. For instance, what happened when Tito died? The former Jugoslavia was split into factions after the most bloody war in recent European history. I think that the people of Iraq are glad to be rid of Saddam, but despite his cruelty he did keep the country together...somewhat.

[Hurlshort]

These aren't peaceful countries that the US is occupying.  These are countries with serious problems underneath, oppressive regimes and fanatical beliefs.  The Taliban used to take archeological sites that were centuries old and destroy them because they did not fit their religious beliefs.  Saddam was a hostile guy.  Do you think he was trying for world peace?

Now that we've seen the tension, strife and conflicts brewing in Iraq I guess it kinda makes a diabolical sense, that Saddam was being hostile. For instance, what happened when Tito died? The former Jugoslavia was split into factions after the most bloody war in recent European history. I think that the people of Iraq are glad to be rid of Saddam, but despite his cruelty he did keep the country together...somewhat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with that, and Stalin and Mao kept their countries together as well, but that doesn't mean it was it was a good regime. He ruled with an iron fist. It will be interesting to see if Iraq can establish a functioning government that doesn't need brute force. I don't know enough about Saddam, but I hear he also kept religion out of the government. That's an amazing feat in a place where Islam is so heavily saturated. Right now there is a very clear line between Sunni's and Shi'ites, and I don't think enough is being done to draw these two sides together.

 

We need to solve the problems, not place blame and call names. That's the path to peace that Battlewookie seems intent on. Isolationism will not end strife.

[Dark Moth]

Yes. The colonisation of both Americans, Australia, Africa and parts of Asia where we oppressed people were signs of European "evilness". But everybody learns from mistakes, we won't as easily as in 1939 start massive wars. But apparently the US didn't get the lesson from the colonizations, which the majority is free now... even without massive chaos everywhere.

 

And yes, even my own country did cause massive wars and killing sprees when one of our colonies tried to seperate. The US (and UN) prevented us from actually continuing to wage war there.

 

But so we listened to other countries wishes, somehting the US ain't doing on the current moment...

 

And the US isn't just "another country" because it houses too much power...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

For one thing, learn how to spell.

 

And you're definitley misinformed/biased if you think we're there for colonization. In fact, unless you've been living in a hole the past couple months (which it seems like) you'd know there were elections taking place down there. Yup, democratic elections. OMG! It wasn't a puppet government installed by the U.S., was it?

Edited December 18, 2005 by Mothman

[Surreptishus]

I don't agree with anything battlewookie says, but don't criticise his spelling. English isn't his first language.

Edited December 18, 2005 by Surreptishus

[Dark Moth]

Oh, okay. It's just a little hard to tell sometimes when so many English-speakers can't even spell their own language.