Pissed Off About a Military Comment

Off Topic
41

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
I can’t honestly create a comment for this topic because I don’t know what to say. The comment is completely filled with stupidity, and that kind of ignorance will never be stopped; that kind of ignorance will be saved by the people being called “killing machines”.

Great statement

" . . . that kind of ignorance will be saved by the people being called ‘killing machines’".

I don’t give a flying fuck if you support our war in Iraq or not Will to Power, I support our men and women doing their duty.

politics create wars and leave it to the military to fight it out.

And what’s that mean, exactly, by saying you support the troops?

That mean you put one of those yellow ribbon things on your car and call it a day? (And I’m not talking about you, OG, you know I mean the more figurative, greater meaning of “everyone”)

I am so fucking sick of hearing that. What’s it mean? No one defines it, it just becomes this BS political catchphrase that every asshole utters as soon as his “patriotism” is called into question.

“Supporting the troops” means different things to different people. To some it means supporting the Iraq war. To others it means pulling the troops out immediately… to still others it means defending everything they do, such as killing puppies (and I mean fuckin christ, it doesn’t get more brutal than that). By meaning everything, it means nothing.

Thank your politicians…[/quote]

Good post.

It’s completely retarded to act as though anyone who disagrees with the war, or questions the motives behind it must have something against the troops.

42

I wonder what the rates of “puppy cliff throwing” are of those in the military compared to those of the non-military.

Something tells me either dead-even or more so among civilians.

43

[quote]NateOrade wrote:
I wonder what the rates of “puppy cliff throwing” are of those in the military compared to those of the non-military.

Something tells me either dead-even or more so among civilians.[/quote]

Good point.

44

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Yes, because I’m sure the extremists don’t want to control the world under their twisted interpretation of Islam.

At any rate, I guess I may have reacted a bit strongly, but I end to do that. I have several close friends serving in Afghanistan, and it pisses me off when people criticize the soldiers. They’re doing their jobs.[/quote]

This, is a most retarded argument.

First of all, Iraq was pretty much extremists-free up until 2003. Right after the invasion, Islamism grew by leaps and bounds causing much of the bloodshed.

Secondly, as far as I know, nobody here is criticizing the people fighting in Afghanistan. Those were (and still are) actually doing something worthy of praise. The Talibans were threatening our (i.e: Humans) security and freedom. So amalgamating the two conflicts makes zero sense from a logical perspective. I should mention in passing that one of the reasons I think foreign troops in Afghanistan are more behaved than their counterparts in Iraq is the proportion of kids lured in with $50k checks. That’s not to say there aren’t any decent military foreigners now in Iraq, but when you lower enrollment standards to feed an (unnecessary) war machine, you should expect puppy-throwing, kiddie-raping, women-shooting, innocent-torturing incidents. Hence, the overwhelming opposition to that war of aggression before it even began.

Last but not least, you should seriously reconsider your “they’re doing their jobs” attitude. For one thing, throwing puppies off cliffs was never a job description. Also, if you go down that route, you’ll end up rationalizing every other mass-scale horror the world has ever witnessed. For Heaven’s sake, the Afrikaans rounding up blacks like cattle “were doing their jobs”. The Nazis exterminating Jews “were doing their jobs”. The 9/11 crew that flew planes into buildings “were doing their jobs”. It’s a very misguided position that can’t stand much scrutiny.

Not saying the old lady’s comment was accurate or anything, but the number of fallacious arguments made on this thread to defend foreign troops’ actions in Iraq is staggering (see the people invoking Saddam’s invasion of Iran back when Iraq was at the peak of its military power, the ones equating what a civilian does on his own free time to what a soldier part of an invading force does on the American taxpayer’s dime, etc.)

Have the balls to admit that the invasion of Iraq was a momentous blunder that made us all more vulnerable by boosting Al-Qaeda and similar groups.

45

[quote]wirewound wrote:

I’m not in favor of romanticizing anyone. There are dumbasses in all walks of life, including (and sometimes especially) the military.[/quote]

oh hell ya there r dumbasses in the military
bein in it myself stationed in japan
ppl do stupid stuff and we have to sit on a million briefs on y not to do this and that
and we go on lockdown like everyone on base has a midnight curfew
even officers

46

the story hasn’t been substantiated yet. This could have all been a hoax.

47

[quote]will to power wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I’d like to tell that person to go shove their opinion where the sun don’t shine. These guys (for the most part) are decent people going out there to protect our freedom.

How exactly were Iraqis threatening your freedom?[/quote]

That’s exactly what I was wondering. You have to remember that the American government is extremly good at convincing it’s citizens of thing which are not true. Think of the average American that still talks about how America is “the land of the free” while they allowed something like the patriot act to be passed.

48

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
I can’t honestly create a comment for this topic because I don’t know what to say. The comment is completely filled with stupidity, and that kind of ignorance will never be stopped; that kind of ignorance will be saved by the people being called “killing machines”.

Great statement

" . . . that kind of ignorance will be saved by the people being called ‘killing machines’".

I don’t give a flying fuck if you support our war in Iraq or not Will to Power, I support our men and women doing their duty.

politics create wars and leave it to the military to fight it out.

And what’s that mean, exactly, by saying you support the troops?

That mean you put one of those yellow ribbon things on your car and call it a day? (And I’m not talking about you, OG, you know I mean the more figurative, greater meaning of “everyone”)

I am so fucking sick of hearing that. What’s it mean? No one defines it, it just becomes this BS political catchphrase that every asshole utters as soon as his “patriotism” is called into question.

“Supporting the troops” means different things to different people. To some it means supporting the Iraq war. To others it means pulling the troops out immediately… to still others it means defending everything they do, such as killing puppies (and I mean fuckin christ, it doesn’t get more brutal than that). By meaning everything, it means nothing.

Thank your politicians…[/quote]

I don’t care if you are fucking sick of hearing that O’Hooligan.

My dad is a marine, my brother is army and U.N., my uncle is navy and my grandfather is air force.

I send packages. I listen when they need to talk. I don’t judge them for doing their duty. They are wonderful men that I greatly respect each of them being wounded during their service to all of us.

Did they kill? Damn right they did.

I don’t come home and rain shit down on them about them being nothing but godless baby killers. I don’t whine and cavil about the injustice of the Iraq war and how we need to get out of Iraq.

Do you think those are the men and women making the decisions? If I am unhappy about the war I contact my local congressman/representative/city councilperson and tell them. I vote. I don’t vote to re-elect folks that don’t share my political views.

49

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
I can’t honestly create a comment for this topic because I don’t know what to say. The comment is completely filled with stupidity, and that kind of ignorance will never be stopped; that kind of ignorance will be saved by the people being called “killing machines”.

Great statement

" . . . that kind of ignorance will be saved by the people being called ‘killing machines’".

I don’t give a flying fuck if you support our war in Iraq or not Will to Power, I support our men and women doing their duty.

politics create wars and leave it to the military to fight it out.

And what’s that mean, exactly, by saying you support the troops?

That mean you put one of those yellow ribbon things on your car and call it a day? (And I’m not talking about you, OG, you know I mean the more figurative, greater meaning of “everyone”)

I am so fucking sick of hearing that. What’s it mean? No one defines it, it just becomes this BS political catchphrase that every asshole utters as soon as his “patriotism” is called into question.

“Supporting the troops” means different things to different people. To some it means supporting the Iraq war. To others it means pulling the troops out immediately… to still others it means defending everything they do, such as killing puppies (and I mean fuckin christ, it doesn’t get more brutal than that). By meaning everything, it means nothing.

Thank your politicians…

Good post.

It’s completely retarded to act as though anyone who disagrees with the war, or questions the motives behind it must have something against the troops.

[/quote]

and folks who keep using the phrase “retarded”… really come across that way, you booger eater

If you read my post I was saying don’t blame the troops for the war.

50

[quote]will to power wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
I don’t give a flying fuck if you support our war in Iraq or not Will to Power, I support our men and women doing their duty.

What does supporting the troops have to do with anything I said? What do you want, a cookie?[/quote]

Yah I want a cookie, of course that is what I meant.

you are the one that brought up the Iraq war and the reasons in a thread that is supposed to be about a comment relating to the actions of the troops.

So how does your statement about the reasons for the war related to the original post?

Politicians make the decision to go to war, not the troops.

51

Problem here is, I see too many sides…it’s like a bad 3-d movie.

  1. Support of the troops is NOT the same as support of the war the troops are in. I don’t want ANY American blown up or injured, but I don’t think that the whole Al Quaeda->WMD->Saddam->no WMDs->backing Al Quaeda theory should be retrofitted into the reason we’re there. North Korea has a dickhead in power that we haven’t ousted, so we can’t say that “since Saddam was a jerk to his people, that’s the reason we went and took him out”. It’s a game of RISK, folks…get’s us closer and embedded where we should be for the oil. Otherwise we would have done something in Africa, North Korea, South America, and all the OTHER places where BAD MEN are hurting their people.

  2. I know from personal experience of friends and family that a great many men and women in the armed forces did it to defend this country and serve it, wherever, whenever they were asked.
    But I also know quite a few that did it for the education, getting out of trouble, and for the sign on bonuses (and re-signing). They are the ones that have bit off more than they were bargaining for, getting sent over to a war.

  3. There will always be armchair quarterbacks in war and in life…and people can make all the ‘comments’ they want about things they have never expereienced and we should take their opinion as just that - opinion.

Just opening your mouth doesn’t make you an expert or even anyone we should or need to listen to.

But your status as a “freedom of speech”-given American lets you blab on all you want, and in a supreme twist of irony, that’s what these folks are protecting - our right to be ungrateful talking heads.

Irony sucks.

52

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
will to power wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
I don’t give a flying fuck if you support our war in Iraq or not Will to Power, I support our men and women doing their duty.

What does supporting the troops have to do with anything I said? What do you want, a cookie?

Yah I want a cookie, of course that is what I meant.

you are the one that brought up the Iraq war and the reasons in a thread that is supposed to be about a comment relating to the actions of the troops.

So how does your statement about the reasons for the war related to the original post?

Politicians make the decision to go to war, not the troops.
[/quote]

Someone failed at reading comprehension…

I didn’t reply to the OP. I replied to Mak. The OP referred to something that happened in Iraq, Mak said the troops were there to defend our freedom [thinking of Afghanistan], and I pointed out this was false.

53

What the hell does the military have to do with some guy chucking a dog down a cliff? Kids in my neighborhood string cats up on trees, and they’re like ten years old.

shrug

54

[quote]will to power wrote:
…

He wasn’t trying to expand his borders when Iraq was invaded. His army had been destroyed by the wars you mentioned as well as sanctions and bombing campaigns over the 90’s.

Freedom, security, whatever, how were Iraqi’s threatening you exactly?[/quote]

By this logic we should not have invaded Germany. Just stopped at the border. Their armies were shattered and they were no longer a threat.

55

[quote]will to power wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Yes, because I’m sure the extremists don’t want to control the world under their twisted interpretation of Islam.

What does that have to do with Iraq? Saddam was a secular tyrant, and wasn’t trying to expand his borders…[/quote]

Stop right there. For a man that claims he has hated Saddam longer than anyone else has heard of him how can you possibly say such a thing?

The man invaded Iran and Kuwait. The man fired on our airplanes every day. The man did not abide by the terms of the peace treaty.

56

[quote]will to power wrote:

Someone failed at reading comprehension…

I didn’t reply to the OP. I replied to Mak. The OP referred to something that happened in Iraq, Mak said the troops were there to defend our freedom [thinking of Afghanistan], and I pointed out this was false. [/quote]

DOn’t understand this logic. They are defending our freedom in Afghanisatn and not Iraq? How?

Aren’t we fighting Islamic terrorists in both places? Isn’t a free Iraq more dangerous to the bad guys than a free Afghanistan? The bad guys sure think so and that is why they fought so hard in Iraq.

If anything we should pull out of Afghanistan and focus on Iraq. Once an oil rich democracy is flourishing there perhaps we can change Saudi Arabia which is a root of the problem.

57

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Yes, because I’m sure the extremists don’t want to control the world under their twisted interpretation of Islam.

What does that have to do with Iraq? Saddam was a secular tyrant, and wasn’t trying to expand his borders…

Stop right there. For a man that claims he has hated Saddam longer than anyone else has heard of him how can you possibly say such a thing?

The man invaded Iran and Kuwait. The man fired on our airplanes every day. The man did not abide by the terms of the peace treaty. [/quote]

He was not trying to expand his borders at the time, and his army had been well and truly crushed beyond a hope of doing so. I was replying to that specific comment, the idea that invading Iraq was related to religious extremists wanting to conquer the world.

The only point I’m making here is that Iraq was not invaded to protect anyone’s freedoms.

Oh and I’m sure some people heard of Saddam longer than I’ve hated him.

58

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:

Someone failed at reading comprehension…

I didn’t reply to the OP. I replied to Mak. The OP referred to something that happened in Iraq, Mak said the troops were there to defend our freedom [thinking of Afghanistan], and I pointed out this was false.

DOn’t understand this logic. They are defending our freedom in Afghanisatn and not Iraq? How?

Aren’t we fighting Islamic terrorists in both places? Isn’t a free Iraq more dangerous to the bad guys than a free Afghanistan? The bad guys sure think so and that is why they fought so hard in Iraq.

If anything we should pull out of Afghanistan and focus on Iraq. Once an oil rich democracy is flourishing there perhaps we can change Saudi Arabia which is a root of the problem. [/quote]

Afghanistan was harbouring, funding etc Osama and the others who attacked you. Who attacked you from Iraq on your soil?

59

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
I can’t honestly create a comment for this topic because I don’t know what to say. The comment is completely filled with stupidity, and that kind of ignorance will never be stopped; that kind of ignorance will be saved by the people being called “killing machines”.

Great statement

" . . . that kind of ignorance will be saved by the people being called ‘killing machines’".

I don’t give a flying fuck if you support our war in Iraq or not Will to Power, I support our men and women doing their duty.

politics create wars and leave it to the military to fight it out.

And what’s that mean, exactly, by saying you support the troops?

That mean you put one of those yellow ribbon things on your car and call it a day? (And I’m not talking about you, OG, you know I mean the more figurative, greater meaning of “everyone”)

I am so fucking sick of hearing that. What’s it mean? No one defines it, it just becomes this BS political catchphrase that every asshole utters as soon as his “patriotism” is called into question.

“Supporting the troops” means different things to different people. To some it means supporting the Iraq war. To others it means pulling the troops out immediately… to still others it means defending everything they do, such as killing puppies (and I mean fuckin christ, it doesn’t get more brutal than that). By meaning everything, it means nothing.

Thank your politicians…

Good post.

It’s completely retarded to act as though anyone who disagrees with the war, or questions the motives behind it must have something against the troops.

and folks who keep using the phrase “retarded”… really come across that way, you booger eater

If you read my post I was saying don’t blame the troops for the war.

[/quote]

Who in this thread was even saying that? Quote what was specifically said that you interpreted as blaming the troops for the war.

Also, I apologize for using the word retarded. My bad.

60

[quote]will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:

Someone failed at reading comprehension…

I didn’t reply to the OP. I replied to Mak. The OP referred to something that happened in Iraq, Mak said the troops were there to defend our freedom [thinking of Afghanistan], and I pointed out this was false.

DOn’t understand this logic. They are defending our freedom in Afghanisatn and not Iraq? How?

Aren’t we fighting Islamic terrorists in both places? Isn’t a free Iraq more dangerous to the bad guys than a free Afghanistan? The bad guys sure think so and that is why they fought so hard in Iraq.

If anything we should pull out of Afghanistan and focus on Iraq. Once an oil rich democracy is flourishing there perhaps we can change Saudi Arabia which is a root of the problem.

Afghanistan was harbouring, funding etc Osama and the others who attacked you. Who attacked you from Iraq on your soil?[/quote]

Afghanistan was only hiding OBL. Once we chased him out we should have left. Isn’t that what you are saying about Saddam?