I just don’t understand how a town could think it’s a good idea to tell the marines to get out. It’s not like they were dragging 15 year olds off to fight, yet they were made out as bad people who steal the youth of America to go fight.
Last I checked I walked into a marine recruiting site by my own free will without anyone ever telling me to.
Not only does the town piss me off (I mean really, don’t they have something more important to do?) but the protestors don’t help any. I can respect the right to protest and it’s a good thing people do. Lord knows what would happen if people just let the government do what it wants! However, I highly doubt many of those protestors are protesting the war, rather they are protesting government.
The vast majority of them are young teenagers who are all punked out. They aren’t thinking about the people dieing, rather they just want a reason to defy authority. I was once part of that punk crowd and I too protested the war. I however protested going to Iraq when Iran was clearly a worse threat and we were hardly done with Afghanistan. I didn’t want to see our troops spread so thin that they couldn’t win on any front which is exactly what happened.
Just seeing these young kids being complete morons really gets under my skin. I guess it bugs me on two levels. One, because I support our troops and have many friends out there in Iraq. Secondly it pisses me off because these young people are being idiots for the sake of being idiots. There was once a decent message in the punk music and scene, now it’s just a bunch of fat teenagers wearing all black and wanting to defy anyone with authority.
Dumbasses wouldn’t even know what to do if they were dumped off in a lawless society.
[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
There was once a decent message in the punk music and scene, [/quote]
[i][b]Oh! Mama, Mama look there!
Your children are playing in that street again
Don’t you know what happened down there?
A youth of fourteen got shot down there
The Kokane guns of Jamdown Town
The killing clowns, the blood money men
Are shooting those Washington bullets again
As every cell in Chile will tell
The cries of the tortured men
Remember Allende, and the days before,
Before the army came
Please remember Victor Jara,
In the Santiago Stadium,
Es verdad - those Washington Bullets again
And in the Bay of Pigs in 1961,
Havana fought the playboy in the Cuban sun,
For Castro is a colour,
Is a redder than red,
Those Washington bullets want Castro dead
For Castro is the colour…
…That will earn you a spray of lead
Sandinista!
For the very first time ever,
When they had a revolution in Nicaragua,
There was no interference from America
Human rights in America
Well the people fought the leader,
And up he flew…
With no Washington bullets what else could he do?
Sandinista!
‘N’ if you can find a Afghan rebel
That the Moscow bullets missed
Ask him what he thinks of voting Communist…
…Ask the Dalai Lama in the hills of Tibet,
How many monks did the Chinese get?
In a war-torn swamp stop any mercenary,
‘N’ check the British bullets in his armoury Que?
The Marine recruiters who come to my high school lie through their teeth regularly, and are so phony its comical.
Recruiters are more of an annoyance, than anything else. The Marines/Army/Navy are obviously (in my high school at least) targeting the stupidest of us.
Seriously, if the recruiters weren’t so obviously going after the idiots, I wouldn’t mind them so much. I wouldn’t want them banned (as that would put the recruiting power of the government, and therefore our soldiers, in clear and present danger), but I still avoid them, unless I want a cheap and unsatisfying laugh.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
The Marine recruiters who come to my high school lie through their teeth regularly, and are so phony its comical.
Recruiters are more of an annoyance, than anything else. The Marines/Army/Navy are obviously (in my high school at least) targeting the stupidest of us.
Seriously, if the recruiters weren’t so obviously going after the idiots, I wouldn’t mind them so much. I wouldn’t want them banned (as that would put the recruiting power of the government, and therefore our soldiers, in clear and present danger), but I still avoid them, unless I want a cheap and unsatisfying laugh.[/quote]
Well they none the less have a number they have to hit so yes I do admit they sometimes lie (ok maybe more than they tell the truth). I disagree that they only go after the idiots since you do have to pass a test. Now the test isn’t that hard, but the better you do, the more likely you get to choose what job you get.
I found those offices to provide good information and they allowed me to take a practice test there to see what it was like. I also went to the base for a BBQ and some football after going to the office and in general had a good experience with them.
[quote]lixy wrote:
And in the Bay of Pigs in 1961,
Havana fought the playboy in the Cuban sun,
For Castro is a colour,
Is a redder than red,
Those Washington bullets want Castro dead
For Castro is the colour…
…That will earn you a spray of lead
[/quote]
Those were Cubans shooting Cubans. Yes the US supplied the guns, but they weren’t US citizens pulling the trigger.
[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
lixy wrote:
And in the Bay of Pigs in 1961,
Havana fought the playboy in the Cuban sun,
For Castro is a colour,
Is a redder than red,
Those Washington bullets want Castro dead
For Castro is the colour…
…That will earn you a spray of lead
Those were Cubans shooting Cubans. Yes the US supplied the guns, but they weren’t US citizens pulling the trigger.[/quote]
And there is little doubt that Cuba would be better off today if they would have kicked Castro out.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I never met a recruiter who told the complete truth. They don’t blatantly lie but they sure omit some facts…or enhance reality as I like to call it.
Dude, if you don’t like Berkeley you should move…[/quote]
lol I take it you missed that little section under my name called location? I at least currently live in SC, but this has been all over the news lately.
lol I take it you missed that little section under my name called location? I at least currently live in SC, but this has been all over the news lately.[/quote]
No, I did’t miss it…
you should move away from Berkeley – further away until you aren’t bothered by what they do. I guarantee they don’t give a rip about the recruiters in your town.
lol I take it you missed that little section under my name called location? I at least currently live in SC, but this has been all over the news lately.
No, I did’t miss it…
you should move away from Berkeley – further away until you aren’t bothered by what they do. I guarantee they don’t give a rip about the recruiters in your town.[/quote]
Uhh I could move to China but as soon as I type in www.cnn.com and see the protestors I would still get annoyed.
[quote]lixy wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
I however protested going to Iraq when Iran was clearly a worse threat
In what sense?[/quote]
I would be more worried about Iran gaining a nuke than Iraq and their fake weapons. But it also goes back to spreading the troops so thin they can’t win on any front.
Watch Mike Blacks Red White and Screwed stand-up. I love his theory on how we went to Iraq and not Iran.
[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
I would be more worried about Iran gaining a nuke than Iraq and their fake weapons. [/quote]
I’m pretty certain Iranian are about a hundred times more worried than you. I mean, you couldn’t throw a rock in the vicinity of their borders and not hit an American soldier. On the other hand, and in the event that Tehran is actively trying to build a nuke (something that the IAEA says they aren’t), how would they attack you with it? Using a catapult? More importantly, what on Earth would they gain by doing so? I know that from where you stand they seem quite loony, but they are just as rational as you and me.
If you are worried that their increasing influence in the region might undermine the de facto US hegemony, in that case crushing the Sunnis in Iraq was the worst thing your government could have done.
Either way, I am appalled that seemingly sensible people can condone violence on a massive scale just because they are “worried” a country on the other side of the planet might . If any country on Earth is bombed and invaded tomorrow, adds are 1,000 to 1 that it’ll be an attack the US and not Iran.
[quote]lixy wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
I would be more worried about Iran gaining a nuke than Iraq and their fake weapons.
I’m pretty certain Iranian are about a hundred times more worried than you. I mean, you couldn’t throw a rock in the vicinity of their borders and not hit an American soldier. On the other hand, and in the event that Tehran is actively trying to build a nuke (something that the IAEA says they aren’t), …[/quote]
Bullshit. Every damn agency in the world reports that Iran’s actions go beyond civilian use and even if they are not in the middle of assembling a nuke they are building their capabilities of doing so. Why do you lie?
And all they have to do is ship a nuke to NYC and detonate it in the harbor.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
Uhh I could move to China but as soon as I type in www.cnn.com and see the protestors I would still get annoyed.
Don’t be silly…CNN’s IP is blocked by a firewall in China. You only get State news which is all happy news about the coming Olympics.[/quote]
Not really. Used to be the case 6 years ago. CNN is now accessible from China.
Dr. ElBaradei told reporters that the IAEA continued to be in a “stalemate” when it came to verification of Iran´s nuclear programme and that it was not in a position to resolve “outstanding issues of concerns”.
“We have been going through the verification process for the last four years and unless Iran is able to provide answers to the Agency about our concerns, then we will continue to be in a position where we have to reserve judgment about their programme,” the Director General said.
He called on Iran “to cooperate fully” with the Agency. “This would help a lot in diffusing the emerging crisis about Iran´s programme. It would enable a comprehensive solution that on the one hand guarantees Iran´s right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes but at the same time provides the international community with the confidence that is needed after many years of undeclared nuclear activities in Iran about its programme and future direction,” he said.
I have yet to see the IAEA say the Iranians are not trying to build a nuke. Even though this article is almost a year old the IAEA coninues to push Iran for cooperation and Iran continues to hide.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I have yet to see the IAEA say the Iranians are not trying to build a nuke. Even though this article is almost a year old the IAEA coninues to push Iran for cooperation and Iran continues to hide.
lixy = liar[/quote]
Get updated!
4 December 2007
[i]IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei received with great interest the new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate about Iran´s nuclear program which concludes that there has been no on-going nuclear weapons program in Iran since the fall of 2003.
He notes in particular that the Estimate tallies with the Agency´s consistent statements over the last few years that, although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities, the Agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran. [/i]
