I hope you all die you child murdering criminals.

Uhm Dresden? (ie why should WW2 vets be excluded??!)

Because killing children in the 40' was perfectly normal.

wait...

/fail

perhaps you just can't understand what the army does for people.
Also nowhere in the US military handbook does it say you can kill children UNLESS THEY SHOOT AT YOU FIRST OR POSE A SIMILAR THREAT (the killing of INNOCENT civilians is illegal everywhere).
Another thing, if they did kill little twelve year old kidiots, they might just start with you tools.

what KOB said.

You have respect for people who drop nuclear bombs on civilians? Or any bombs? Plus, WW2 suck doubletime because they prevented the murder of more jews :mad:

But they were ignorant I guess. As long as they can look at this shithole today, and admit they were wrong, I dont have anything against them. My great grandfather should have been killing jews and niggers instead of white people (who were on our side) along with Japan and Italy.

As for anything else, they do what they do for the same reasons everyone does things. Money. Any white man who is stupid enough to go to the middle east and fight deserves whatever he gets.

Dude if you have a problem with the military don't take it out on the soldiers that serve in it. Besides if any babies are killed it's because they are very bad terrorist babies that had it comng anyways.

I hope you all die you child murdering criminals.

You should change your sn to JEW. You dirty Jew.

It's not like World War II veterans didn't kill babies as well.

http://www.lifenets.net/darfur/pics/holocaust_kids.jpg

EXCELLENT!

Who knew that as soon as you want to do something good for your country you get your own baby killing badge?!!?!

Uhm Dresden? (ie why should WW2 vets be excluded??!)

Uhm Coventry (i.e. we could play this game for hours)?

The point is that military inaction would have resulted in a Nazi Europe, that combined with the illegality of Germany's invasion of Poland, and I can forgive non-Axis veterans for their individual acts of unpleasantness.

Uhm Coventry (i.e. we could play this game for hours)?

The point is that military inaction would have resulted in a Nazi Europe, that combined with the illegality of Germany's invasion of Poland, and I can forgive non-Axis veterans for their individual acts of unpleasantness.

As bad as the two Coventry bombings were, maximum death toll was (high estimate) 2K?

Also Coventry was more or less a righteous target as these things go. Like Hamburg or any of the other major German cities. Bad but not unusual.

Dresden was a purposeful act of mass murder of 40,000 civilians.

SERVE YOUR COUNTRY PROUD!!












in it's quest to rape the middle east for all of it's oil.
http://www.sfbappa.org/SF33.images/General%20News/images/AE%202mes1%20copy.jpg
*salutes*

SERVE YOUR COUNTRY PROUD!!












in it's quest to rape the middle east for all of it's oil.
http://www.sfbappa.org/SF33.images/General%20News/images/AE%202mes1%20copy.jpg
*salutes*

OORAH!!

EXCELLENT!

Who knew that as soon as you want to do something good for your country you get your own baby killing badge?!!?!

What the fuck are you talking about? How is serving in Iraq doing good for your country?

That war has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, it has furtherly spread fear and resentement among the Muslim public opinion and helped turning a secular state such as Iraq into yet another cradle of religious fanatism.

Military presence in Iraq is bad for long-term security, it creates instability in the region and fuels more hatred towards the US and its allies.

It just serves the interests of contractors and oil companies, they should start calling Bush the Contractor in Chief, not the Commander.

Saddam was a ruthless dictator, no doubts about that, but you don't save a country by killing scores of its people, although Saddam killed people by the thousands, the US-led invasion has caused more suffering than he ever did.

in it's quest to rape the middle east for all of it's oil.
http://www.sfbappa.org/SF33.images/General%20News/images/AE%202mes1%20copy.jpg
*salutes*

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Football/Pix/gallery/2004/05/26/timzaccheo.jpg

Sloth salutes his brother-in-arms!

As bad as the two Coventry bombings were, maximum death toll was (high estimate) 2K?

Also Coventry was more or less a righteous target as these things go. Like Hamburg or any of the other major German cities. Bad but not unusual.

Dresden was a purposeful act of mass murder of 40,000 civilians.

Dresden was a valid target though the force used was almost certainly disproportionate, relative to the desired outcome. However if you're going to play the 'mass murder' card whilst attempting to defend the actions of the Third Reich... unless of course you're blindly pro-Nazi, in which case there's little point arguing the matter.

What the fuck are you talking about? How is serving in Iraq doing good for your country?

That war has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, it has furtherly spread fear and resentement among the Muslim public opinion and helped turning a secular state such as Iraq into yet another cradle of religious fanatism.

Military presence in Iraq is bad for long-term security, it creates instability in the region and fuels more hatred towards the US and its allies.

It just serves the interests of contractors and oil companies, they should start calling Bush the Contractor in Chief, not the Commander.

Saddam was a ruthless dictator, no doubts about that, but you don't save a country by killing scores of its people, although Saddam killed people by the thousands, the US-led invasion has caused more suffering than he ever did.




Okay, okay, thankyou for that.I really didnt know any of that so that long tangent was utterly usefull to me.

And any of that deffinately changes the fact that the poor bastards out there right now arent doing what they perceive to be good.

And any of that deffinately changes the fact that the poor bastards out there right now arent doing what they perceive to be good.

They perceive to be good? If they think what they're doing is good it's either because they were mislead by their superiors/politicians and believe all of that propaganda crap or because they really just enjoy messing with people's lives, either way I have no respect for them.

listen, if any major or minor power staged a direct assault on the country it would be the military who would save your candy ass from becoming slaves, or another victim of genocide.

listen, if any major or minor power staged a direct assault on the country it would be the military who would save your candy ass from becoming slaves, or another victim of genocide.

Which country? Are you talking about the US? If that's the case, I'll go ahead and agree and add unorganized militia and 70 million gun owners to the list of defenders as well.

Which country? Are you talking about the US? If that's the case, I'll go ahead and agree and add unorganized militia and 70 million gun owners to the list of defenders as well.

Are you serious?

You think if anyone was posed to make a land invasion of the US the war wouldn't go nuclear?

Are you serious?

You think if anyone was posed to make a land invasion of the US the war wouldn't go nuclear?

Are you honestly that doltish?

A Russian general even stated in the during the cold war that a land invasion of the US wouldn't be effective largely in part due to a hostile population possessing weaponry. This is the very reason the second amendment exists. Nuclear arms are basically reserved for retaliatory strikes or perhaps a last-ditch defense. An attempted invasion of U.S. soil is far from last-ditch.

Are you honestly that doltish?

A Russian general even stated in the during the cold war that a land invasion of the US wouldn't be effective largely in part due to a hostile population possessing weaponry. This is the very reason the second amendment exists. Nuclear arms are basically reserved for retaliatory strikes or perhaps a last-ditch defense. An attempted invasion of U.S. soil is far from last-ditch.

Hah, if I had to do the invasion I'd just drop enough biological weapons on the US to take out Canada and Mexico as well. Not that there would ever be a land invasion, are you seriously that retarded that you think the US might get invaded? What would any country have to gain by that?

It would be good for you tho, maybe a bloody war on your own soil would make you warmongers more hesitant to bring death to the homes of others.

Hah, if I had to do the invasion I'd just drop enough biological weapons on the US to take out Canada and Mexico as well. Not that there would ever be a land invasion, are you seriously that retarded that you think the US might get invaded? What would any country have to gain by that?

It would be good for you tho, maybe a bloody war on your own soil would make you warmongers more hesitant to bring death to the homes of others.

You'd use mass biological weapons, thus rendering the land useless. Congratulations.

And no, I don't think the US will ever be in danger of an invasion. If you didn't catch the hint, it was a hypothetical situation.

Bloody wars, eh? You mean like the American Revolution and the US civil war? Yeah. I guess those were, you know... fought someplace else.

You'd use mass biological weapons, thus rendering the land useless. Congratulations.

The only people who want a war with the States aren't exactly interested in capturing the land are they.

Bloody wars, eh? You mean like the American Revolution and the US civil war? Yeah. I guess those were, you know... fought someplace else.

Not fresh enough in your memories apparently.

The only people who want a war with the States aren't exactly interested in capturing the land are they.

China isn't interested in land?

China isn't interested in land?

And exactly how the fuck are they going to come over here? They producing a new line of land speeders that also turn into boats ala Get Smart?

China isn't interested in land?

See, you do consider the invasion of the States viable.

You honestly think that China is interested in war with the States? You supply them with way too much money.

A Russian general even stated in the during the cold war that a land invasion of the US wouldn't be effective largely in part due to a hostile population possessing weaponry. This is the very reason the second amendment exists.

Which Russian general, when, where, is there a direct quote, or do we blindly assume you haven't taken his words entirely out of context?

Are you honestly that doltish?

Nuclear arms are basically reserved for retaliatory strikes or perhaps a last-ditch defense. An attempted invasion of U.S. soil is far from last-ditch.

Forgive me, I stand corrected.

I'll just go back to reading my doltish history books. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) :rolleyes:

The Chinese are business-oriented people, they don't take unecessary risks, they do need land, that is true, but they're way too busy colonizing Africa to bother with the States.

There's like 700,000 Chinese workers in Angola alone, Chinese companies are making killer money in that area, they build infrastructure like dams, highways and stadiums and in exchange the local governments give them privileged access to natural resources.

I was reading an article last year about the Chinese Exodus towards Africa, the Chinese Minister of Agriculture said that they are actively encouraging landless farmers to relocate to sub-Saharian Africa.

See, you do consider the invasion of the States viable.

You honestly think that China is interested in war with the States? You supply them with way too much money.

I consider China invading *other* countries to be feasible. (*cough*Taiwan*cough*) I know China has the only navy even somewhat capable of attempting such an invasion against the U.S. Japan tried it in in WWII and were actually somewhat successful in Alaska.

As far as the Russian general's remarks are concerned, I can't find it again via Google, but I know I read it. It was an outside observation in reference to U.S. military plans drafted up between WWI and WWII to invade Canada if for some reason trade and allied relations with England were to break down and England invaded U.S. commonwealth.

Forgive me, I stand corrected.

I'll just go back to reading my doltish history books. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) :rolleyes:

What the hell sort of continuity claim is there for present day nuclear arms in comparison to the end-result of the Manhattan project? There is a completely different political climate in the case of nuclear weapons which is WHY I made my argument.

This is a completely pointless debate.

What the hell sort of continuity claim is there for present day nuclear arms in comparison to the end-result of the Manhattan project? There is a completely different political climate in the case of nuclear weapons which is WHY I made my argument.

This is a completely pointless debate.

The reason you are trying to portray this debate as being "pointless" is because it's going so badly for you. And after these words above, it just got exponentially worse.

Trueborn, someone needs to cut off your Koolaid.....cuz at this point you are intoxicated with delusion and arrogance. The fact you even imply America has somehow "evolved" from all of that completely trivializes it. As if we are saying to the rest of the world..."oops, our bad" makes it all go away, like you just bumped into someone on the street or something.

What's really amazing is how you are discussing a "completely different political climate"....as if a scant 60 years after WWII is a long time when we are talking about HISTORY. Sorry, but compared to much of the world that has been around a lot longer then our 200+.....those 60 years are just a blink of an eye, rather than a huge part of it like for us.

See True, you are starting to expose some characteristics with what so much of the world detests about Americans. Such short sightedness with the "me, me, me" arrogance.......as if dropping nuclear bombs on innocents purposely is just something we can walk away from and be absolutely unblemished less than a century later. You even HINTING at saying...."but we would never do that today" is ridiculous and naive. Again, we ain't the hero riding in on the white horse like many Americans believe we are. At least not in the rest of the world's eyes.

And here you are wanting to more or less say...."Meh, that was then this is now.".....with such nonchalance.

This is not pointless at all Trueborn...as a matter of fact we might have hit on the biggest point of all........

War is fucking war people. You have to do horrible things in war to keep yourself and your buddies alive. Afterwards they have the same feelings about it as you do. Why do see many soldiers come back with PTSD. But that's what it's really about: soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, they fight for their comrades next to them. In combat, all that matters is your life and the life of your brothers. That's how combat has been for thousands of years.

Sure, most soldiers (well except for the soldiers in this war & Vietnam) have a cause to fight for. Most of us hate the way Bush is sending us to war on false pretences (Don't listen to Faux News' affirmations that all our military is supporting the war, this is complete bullshit). We also hate how he has spread our ranks too thin, leaving us open for attack for more powerful nations (i.e. China, and the growing SCO*). On hole, most of us feel betrayed. But its not something we speak about to other people very often.

However, while we despise Bush and his illegal war, his foreign policies & his horrible military strategy, we must go where we are told to go, whether we like it or not. Military personnel don't pick and choose which wars to take part in. Bush is ruining the Armed Forces, but guess what, he's out off office in less than a year. I'm not saying the Iraq War will be over when he leaves, but that we can then start withdrawing and redeployment to more dangerous areas (i.e. The Taiwan Straight, the Sea of Japan, and the Korean peninsula, while trying to keep Tabs on the SCO.)

Presidents come and go, Congressmen come and go, but the US Military stays the same. Our responsibility is, first & foremost to protect America, not the government (People often don't know this fact. Our purpose is to defend America & American Citizens, then we are charged to protect the Government, (That’s why our Founders set it up like this).

We, however, are subordinate to the Commander in Chief of the military, who is also the President, it sucks that our CiC is Bush, but like I said, he's leaving office soon. I don't know if you understand what I'm saying or if I'm explaining properly for you too understand, I'm not a long-time veteran, and I still have mush to learn. (BTW, I'm an IS in the Navy, it a Job Code, and military people will know what I'm talking about, and why I'll only use the abbreviation of what I do)

But anyway, I'm straying off-topic

Yes it's very easy to stand on a soapbox and denounce the War, the military, etc. But what are you doing to change things? If you just bitch and moan about things, you'll go nowhere, if you try the political route (tried), best of luck.

One of the primary reasons I enlisted in the Navy, is so after my time expires, my IS job rating will allow me to work for the CIA, DoD, State Department, etc. That's my plan for trying to change things. It may not work out, but I'm going to give it a shot, because just complaining about it, being forced to vote for 2 or three, all horrible candidates, for our next President.

Yes, it may seem corny to you, but that's what I'm choosing to do, and I have no regrets.

* S.C.O.- The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which includes China, Russia, Pakistan, the Central Asian nations, as well as Iran, Belarus, & North Korea to join soon. They want it to become a powerful alliance to rival NATO

However, while we despise Bush and his illegal war, his foreign policies & his horrible military strategy, we must go where we are told to go, whether we like it or not. Military personnel don't pick and choose which wars to take part in.

Ja, you are just obeying orders.

Wasn't an excuse then and it ain't now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HajJAkQj_HU

It would be good for you tho, maybe a bloody war on your own soil would make you warmongers more hesitant to bring death to the homes of others.

See, I like this. something like 90% of the country is against the war, but we're war mongers, that's good stuff right there. Now you be quiet fruity.

As for all the other anti-military folks, did you ever stop to think that we actually didn't join for the chance to murder us up some babies? Can't speak for anyone else, but I joined for a paycheck and free training with bonus job exp. Maybe a little bit of exercise and a swell hat, too, but that's neither here nor there.

As for all the other anti-military folks, did you ever stop to think that we actually didn't join for the chance to murder us up some babies? Can't speak for anyone else, but I joined for a paycheck and free training with bonus job exp. Maybe a little bit of exercise and a swell hat, too, but that's neither here nor there.

Maybe you didn't purposely join to kill little babies, your obvious concerns here are the "paycheck, free training, bonus job exp." Plus you'll get the chance to tone up your abs and wear a fancy hat.

Surely that's gotta be worth the risk of killing a coupla' little brown kids, right?

Maybe you didn't purposely join to kill little babies, your obvious concerns here are the "paycheck, free training, bonus job exp." Plus you'll get the chance to tone up your abs and wear a fancy hat.

Surely that's gotta be worth the risk of killing a coupla' little brown kids, right?

Actually, I'm going to be a seabee, so just repair the vehicles that build the bases and get the troops from baby A to baby B.

Don't plan on killing anyone, if I can help it, and being in the Navy, surrounded by the Naval Infantry *cough* Marines*cough*, I should be able to do my two years w/o dirtying my boots with the brain matter of innocent children.

Do I support the war? Not really any more than I support Bush, which isn't a whole hell of a lot. And by whole hell of a lot, I mean at all. But c'mon, the days of spitting on soldiers and screaming baby killer went to way of tye dye and (thankfully) greatful dead concerts. I don't know how many Marines and Soldiers you've seen, but I don't want those man tanks to snap and go on a PTSD induced killing spree, so let's be civil.

I hope you all die you child murdering criminals.

Hey look! Its payday! Thanks for giving me a portion of your hard earned money! :D;):cool:

Hey look! Its payday! Thanks for giving me a portion of your hard earned money! :D;):cool:

Ha! I almost forgot. /me goes to the bank.

As an avid student of military history, I would think that the general populace needs to accept two facts:

A) War is a necessary part of the historic and evolutionary cycle, however unpleasant it may be. There will always be strife in some form. After all, "War is just the continuation of Politics through other means". And vice- versa.

B) In war, people die, as in any evolutionary strife, there are always casualties. Crude, yes. Lamentable, certainly. But an inescapable reality. It is totally inevitable.

During the Napoleonic Wars, for example, battle casualties for each side usually numbered in the tens of thousands, and it was an accepted fact. But the vast majority of them were military casualties.
The problem with modern warfare is that the lines between the combatants and innocent civilians are greatly blurred with the onset of Total War. Therefore, it follows that civilian casualties are a necessity.
I will wrap up by adding that I am in no manner a proponent or supporter of war, preferring always the diplomatic solution to problems and peace through deterrence, "si vis pacem para bellum", if you will. But that does not mean that I would close my eyes to reality or deny that war is a totally valid means to a sufficiently justified end when diplomacy becomes ineffective.
Thank you,
LavaRed

But that does not mean that I would close my eyes to reality or deny that war is a totally valid means to a sufficiently justified end when diplomacy becomes ineffective.
Thank you,
LavaRed

Diplomacy becomes ineffective? Like when those bastard Arabs wont had over them nukes that we're CERTAIN they have? Sounds good enough to me, BOMB BAGHDAD!

"si vis pacem para bellum",

---------------- Now playing: 2 Many DJ's - As Heard On Radio Soulwax - Part 5 (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/2+many+djs/track/as+heard+on+radio+soulwax+-+part+5)

Nice.

I hope you all die you child murdering criminals.

You do realise that the military in WWII killed a fuckton of civilians, often on purpose.

Wait no you don't, because if you did you would have at least a small amount of common sense.