L.A. Times Editorial: U.S. Troops are Imperialists and should not be supported [Archive]

View Full Version : L.A. Times Editorial: U.S. Troops are Imperialists and should not be supported

Divinus Arma

01-25-2006, 03:30

HOLY SMOKES!!!

Can you believe this nut? What a douche bag. He deserves a swift kick in the cajones.

Quick blurbs:

But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not.

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse.

I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Strike For The South

01-25-2006, 03:40

meh California sucks. Libreal nuts with homoerotic tendinces there nearly as bad as ohio and just below New york in terms of absoulute suck factor

I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.

This guys is an ass plain and simple. He just wants to be outlandish and thats pretty easy. He can stick a light pole up his ass and be outlandish. Glad he is in the minority

Alexander the Pretty Good

01-25-2006, 03:40

I suggest we draft him via popular demand. I mean, he hasn't done anything for this country yet.

:no:

Lemur

01-25-2006, 04:21

Who would want to serve with him? No, until we institute prison batallions, this man has no place in our armed forces.

What a complete and utter loonbat.

Reenk Roink

01-25-2006, 04:25

Whoa, I know there are many perspectives but from LA Times???

Papewaio

01-25-2006, 04:35

Quite tongue in cheek, then a few paragraphs have interesting points amongst the digs.

Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of "Laguna Beach."

...

I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book.

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.

Major Robert Dump

01-25-2006, 04:50

Considering that people who didn't agree with the handling of Iraq were labeled by conservatives as being anti-soldier and anti-american both before and after the President admitted that "mistakes were made", he is just falling into the stereotype like you wanted him to.

I don't agree with what he is saying or how he says it, but read the article again. You want to demonize people who dissent, well there he is, mission accomplished.

What does supporting the troops mean? What does supporting the war mean? What was the last thing you did for a soldier, the last sacrifice you made for your country? Does it bother anyone but me that we can run a major war abroad without the people back home batting an eyelash? Or are you just another spoiled fat ass with a yellow ribbon sticker on your Escalade?

Proletariat

01-25-2006, 04:51

Active duty military already have access to the best hospitals, pensions and mental health provided in this country. I don't really see what's tongue in cheek about it, maybe him just trying to be cute.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-25-2006, 04:54

I will give him kudos for intellectual consistency. He is certainly not trying to "have his cake and eat it too." Our soldiers are the willing tools of imperialism and therefore not worthy of praise is dead-arse wrong, but at least internally consistent.

Since I support the war effort thus far, I have no qualms about believing Joel here is wrong soup to nuts.

Lemur', did you mean Sov-style penal battalions? As in "double-time it through the minefield to clear a path" units like they did in the Great Patriotic war? You scamp!

Papewaio

01-25-2006, 04:59

Just read some of his other articles, he has a consistent 'style'

How to apologize to a feminist (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein3jan03,0,1882523.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions) ... seems he likes roasting sacred cows.

Mind you he sums up his ego nicely in another column:

So I can't figure out why I don't lie. It's not that I chose journalism because I'm obsessed with unearthing truths. I chose journalism over novels, sitcoms or screenplays because it came with a steady paycheck. Plus, they print your name at the top of what you write in big letters. You try finding a staff writer's name in sitcom credits.

I think it's because I'm desperate to be noticed for who I am, and a fabrication wouldn't satisfy my ego. The kind of fame that Frey and the woman who writes under LeRoy's name and even Oprah — whose public persona seems so far from her real persona — seems unsatisfying. Also, making up things seems really hard.

Strike For The South

01-25-2006, 05:01

Proletariat

01-25-2006, 05:02

What does supporting the troops mean? What does supporting the war mean? What was the last thing you did for a soldier, the last sacrifice you made for your country? Does it bother anyone but me that we can run a major war abroad without the people back home batting an eyelash? Or are you just another spoiled fat ass with a yellow ribbon sticker on your Escalade?

'Supporting the troops' means just that. Supporting the f$cking troops. I joined after 9/11, being well informed about the choice I made. I'm still serving and although yellow ribbon magnets make me sick with their misplaced, self-righteous, I'll-just-sit-on-my-ass-while-others-do-the-dirty-work, smarminess, it doesn't help when you have high up senators from the Democrats comparing servicemen with Nazi and Communist torturers and jailers.

Quit pretending it's the right that has scapegoated the left as cowardly, anti-military types. The left has done a fine job of distancing themselves from the military and leaving this one wide open for right wing politicians for the last 20 years or so, through their constant disparaging and maligning of the military in anyway they can for more vote pandering.

Proletariat

01-25-2006, 05:05

Just read some of his other articles, he has a consistent 'style'

Great. I just got worked up over the fishwrap version of Maddox. Still can't believe he's employed by one of our major papers. Only in California.

Lemur

01-25-2006, 05:42

Did you mean Sov-style penal battalions? As in "double-time it through the minefield to clear a path" units like they did in the Great Patriotic war? You scamp!
Someone's been reading my diary! And here I thought the unicorns and care bears on the cover would ward you away ...

Major Robert Dump

01-25-2006, 05:43

'Supporting the troops' means just that. Supporting the f$cking troops. I joined after 9/11, being well informed about the choice I made. I'm still serving and although yellow ribbon magnets make me sick with their misplaced, self-righteous, I'll-just-sit-on-my-ass-while-others-do-the-dirty-work, smarminess, it doesn't help when you have high up senators from the Democrats comparing servicemen with Nazi and Communist torturers and jailers.

Quit pretending it's the right that has scapegoated the left as cowardly, anti-military types. The left has done a fine job of distancing themselves from the military and leaving this one wide open for right wing politicians for the last 20 years or so, through their constant disparaging and maligning of the military in anyway they can for more vote pandering.

Yeah, its funny, isn't it, two-party politics? How I'm a piece of sh*t because I share a party affiliation or some fringe ideas with someone I never voted for or whos district I never lived in or someone who gets busted in an integrity snafu, or you're a piece of sh*t because you share a party or some fringe ideas with someone who you never voted for or whos district you never lived or someone who gets busted in an integrity snafu

Be that as it may, you being a soldier it must make you terribly angry to be compared to a Nazi because of the actions of a few. Just as it makes me terribly angry to be told that criticizing the actions of my government makes me anti-american or a coward or anti-soldier. We are terrible, terrible people. Want to go boar hunting this weekend?

Redleg

01-25-2006, 05:45

I normally steer away from the LA Times because there are simply better papers out there. So what this individual says or doesn't say really has no impact on me at all.

Seems a bit of tongue in cheek editorial commentary - but in some of his points he does take it a tad to far.

But like Lemurmania said - off to the penal battalion for him.. :laugh4:

Devastatin Dave

01-25-2006, 05:48

I like the article because he's honest. When I was Active Duty I would prefer the person that would call me a POS or a oil merchant, etc than the person who gave me the old "I support the troops" horse malarky. I prefer a steaming hot plate of hate that I can see, smell, and taste, than a bread crumb of dishonest passiveness.

GoreBag

01-25-2006, 05:52

Whatever. He can say what he wants. What I don't see is anyone refuting it. Signing up for the American military does mean that you're heading overseas to kill people whose language you don't speak and whose ethnicity you can't name.

Proletariat

01-25-2006, 06:13

We are terrible, terrible people.

Respek, well said. :bow:

You have to admit it's still fun to get wound up over the inevitable strawmen arising from our two-party, soundbyte system.

Divinus Arma

01-25-2006, 06:26

Well, I already indicated that I had a problem with the article. I may as well explain why.

1st, he makes the assumption that the Iraq war is a failure, a quagmire, and all that other garbage. Note: I am not not here to argue that point. The success or failure of the Iraq campaign, as well as the reasoning behind the global war on terrorism, is a seperate debate. It's his "matter-of-fact" perspective that sets a tone I dislike.

2nd and far worse, with that tone of "failure and lies" already established, the author tries to place the blame on our troops. THIS is what pisses me off.

I have no problem with dissent and discussion over policy. Major Robert Dump, I agree with you. No dissenter should be branded a "traitor", so long as the discussion is kept to facts.

But blaming our troops for a policy you believe is a failure? That's just low.

I served because I (a) felt drawn to the military in a personal way, (b) support the rights of individuals over the power of the state, and (c) it was a good opportunity to build a foundation for the rest of my life at a cost I deemed both tolerable and worthy.

What is all this liberalspeak about imperialism? The U.S. wants to get the hell out of Iraq not turn it into the 51st state. Haven't we made this clear? Imperialism is just another fabricated left wing talking point to demonize the administration just like "neo-con" which has a natural connotation to nazism.

Xiahou

01-25-2006, 06:37

I don't agree with what he is saying or how he says it, but read the article again. You want to demonize people who dissent, well there he is, mission accomplished.Are you saying it is or isnt ok to criticize him for his statements?

Does it bother anyone but me that we can run a major war abroad without the people back home batting an eyelash?What do you think would be an appropriate level of sacrifice for the average citizen before we can deploy troops?

Papewaio

01-25-2006, 06:39

But blaming our troops for a policy you believe is a failure? That's just low.

Devils Advocate playing through:

Why? Surely the opposite is allowed. Cheering the troops on for a policy that you believe is a success. So surely this would be a case of reciprocity.

And he is correct that no matter who orders a person, the moral responsibility still lies with the person who acts. Others further up the chain of command may get the kudos or the kick in the pants for decisions.

Divinus Arma

01-25-2006, 07:10

Devils Advocate playing through:

Why? Surely the opposite is allowed. Cheering the troops on for a policy that you believe is a success. So surely this would be a case of reciprocity.

And he is correct that no matter who orders a person, the moral responsibility still lies with the person who acts. Others further up the chain of command may get the kudos or the kick in the pants for decisions.

Well Papa, who is to make the decision as to what is moral? You? MRD? The left or the right? How about the majority? Or the minority?

The assumption is that the Global War on Terrorism is a moral error and that the troops are to blame. Despite what the fickle public may think, one way or the other, the morality of the policy decision rests on the public not the troops.

The public elects leaders who establish policy and troops are employed to enforce policy. You want blame for something you see as a failure? Blame yourselves.

Where are all the protestors? Where is the uproar over the so-called lies? I'll tell you where: Driving around in their F-ing escalades while moaning to other self-education policy analysts on their cell phones in ignorant safety. A safety that the troops provide. And those who don't think our military provides safety live in a F-ing dreamworld baby.

One of the things I remeber distinctly after coming back from Afghanistan is how ignorantly blissful the American Public is. All our security is just a raw egg with a 40lb hammer dangling above. Its totally illusory, impermanent, and just waiting to be snapped.

One day, as you pick your children up from soccer practice, you will see a bright orb on the horizon, brighter than the sun. If you live after the shockwave, then you will stumble through the crowds of screaming, thirsty, burnt crowds, looking for help from the government. As you pass little rows of cookie-cutter houses and toppled black cars under a shadowed sky, you will imagine you are dreaming. And then you will finally reach a radio, and surrounded by men and women just like yourself, you will learn of the first nuclear terrorist attack on western soil: in a city near your suburb.

Or how about this: You wake to your alarm clock as you do every day, but you feel sick, really sick. Sweat pours down your face but you still feel cold. You call to your wife and realize that she is still asleep. Sluggishly, you make your way to the kitchen, looking for some cold medicine. As you try to shake off the illness, you realize just how crappy you feel. You go to the phone to call your office, but there is no dial tone. Odd, you think. So you start to go back to your room to find your cellphone when you happen to walk by the window. The neighboring avenue, normally busy with vehicle traffic, is completely quite. Attempting to shake off the heavy ill feeling, you take a close look outside, squinting against the early morning sun. You see several cars in the road, and they look to be stalled. Several are off to the side of the road, and you make out a woman on the ground next to her car with the passenger door open; she's laying on her side and clutching a child. Neither are moving. In a dull shock, you run to your front door and open it wide. You immediately feel heavier, stunned, and far colder. As you collapse to your knees you see your neighbor's body in the driveway next to his SUV. The coffee mug is next to him, and the liquid trails down into the street. As you curl into a ball, you feel immense sharp pain throughout your spine as it tenses as hard as a rock. You pass out before it breaks on its own.

Papewaio

01-25-2006, 07:23

Major Robert Dump

01-25-2006, 07:28

Are you saying it is or isnt ok to criticize him for his statements?

What do you think would be an appropriate level of sacrifice for the average citizen before we can deploy troops?

1. I'm saying it's okay to criticize him, because thats what he wants and thats what you want. I'm telling you, this is tongue in cheek. The current situation with Iraq and the war on terror has degraded into a "you're an imperialist" vs "you're a coward" debate, where both sides use the lowest common denominator to judge one another.

2. Do you really want an answer to that question? Are all of you ready to crap your pants and have your dead relatives roll over in their graves?

A WAR TAX. At the least. I mean, for gods sake its a war.
Without getting into debates over sliding scales of percentages and who will be taxed more/less the easiest method requiring the least paperwork and beauracracy would be a flat tax levied on top of local/state sales tax to goods purchased with the exception of certain essential things like groceries. I'm talking about something like a friggin 1 or 2 cents on the dollar, which would go directly into the operating budgets for the military and not subject to being appropriated by Congress. This tax can be voted on every congressional session as a single issue item, so it doesn't sneak under the radar when the war or "conflict" is over. This tax revenue and how its spent can be public information for generalized expenditure info, and open records for federal elected officials to view per diem expenditures. Note: only this revenue is up for review, so because its only supplementary the classified can still stay classified as its not falling under this "war tax." There will be nothing in this spending info that will help the enemy.

It's a war. Involving our country. At the least, we could have a war tax.

Now, if you are talking about realistically, not hypothetically like the war tax, what kind of sacrafice "before we can deploy troops" I honestly don't know. Nor do I know after we deploy troops. I suppose forcing everyone to write letters and send over cookies would be a little silly, at best. Calling or writing to your representatives and telling them to vote on certain legislation does about as much good as calling The IRS 1-800 number and expecting To find a person on the other end, and trying to "support the troops" via your votes for public officials and said officials platforms seems like a good idea except, ya know, they are elected officials and pretty much forget what they promised the second they enter office.

I have my ways. And it doesn't involve a bumper sticker.

Divinus Arma

01-25-2006, 07:30

How many people have died from terrorism?

How many people have died from dirty water?

Which one should be the major priority? The one that has killed more people? The one that is more cost effective? The one that will win us the hearts and minds of the 3rd world?

So why aren't we devoting more money to purifying water?

Is asking only hypothetical rhetorical questions an effective argument?

Do hypothetical rhetorical questions imply something, or are they just intended to distract from the discussion?

Which has killed more people; rhetorical questions or hypothetical questions?

Has my point been made?

You are a very smart guy Pape, so this is a little insulting to both of us. Make a point and stand by it. This is fluff.

Papewaio

01-25-2006, 07:36

1.8 million people died in 2004 because they did not have reliable access to potable water.

Every day more people die because of bad water then died in 911.

About 103 000 died at Nagasaki and Hiroshima... yet in the 60 years of rememberance days for those deaths there would have been about 250,000 people dieing from lack of access to clean water.

Where should our priorities be?

With a hypothetical dirty bomb that may go off?

Or with a very real daily death toll of some 5000 people who are mainly children?

Major Robert Dump

01-25-2006, 07:48

[QUOTE=Divinus Arma]Well Papa, who is to make the decision as to what is moral? You? MRD? The left or the right? How about the majority? Or the minority?

The assumption is that the Global War on Terrorism is a moral error and that the troops are to blame. Despite what the fickle public may think, one way or the other, the morality of the policy decision rests on the public not the troops.

QUOTE]

I don't think that is an assumption at all. There are varying levels of dissent about the war yet they are all lumped together.

[QUOTE=Divinus Arma]One day, as you pick your children up from soccer practice, you will see a bright orb on the horizon, brighter than the sun. If you live after the shockwave, then you will stumble through the crowds of screaming, thirsty, burnt crowds, looking for help from the government. As you pass little rows of cookie-cutter houses and toppled black cars under a shadowed sky, you will imagine you are dreaming. And then you will finally reach a radio, and surrounded by men and women just like yourself, you will learn of the first nuclear terrorist attack on western soil: in a city near your suburb.

Or how about this: You wake to your alarm clock as you do every day, but you feel sick, really sick. Sweat pours down your face but you still feel cold. You call to your wife and realize that she is still asleep. Sluggishly, you make your way to the kitchen, looking for some cold medicine. As you try to shake off the illness, you realize just how crappy you feel. You go to the phone to call your office, but there is no dial tone. Odd, you think. So you start to go back to your room to find your cellphone when you happen to walk by the window. The neighboring avenue, normally busy with vehicle traffic, is completely quite. Attempting to shake off the heavy ill feeling, you take a close look outside, squinting against the early morning sun. You see several cars in the road, and they look to be stalled. Several are off to the side of the road, and you make out a woman on the ground next to her car with the passenger door open; she's laying on her side and clutching a child. Neither are moving. In a dull shock, you run to your front door and open it wide. You immediately feel heavier, stunned, and far colder. As you collapse to your knees you see your neighbor's body in the driveway next to his SUV. The coffee mug is next to him, and the liquid trails down into the street. As you curl into a ball, you feel immense sharp pain throughout your spine as it tenses as hard as a rock. You pass out before it breaks on its own.QUOTE]

Nice boogey man tactics. You just described the war with China, not Iraq. Sorry, suitcase bombs that destroy cities don't exist and never have. But that's neither here nor there, what I'd like to do is stablize Iraq and have a discussion in public about what has/is happening without immediately being dismissed as a hippie. I can't speak for the author of that column, but one side deserves another.

Divinus Arma

01-25-2006, 07:51

Both are important. Period.

There are a whole host of things we should get our priorities straight on: The Sudan, African AIDS, rising obesity rates, Chinese oppression, Russian mafia control of government, Mexican illegal immigration, potable drinking water, Brazillian shanty towns, etc etc.

Bro, the world is slowly getting better. Right now, I'm worried about MY country. MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE. USA USA USA and all the jazz. I am looking out for numero uno. And so are you, otherwise you wouldn't be posting on this board; instead you would dicth your family and join greenpeace, or the peace corps, or volunteer with the homeless. But I would bet that you do not devote a significant portion of your life towards bettering humanity in any substantial way other than talk about it. And neither do I except serve my Nation, which happens to aid in spreading access to potable water, builds schools throughout the world, prevents mass killings of innocents in multiple nations, donates billions to relief efforts (both through private and public funding), etc etc etc.

The world would be F-ed if America goes down hard. Absolutely totally F-ed. Screw potable water. Say goodbye to the world's economy. Say hello to the newly impoverished billions. Say hello to global strife like you have not seen since WW2. Say hello to the global rise of nuclear-armed muslim extremist states. Say hello to a whole new kind of China.

It has nothing to do with a million American citizens and everything to do with the repurcussions throughout the world. I just happen to only actually care about that first million.

Divinus Arma

01-25-2006, 08:01

I don't think that is an assumption at all. There are varying levels of dissent about the war yet they are all lumped together.

Clarify this please. My tiny brain does not compute.

Nice boogey man tactics. You just described the war with China, not Iraq. Sorry, suitcase bombs that destroy cities don't exist and never have.

#1 is a nuke in the West. Does it matter how it happened? Not really. You get the point. #2 is a chemical attack, which is far more likely and a real threat. I just loved carrying atropine and adrenaline in the 'stan. Want some?

But that's neither here nor there, what I'd like to do is stablize Iraq and have a discussion in public about what has/is happening without immediately being dismissed as a hippie.

Fine. Then let's discuss it factually. I'm always game for this one. Leave out conjecture, hyperbole, and party talking point catch phrases like neo-con, liberal elite, etc.

I can't speak for the author of that column, but one side deserves another.

Bro. The guy blames what he percieves to be a policy failure on U.S. Troops. That's messed up. They don't make policy, man. The administration does and the public votes yes or no. We can argue policy all day, but the troops do not make policy. They do what they are told, make the best decisions every day that they are capable of given their value system and military training, and try to survive. That's it.

Papewaio

01-25-2006, 08:15

Both are important. Period.

Really? One kills 2 million a year, the other is a low probability. If you are worried about a mass extinction event then spend more money on anti-asteroid missiles. It is a very tiny probability, but it would wipe out 80% plus of all life on earth.

There are a whole host of things we should get our priorities straight on: The Sudan, African AIDS, rising obesity rates, Chinese oppression, Russian mafia control of government, Mexican illegal immigration, potable drinking water, Brazillian shanty towns, etc etc.

So why chase boogey men when there a lot of real problems right now that could really win hearts and minds, cost less lives to implement and don't cost much money either? Why because there is not a big enough kick back/profit margin/gung-ho/ votes in them.

Bro, the world is slowly getting better. Right now, I'm worried about MY country. MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE. USA USA USA and all the jazz. I am looking out for numero uno. And so are you, otherwise you wouldn't be posting on this board; instead you would dicth your family and join greenpeace, or the peace corps, or volunteer with the homeless. But I would bet that you do not devote a significant portion of your life towards bettering humanity in any substantial way other than talk about it. And neither do I except serve my Nation, which happens to aid in spreading access to potable water, builds schools throughout the world, prevents mass killings of innocents in multiple nations, donates billions to relief efforts (both through private and public funding), etc etc etc.

A) Greenpeace suck because they lie like any political organisation. There science is not crediable and the go for the big publicity stunts. If the creature is cute they will protect it, otherwise they ignore the plights of less cuddly animals.

B) Don't you think the USA would be better off by winning the hearts and minds profile?

C) Meh! I've worked for mining companies. I believe in looking after my family first. I don't think though that the efforts in Iraq are getting as good as ROI as other methods.

The world would be F-ed if America goes down hard. Absolutely totally F-ed. Screw potable water. Say goodbye to the world's economy. Say hello to the newly impoverished billions. Say hello to global strife like you have not seen since WW2. Say hello to the global rise of nuclear-armed muslim extremist states. Say hello to a whole new kind of China.

It has nothing to do with a million American citizens and everything to do with the repurcussions throughout the world. I just happen to only actually care about that first million.

And how would potable water be a kick in the nuts for the stability of America? Surely more happy living people who are going 'America saved my life' would be a plus? Or can we only win hearts and minds through military actions?

Divinus Arma

01-25-2006, 08:22

Pape, I obviously distracted you with my dazzling collection of clauses and phrases. So much so that the point of my post was missed completely.

My point, succinctly put, is this:

The world is gigantic poo poo. If America get hurt, then poo poo get bigger.

Lemur

01-26-2006, 04:16

From the Separate But Equal Loonbat Department, Senator Rick Santorum seems eo believe that putting a bumper sticker on your car equates losing your life for your nation: (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=6581)

And yet we have brave men and women who are willing to step forward because they know what’s at stake. They’re willing to sacrifice their lives for this great country.

What I am asking all of you tonight, is not to put on a uniform. Put on a bumper sticker. Is it that much to ask? Is it that much to ask to step up and serve your country, to fight for what we believe in. To fight for the values that have made this the country the greatest count- we got her not because we were doing things really wrong, that our traditions and our morals were way out of whack, we got here because we were a good decent county. A country guided by divine Providence.

We will only stay that great country if we continue that fight. I’m asking ya to help me do that. God Bless you. Thank you.

Slyspy

01-26-2006, 04:45

Divinus, the actual article was an editorial. These things are designed to be blunt and confontational, also the author clearly has a penchant for attacking holy cows. Don't get so worked up about nothing. When crowds of people spit on you when you get home, then you should be angry and upset, not in response to a single deliberately provocative editorial. Still nice use of exaggerated fears. You should write for a tabloid yourself.

I say that if America get hurt then America can take it. These terror groups are unlikely to destroy America. Americans will do that. Loss of life is regrettable, especially on the scale of 9/11, but is unlikely to be fatal to America herself.

Lazul

01-26-2006, 10:29

GoreBag

01-26-2006, 15:23

The world is gigantic poo poo. If America get hurt, then poo poo get bigger.

That's backwards logic. "The world is a diaper, so let someone else change it."

spmetla

01-27-2006, 22:40

In general I have to say I dislike it when people are 100% against the war in Iraq but support the troops. It'd be cool if they truly meant it but all too often I feel that think I'm just the vicitim of the big bad government when they don't understand at all the reasons I signed up for (civic duty).

Vladimir

01-27-2006, 22:57

Slyspy

01-28-2006, 02:49

Three letters: EMP I'm not sure how big it would have to be but I believe one can take out ANY modern nation. That's why we don't want Iran to have nukes. :idea2:

Ah so that is the threat of the week is it? Pah!

Divinus Arma

01-28-2006, 06:53

"But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse."

Well... that IS true actually. ~:wave:

So in your view, extraterritorial military action is always unnecessary? I guess totalitarianism is right up you alley. Because if it weren't for U.S. military action abroad you would be speaking German or Russian. Comrade.

Slyspy

01-28-2006, 17:21

So in your view, extraterritorial military action is always unnecessary? I guess totalitarianism is right up you alley. Because if it weren't for U.S. military action abroad you would be speaking German or Russian. Comrade.

No, actually that is nothing like what he was saying.

Ice

01-28-2006, 18:40