This will make you proud(story about a marine in iraq) [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : This will make you proud(story about a marine in iraq)

scooter_the_shooter

08-08-2005, 17:27

http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/THISWILLMAKEYOUPROUD.HTML

I thought you all might like to read this.

lars573

08-08-2005, 17:41

That was some nice amatuer propaganda. Flag waving bullshit all of it.

scooter_the_shooter

08-08-2005, 17:43

How is it propoganda. I think the media not even reporting it is propoganda.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

08-08-2005, 17:52

well it does make a nice change from hearing one of two things about the military that we always get to hear:
1. they are mean and bad and evil and stupid.
2. loads and loads of them are dead so they must be ordered to run away.

lars573

08-08-2005, 17:56

How is it propoganda. I think the media not even reporting it is propoganda.
Simple it's pro-war and hence it's propaganda. It's mean't to make you root for the troops in Iraq. And by exrtention the war, which is one civilian massacre away from being a dirty war IMO. Stuff like that article makes me gag. It's not warrented, Iraq was a misstep for the US. Glorfiying any actions there is not a good thing. There fore it's propaganda.

scooter_the_shooter

08-08-2005, 17:59

Thats like saying "its pro abortion so its propaganda because I think abortion is wrong.

What are you a communist, Do you not even consider what the other side has to say

Don Corleone

08-08-2005, 18:09

Caesar, Lars has made it patently clear on numerous occassions, that no, he does not care what anyone who disagrees with him has to say. Don't waste your breath.

Edit:
Having read the site, I would hardly call it objective and unbiased. But the site is correct, you do not hear about the positive things our troops are doing over there... like creating water supplies & power grids. Just the negative. Our media is definitely on the insurgents' side.

scooter_the_shooter

08-08-2005, 18:13

Oh so there is no point in trying to make him look at the other side of things :embarassed:

Kagemusha

08-08-2005, 18:26

What can i say.Exellent soldier. :bow:

lars573

08-08-2005, 18:46

Caesar, Lars has made it patently clear on numerous occassions, that no, he does not care what anyone who disagrees with him has to say. Don't waste your breath.
Finally a person with sense. ~;)

Edit:
Having read the site, I would hardly call it objective and unbiased. But the site is correct, you do not hear about the positive things our troops are doing over there... like creating water supplies & power grids. Just the negative. Our media is definitely on the insurgents' side.
I wouldn't go that far. It defiantly has the bias, war in Iraq=bad idea at best. And so they try and drum up support for leaving now.

Oh so there is no point in trying to make him look at the other side of things
I already do and that article is progandist flag waving bullshit. I hate that kind of stuff, from any country.

scooter_the_shooter

08-08-2005, 18:51

It is an article about what a soldier really did how is that "BS" It recounts what he did and how he did it. I know the site is biased but it does have some good points.

( That page was sent to me in an email I barely saw the rest of the site) But the page does not seem like propoganda anymore the farenheit 911

scooter_the_shooter

08-08-2005, 19:01

I know that but I have heard lefties here say that "documentery" is unbiased

Redleg

08-08-2005, 19:03

So I guess this is propaganda.

The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress, March 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of Congress the Medal of Honor to

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith
United States Army

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division “Rock of the Marne,” and the United States Army.

[sarcasim on] More propaganda can be found at this site. [sarcasim off]

http://www.cmohs.org/

So honoring brave men who fight in combat is propaganda - LOL then its the oldest form of propaganda know in the world.

lars573

08-08-2005, 19:07

Really, because Micheal Moore is all about the propaganda. Anyone who says differently is a moron. I didn't even see farenheit 911, I would have been urged to burn the screen. Just the adds for it set my proganda bullshit-o-meter to 9, as did that site. The story of the soldier isn't the bullshit. The fact that they are using his story in a propaganda campaing is however.

scooter_the_shooter

08-08-2005, 19:08

You are right redleg I should have picked a diferent word then propoganda.

Don Corleone

08-08-2005, 19:09

Redleg

08-08-2005, 19:14

I don't have any problem at all with honoring our citizens, but I would argue the website Ceasar linked to spent more time & gave more prominence to bashing the network news (who I agree deserve it) then actually praising Captain Chontosh.

Sure it bashed the network news - that is why several stated that it was ppropaganda. There is several ways that the story could of been stated without going into attempts to demonize the network news - just like several times in this thread things could of been said different verus demonizing someone who doesn't agree with you.

Don Corleone

08-08-2005, 19:17

I'm not trying to demonize anybody. Boy, I'm going to have to start reading my posts way more carefully, first Gawain and now you... ~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused:

Redleg

08-08-2005, 19:28

I'm not trying to demonize anybody. Boy, I'm going to have to start reading my posts way more carefully, first Gawain and now you... ~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused:

Wasn't talking about you - so yes you might want to read a little more carefully .. ~D

Here is an examble of one Anyone wh says differently is a moron

Or my favorite

That was some nice amatuer propaganda. Flag waving bullshit all of it.

First part of the sentence is correct and in context of the discussion. Second sentence is nothing but demonizing something he did not agree with.

Steppe Merc

08-08-2005, 19:31

The odd fact about the American media in this war is that it's not covering the American military. The most plugged-in nation in the world is receiving virtually no true information about what its warriors are doing.
I agree with this statement. We have been told nothing about how many innocents the American soldiers have killed, so that part of the website is true enough.

Redleg

08-08-2005, 19:32

I agree with this statement. We have been told nothing about how many innocents the American soldiers have killed, so that part of the website is true enough.

That is what makes for effective propaganda - just a bit of truth in it.

sharrukin

08-08-2005, 19:33

Honoring the soldiers is fine. Doing it in a way that belittles those opposed to the war, while glorifying those who support is not.

There is a difference between having something against the soldiers, and having something against the war. When you blur that distinction, you lose the priivilidge of calling yourself Unbias or Objective.

Doesn't that also apply to the news media as well?

If they let their opposition to the war get in the way of reporting the truth, then do not they also, lose the Privilege to call themselves unbiased and objective?

And for them doesn't it matter a lot more?

PanzerJaeger

08-08-2005, 20:22

When he was done Brian Chontosh had cleared 200 yards of entrenched Iraqis from his platoon's flank. He had killed more than 20 and wounded at least as many more.

Haha what crappy soldiers. No wonder they have to use wimpy tactics. It doesnt take a marine-corps level of training for 20 guys to shoot one guy with a pistol.

Some people just hate America Ceasar, dont worry about it. Good story, although the web designer needs to take a class. ~D

Don Corleone

08-08-2005, 20:26

Wasn't talking about you - so yes you might want to read a little more carefully .. ~D

Here is an examble of one Anyone wh says differently is a moron

Or my favorite

That was some nice amatuer propaganda. Flag waving bullshit all of it.

First part of the sentence is correct and in context of the discussion. Second sentence is nothing but demonizing something he did not agree with.

Aaah! I understand. However, if you're going to make a statement like that, please do not include it in the paragraph immediately following where you're quoting me.

You could have responded to my quote, then started a new paragraph so I knew you were moving on to a new thought.

rasoforos

08-08-2005, 20:27

Redleg

08-08-2005, 20:30

Oh look another prime examble of demonization of a group that you don't agree with.

And it started with the very first line

mercenary goes to Iraq..

Don Corleone

08-08-2005, 20:30

...mercenary goes to Iraq....

:thinking2:
Talk about propaganda...

Don't ever change man. You and Idaho need to become speech writers for Dick Durbin and Patrick Leahy. ~D

Just out of curiosity, is it your position that anybody who gets paid to be a soldier is a mercenary? You think you should just draft soldiers and screw paying them?

Strike For The South

08-08-2005, 20:41

Kagemusha

08-08-2005, 20:42

I dont think that the soldier acted heroic because he killed those Iraq soldiers.But because he saved his platoon.He choosed to put his own life at jeopardy to save the men under his command.That shows courage and leadership in his character.You cant criticize a soldier because he kills in battle.Its his job.About the rest of the article.I just ignored it. :bow:

rasoforos

08-08-2005, 20:45

:thinking2:
Talk about propaganda...

Don't ever change man. You and Idaho need to become speech writers for Dick Durbin and Patrick Leahy. ~D

Just out of curiosity, is it your position that anybody who gets paid to be a soldier is a mercenary? You think you should just draft soldiers and screw paying them?

One who gets paid to fight, not to protect his country, but to attack another country for economic reasons is a mercenary. I understand providing compensation for people who are assigned to defend a country. However, when people are assigned to occupy countries so a bunch of politicians get elected and a bunch of multinationals get rich , and they do so because they dont wanna lose their job, then they are nothing but mercenaries.

To try to give them any more credit than that is to try to give credit to the Al Qaeda terrorists ( as the pro-war people on the other side do and have made them 'heroes' as well). Its sickening on both sides to call such people heroes or even soldiers

Of course I cannot change your mind, and I cannot change theirs. I respect your oppinion and I hope you respect mine. :bow:

Don Corleone

08-08-2005, 20:50

Well, I repsect you Rasafaros, which will have to do in this case. :bow:

rasoforos

08-08-2005, 20:51

So Im led to believe you wouldve much rather have the marines be blown to bits instead of fighting valiantly like this one did...Talk about blind hate

I would have the marines ready to defend their country if it is in danger. And I would have them to give their life to do so. No matter how bravely one fights, if the reasons are unjust, he loses his right.

In other words I would have the marines at home and ready to defend, than 10.000 miles away. This way noone gets blown to bits...

Dont put words in my mouth. I cant understand how I can blindly hate, and how I would want the marines dead, when I say that the marines shouldnt be there in the first place...

What kind of twisted logic combines pacifist with the desire to see people dead?

sharrukin

08-08-2005, 20:55

Rasoforos

Bush is a long way from being my favorite guy, but any criticism you have for him or the way he presented the war, his diplomacy (or lack thereof), his honesty, character, or American foreign policy in general do not fall on the shoulders of some grunt in the army. Not in any rational world at least.

He is a soldier, and soldiers carry out orders. They are not gentlemen philosophers who ponder long and hard on the best course of action, nor do they spend their time perfecting arguments so they can disarm the enemy with a few well chosen words. They are there to break the will of the enemy, and they use carefully applied violence to do so. How weak or strong the enemy is has no bearing on the subject because fairness has no place in war.

They (western soldiers, not Iraqi's) are required to act with honour and decency. Usually they do, sometimes they don't. They are not terrorist, mercenaries, Rambo, or anything of the sort. What he did was courageous, even if you think the war is an idiotic endeavor, which I do. That does not change what he did, any more than the nature of the murderous Iraqi regime (and no the Iraqi and US governments are not moral equivalents) , would change the courageous conduct of an Iraqi soldier. He is a Hero. Perhaps, in your opinion, a Hero in a misguided cause, but a Hero nevertheless.

Redleg

08-08-2005, 22:10

One who gets paid to fight, not to protect his country, but to attack another country for economic reasons is a mercenary. I understand providing compensation for people who are assigned to defend a country. However, when people are assigned to occupy countries so a bunch of politicians get elected and a bunch of multinationals get rich , and they do so because they dont wanna lose their job, then they are nothing but mercenaries.

That does not make the individuals who enlist in the United States Military Mercenaries. Your defination is wrong. A mercenary is something entirely different then what any soldier in any country's military is.

To try to give them any more credit than that is to try to give credit to the Al Qaeda terrorists ( as the pro-war people on the other side do and have made them 'heroes' as well). Its sickening on both sides to call such people heroes or even soldiers

Your entitled to your opinion. But at least call soldiers what they are - not some hate filled ideological views that is nothing other then an attempt to demonize others because you don't agree with their actions or in this case the politics behind the reasons for those servicemen being in harms way.

Of course I cannot change your mind, and I cannot change theirs. I respect your oppinion and I hope you respect mine. :bow:

I only respect your opinion that does not demonize soldiers who are doing exactly what their country has asked of them. Call the politics behind the situation anything you want - but mercenaries are not what these soldier, marines, seaman, and airman are - and I suspect you know that. But because you disagree with the politics of the war - you desire to demonize the servicemen that must fullfil their obligations to their country.

Next thing you will be calling them something else.

Edit: Hell Rasoforos by this logic - those serving on Peacekeeping missions across the globe are nothing but mercs - since its not their nation they are defending or preventing unrest in.

Steppe Merc

08-08-2005, 22:18

Marines and other army regulars aren't mercanaries. Mercanaries aren't people who fight for one country, the one that they are born in. Mercanaries are often pre constructed groups of soldiers who often fight in places where they aren't from for countries that they aren't from (though ocassinally there are native mercs through out history).
If Marines were mercanaries, then they wouldn't retire so quickly, and they'd be in constant battle. Before Afghinstan and Iraq, I think some Marines and Army and Navies were not in actual fighting. A true mercanary would probably have moved to a place that is currently at war in order to get higher prices for his skills. This is not so for US military troops.

Xiahou

08-08-2005, 22:32

Redleg

08-08-2005, 22:48

Just like Sgt. York.... the monsters. :furious3:
note: That's sarcasm. ~;)

And those Americans who were occuping the Philipines when the Japanese attacked - by Rasoforos logic - those Americans and Philipinos who died on the Battan Death March had it coming since they were the occupation force and the supporters of the occupation force - they were all mercenaries because the Philipines were taken from Spain because of Yellow Journalism of the turn of the century.

Yep someone has taken thier idealogical hate of the Bush Administration a little to far - and it deserves nothing but ridicule for how it demonizes servicemen.

If either one of my grandfather's saw such a statement - they would go ballastic - since they both lost friends in the Philipines.

lars573

08-08-2005, 23:11

And those Americans who were occuping the Philipines when the Japanese attacked - by Rasoforos logic - those Americans and Philipinos who died on the Battan Death March had it coming since they were the occupation force and the supporters of the occupation force - they were all mercenaries because the Philipines were taken from Spain because of Yellow Journalism of the turn of the century.

Yep someone has taken thier idealogical hate of the Bush Administration a little to far - and it deserves nothing but ridicule for how it demonizes servicemen.

If either one of my grandfather's saw such a statement - they would go ballastic - since they both lost friends in the Philipines.
That is about the wrost parallel you could have chosen. The Americans in the Philipines were there because the Philipino government asked them too stay and protect them. A Philipino government the US had tried to crush several times in the 20's, but couldn't cause it had popular backing.

Gawain of Orkeny

08-08-2005, 23:20

That is about the wrost parallel you could have chosen. The Americans in the Philipines were there because the Philipino government asked them too stay and protect them.

They asked us to invade and rescue them from Spain ? Or do you mean they asked us to stay and help protect them from the Japs or that they asked us to invade again and remove the Japs? Exactly what Phillipino governemtnn are you speaking if. Heck I served three moths there I never realised I was a mercenary..

Gawain of Orkeny

08-08-2005, 23:28

Redleg

08-09-2005, 00:49

That is about the wrost parallel you could have chosen. The Americans in the Philipines were there because the Philipino government asked them too stay and protect them. A Philipino government the US had tried to crush several times in the 20's, but couldn't cause it had popular backing.

Actually it is not - since we took the Philipines from Spain by force and then remained there as occupiers for many years.

There are even others - such as the Korean War.

Then there is Bosina and Kosovo.

There are many parallels I could of used that would fit - but I chose one that shows exactly how ridiculous his statement is because the Philipines were indeed taken from Spain through an act of war that was based partly on Yellow Journalism of the turn of the century. It was occupied for many years without the consent of the Philipino people. And then turned over to the philipino people as a protectate (SP) with the promise after a certain time period that it was going to be its own country.

Lots of parallels can be drawn between the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War

For several centuries Spain's position as a world power had been slipping away. By the late nineteenth century the nation was left only a few scattered possessions in the Pacific, Africa, and the West Indies. Much of the empire had gained its independence and a number of the areas still under Spanish control were clamoring to do so. Guerrilla forces were operating in the Philippines, and had been present in Cuba for decades. The Spanish government did not have the financial resources or the manpower to deal with these revolts and thus turned to expedients of building concentration camps (in Cuba) to separate the rebels from their rural base of support. The Spaniards also carried out many executions of suspected rebels and harshly treated villages and individuals thought to be supporting them. The war was a total war with both Cuban rebel and Spanish troops burning and destroying infrastructure, crops, tools, livestock, and anything else that might aid the enemy. Nevertheless, by 1897 the rebels had mostly defeated the Spanish. They were firmly in control of the countryside and the Spanish were holed up in urban centers.

These events in Cuba coincided in the 1890s with a battle for readership between the American newspaper chains of Hearst and Pulitzer. Hearst's style of "yellow journalism" would outdo Pulitzer's, and he infamously used the power of his press to influence American opinion in favor of war. Despite the documented fact that real atrocities were commited in Cuba, and that a real rebellion was being fought against Spanish rule, Hearst nevertheless often fabricated stories or just simply tainted them in highly inflammatory language. Hearst published sensationalized tales of atrocities which the "cruel Spanish" (see Black Legend) were inflicting on the "hapless Cubans". Outraged by the "inhumanity" of the Spanish, Americans were stirred up to pushing for an "intervention", which even the most jaded hawks, like a young Theodore Roosevelt, would treat as a mostly dress-up affair. Hearst is famously quoted in his response to a request by his illustrator Frederic Remington to return home from an uneventful and docile stay in Havana, writing: "Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

There were, however, more genuine pressures pushing towards war. Faced with defeat, and a lack of money and resources to continue fighting Spanish occupation, Cuban revolutionary and future president Tomás Estrada Palma secured $150 million dollars from a US banker to purchase Cuba's independence, but Spain refused. He then deftly negotiated and propagandized his cause in the U.S. Congress, eventually securing the bill for US intervention.

The United States Navy had recently grown considerably, but it was still untested, and many old war dogs were eager to test and use their new tools. The Navy had drawn up plans for attacking the Spanish in the Philippines over a year before hostilities broke out. The end of western expansion and of large-scale conflict with Native Americans also left the Army with little to do, and army leadership hoped that some new task would come. From an early date, many in the United States had felt that Cuba was "rightly" theirs. The so-called theory of manifest destiny made the island just off the coast of Florida seem an attractive candidate for American "expansion". Much of the island's economy was already in American hands, and most of its trade, much of which was black market, was with the U.S. Some business leaders pushed for conflict as well. In the words of Senator John M. Thurston of Nebraska: "War with Spain would increase the business and earnings of every American railroad, it would increase the output of every American factory, it would stimulate every branch of industry and domestic commerce."

In Spain, the government was not entirely averse to war. The U.S. was an unproven power, while the Spanish navy, however decrepit, had a glorious history, and it was thought it could be a match for the U.S. There was also a widely held notion among Spain's aristocratic leaders that the United States' ethnically mixed army and navy could never survive under severe pressure.

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines

After the Spanish-American War in 1898, Spain ceded the Philippines, Cuba, Guam, and Puerto Rico to the United States for US $20 million through the 1898 Treaty of Paris. On June 12, 1898, the Filipinos, led by Emilio Aguinaldo, declared independence from Spain. This led to rebel wars and revolution during the Philippine-American War which officially ended in 1901, though sporadic fighting continued until 1913. The Phillipines became a U.S. territory with little self-government until 1935, when its status was upgraded to that of a U.S. Commonwealth. During the Commonwealth years, Philippines sent a non-voting Delegate to the United States House of Representatives, as the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands currently do. De jure independence for the Philippines was finally granted in 1946, after the Japanese had occupied the islands during World War II.

Like I said lots of parallels.

Its not hard to show how ridiculous his statement is - and how its based upon demonizing arguements to inflame those who he disagrees with.

Sasaki Kojiro

08-09-2005, 03:18

Sounds heroic to me. The one Redleg posted even more so.

Tribesman

08-09-2005, 03:30

Nice site , but who are all those people in the body bags? I never realised so many coilition troops had been killed at one time period in one area ,why are so many of the troops not issued with desert gear ? oh and surely they could have got a real picture of a Humvee , possibly without the nice red cross on the side . Oh yeah and change the soundtrack , it sucks .

As someone mentioned the Spanish-American war , wasn't that a war that was started over a pile of invented bullshit that was sold to the population aswell ?
I do like the good Senators thoughts on that war........
War with Spain would increase the business and earnings of every American railroad, it would increase the output of every American factory, it would stimulate every branch of industry and domestic commerce."

Azi Tohak

08-09-2005, 03:31

I would have the marines ready to defend their country if it is in danger. And I would have them to give their life to do so. No matter how bravely one fights, if the reasons are unjust, he loses his right.

Right to what?

mer·ce·nar·y

Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
Hired for service in a foreign army.

At: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mercenary

The soldiers are doing what they can to keep the country from turning back into what it has been for 5,000 years. There are some bad apples (God knows we've all heard enough about them), but most of them are just like you, wanting to do what is right. They follow their orders. They cannot decide policy, only our own (idiot) politicians can do that.

And before someone brings up the SS during WWII, remember, they did what they were told (and usually brainwashed) to do. But after that war, no common soldiers were tried. Only their leaders who told the troops to do what they did. For some reason, after the most horrible war in history, the Allies (well, maybe not the USSR) understood what the common soldiers of the enemy had done. They did not have to like it, or respect it, but to try those troops for carrying out their orders is foolish. (modern) Armies are built upon a chain of command that dictates those below must obey those above.

Demonizing troops for doing their job is ghastly. Hate their leaders, but leave the good men and women out of your tirades.

Azi

Divinus Arma

08-09-2005, 07:29

I remember when this whole event came down after the fact. Of course, I'm the only one here who is a Marine (except for Former Marine Gawain and I'll even give credit to Marine hopeful Strike for the South), so I actually heard about this a long long time ago.

Good stuff and all true. Now THAT is how an officer is supposed to lead!

You leftys are so full of hate and fear. But I'm not worried, your misery won't spread to the rest of us.

God bless America and her United States Marines. ~:cheers:

Semper Fi

Divinus Arma

08-09-2005, 07:44

Wow...

...mercenary goes to Iraq....

...becomes a state terrorist...

...gets ambushed by an army about a million times weaker than his...

...plays John Rambo...

...kills a lot of people, not in defense of his country ( unlike the dead ones)...

...for reasons that have long since proved to be lies...

...and gets called a hero.

And all this dispayed in the most fake and brain dead way...

...it goes to show the IQ of some people and how they are content to live in 'movies' with 'good and evil' people and how they d face withdrawal symptoms if this propaganda is withdrawn...

At the same time 25.000 innocents died by state terrorism action, noone remembers their names, and all they got was the exchange of an American placed dictator for an american placed Quesling government.

Hi. I am a U.S. Marine. snip ... ad hominem attack removed - Ser Clegane
But guess what. You have the right to say whatever you want. How lucky for you, because you are in a country that allows free speech.

I am really really tempted to take this thread down in flames... I'll resist.

Instead, I will provide some insight into my world. As a U.S. Marine.

When Afghanistan rolled around, I demanded to be sent. I volunteered with enthusiasm. Why? Because it was the right thing to do. And while I was there I met local people just like you and me. Who were beaten by the Taliban and thrown in jail because their beards were too short. Women were whipped. People were killed. No one could speak freely.

Did I make big bucks? Nope. Did money even occur to me? Nope. I volunteered just becasue it was the right thing to do.

When Iraq came, I demanded to be sent. I volunteered again with enthusiasm. But guess what? I was turned down! They had enough volunteers.

We get paid very little for what we do, but it isn't the pay that matters. And the left calls it brainwashing becasue they can't explain why someone would sacrifice their life for the right thing. "It's so unnatural, that it can't be real" you say. Wrong. It cannot be real for you. Because you are a coward. You see danger and run. You would turn our countries and way of life over to dictators.

Mercenary. Sure. Right. Congratulations, I have never put anyone on ignore before.

Kanamori

08-09-2005, 08:19

Well, when I was in Charleston again last week, I saw the Medal of Honor commemeration at Patriot's Point in Mt. Pleasant and a description of what each recipient did to get the Medal. To get one, you must be well beyond courageous or skilled; you must be totally selfless. Perhaps I should post some pictures when I get a day off work :book:

Ser Clegane

08-09-2005, 08:23

intermission

I would like to keep this thread open as I think that the question of when and and how soldiers who have shown courage in battle should be honored is a valid and intersting one.
I respect that fact that this is also an emotional issue, given the fact that we have patrons that served or still serve in the army and considering the nature of the war in question.

However, I will not accept personal attacks in this discussion. The same goes for obvious baits like implying that army members in general are "terrorists" or "mercenaries".

Thanks for your cooperation :bow:

Ser Clegane

PanzerJaeger

08-09-2005, 08:39

We get paid very little for what we do, but it isn't the pay that matters. And the left calls it brainwashing becasue they can't explain why someone would sacrifice their life for the right thing. "It's so unnatural, that it can't be real" you say. Wrong. It cannot be real for you. Because you are a coward. You see danger and run. You would turn our countries and way of life over to dictators.

Great post! All true Americans greatly appreciate what youve done and have the utmost respect for you. You are a modern hero in a world sorely lacking in good people who will stand up for what is right. (You would think some people who have had to deal with dictators in recent history would understand how much pain and suffering they cause. :dizzy2: )

Dont let the leftist traitors in this country and the anti-american foreigners get to you. They are beneath you - worthless in comparison. "Coward" is a compliment to those.. people..

We're eternally grateful you picked up the sword when its so easy these days to earn more money and "live easier" in the private sector, and we wont forget it!

Ser Clegane

08-09-2005, 08:45

However, I will not accept personal attacks in this discussion. The same goes for obvious baits like implying that army members in general are "terrorists" or "mercenaries".

Dont let the leftist traitors in this country and the anti-american foreigners get to you. They are beneath you - worthless in comparison. "Coward" is a compliment to those.. people..

OK - obviously not everybody bothers to read my posts.

Thread closed