Thread: F**k the Troops

Originally Posted by Alric

And no war isn't good for the economy. War is part of what is causing our huge debt and is a large part of what is destroying our economy at the moment. In fact, we will soon go bankrupt as a country, unless we stop the wars that are doing so much damage to our economy.

I agree with mostly everything you've said except for this. The Great Depression was ended through war (plus making alcohol legal again). Can't really go bankrupt when you're buying things from yourself can ya?

Originally Posted by tommo

I agree with mostly everything you've said except for this. The Great Depression was ended through war (plus making alcohol legal again).

The Great Depression didn't end until after WW2. You can't create wealth by creating military (not consumer) products that will be destroyed.

Originally Posted by Bearsy

This isn't about the War. This is about the Troops and all the people who get pissed when people "disrespect" the troops.

It is awe strikingly dim of people to lack the capacity to understand why there would be such a lack of respect towards people who storm into other countries with gun, grenades, bombs etc and murder innocent civilians, sometimes by the thousands including woman and children so that the governments corporate leaders can earn an extra profit or screw over the country another way to make themselves richer and/or more powerful. In my opinion, there's no reason to pay respect to someone for doing this, above the common mutual respect which I would give any human being. Maybe when things start affecting people like you rather than just common citizens in other countries then you will understand and perhaps grow to lose your respect for them as well.



And UM... There have been around 850,000 (based on the most conservative estimates) deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan combined since coalition forces stormed the countries. You're trying to tell me all or most of these deaths are justified?

What about the Afghan cleric who was killed by NATO forces a few days ago?

He wasn't targeted for being an insurgent, he was driving his two sons somewhere and pulled off th road to let the troops pass and was killed as a result.

And that's just the most recent report. I can guarantee the same has happened countless times.


700,000 or so Iraqi civilians have been brutally murdered. There is NO WAY that even 1/5th of those people deserved it.

Yes, things are getting slightly better for the people there, but not fast enough and not cleanly. They will be in upheaval for many years after this.
And the occupation is not happening in ways that are worth the deaths of much more than 1,000,000 people by the time this is over.

Because the troops have the choice of going or not. By all means, complain about the government, I completely agree about all of this, but it isn't the troops choice, it's the governments. The troops are just doing what they're told, they can't help it, it's their job. (They will be court marshaled for refusing to go, I hope you know.)

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.

Originally Posted by Alric

Personally I find anyone who joins the army in order to protect the US to be very naive. Sure I respect people who think they are defending our country. I have a lot of respect for people who stand up to that ideal. I just don't think they are the brightest bulb in the box.

Personally, I find anyone who makes generaliztions about something they don't understand not to be the brightest bulb in the box. Just so you know, I personally know dozens and dozens of military personnel, mostly Marines, and they are the brightest and most respectable people I have ever met. At Officer Candidate School I was basically mentored by a group of Marine Drill Instructors, believe me when I say you would NEVER say to these mens faces that they were naive. For one you would be scared shitless, and two you would be awestruck by their level of competence in everything they do.

Originally Posted by Bearsy

This isn't about the War. This is about the Troops and all the people who get pissed when people "disrespect" the troops.

It is awe strikingly dim of people to lack the capacity to understand why there would be such a lack of respect towards people who storm into other countries with gun, grenades, bombs etc and murder innocent civilians, sometimes by the thousands including woman and children so that the governments corporate leaders can earn an extra profit or screw over the country another way to make themselves richer and/or more powerful. In my opinion, there's no reason to pay respect to someone for doing this, above the common mutual respect which I would give any human being. Maybe when things start affecting people like you rather than just common citizens in other countries then you will understand and perhaps grow to lose your respect for them as well.



And UM... There have been around 850,000 (based on the most conservative estimates) deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan combined since coalition forces stormed the countries. You're trying to tell me all or most of these deaths are justified?

What about the Afghan cleric who was killed by NATO forces a few days ago?

He wasn't targeted for being an insurgent, he was driving his two sons somewhere and pulled off th road to let the troops pass and was killed as a result.

And that's just the most recent report. I can guarantee the same has happened countless times.


700,000 or so Iraqi civilians have been brutally murdered. There is NO WAY that even 1/5th of those people deserved it.

Yes, things are getting slightly better for the people there, but not fast enough and not cleanly. They will be in upheaval for many years after this.
And the occupation is not happening in ways that are worth the deaths of much more than 1,000,000 people by the time this is over.

"It is awe strikingly dim of people to lack the capacity to understand why there would be such a lack of respect towards people who storm into other countries with gun, grenades, bombs etc and murder innocent civilians, sometimes by the thousands including woman and children so that the governments corporate leaders can earn an extra profit or screw over the country another way to make themselves richer and/or more powerful."

This is a very ignorant view, and you really have no basis for saying it. There are many grey areas in this argument but to take it to this extreme is not only wrong but downright shameful. As a Marine in training, I can personally tell you that we do not target civilians, I thought that was obvious. The only people who are intentionally killed are people who pick up arms against us. Now I will submit that there are grey areas considering the fact that these insurgents don't have an honorable bone in their body. They are not above using their families as shields. They know we are less likely to attack them if they operate out of a mosk or out of a house that is known to be home to women and children. They exploit our moral code. You would be naive not to expect accidents. That doesn't make it ok, but you are barking up the wrong tree. Just know that it is absolutely ridiculous to think that American soldiers are storming into homes and murdering civilians.

"And UM... There have been around 850,000 (based on the most conservative estimates) deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan combined since coalition forces stormed the countries. You're trying to tell me all or most of these deaths are justified?"

First of all, that number is very high, I have seen estimates as low as 94,000 killed since 2003 and the majority of estimates are consisent with that lower number. And second of all, did you know that those estimates do not discrimate between deaths at the hands of Americans and deaths at the hands of insurgents? I would guess that Iraqis kill more of their own people than we do, considering the fact that they blow them up by the dozens every week.

Originally Posted by Alric

The US wasn't invaded during the cold war. Pearl harbour was never invaded either, only bombed. And guerrilla warfare only works in defending an area, not invading another country. Most of american war history is the US invading areas around us, not far off countries invading us. And the times we were attacked from forign countries, they normally had a base in the area. So I am really not sure what you are talking about.

You are willing to argue that naval warfare had insignificant contributions to those events?

Yea and terrorists in south and centeral america abducts something like 20 times as many people, as middle eastern countries. Yet no one cares about them, do they? Besides, our huge military isn't used for saving people most of the time.

What are you getting at?

Are you an anarchist or what?

And no war isn't good for the economy. War is part of what is causing our huge debt and is a large part of what is destroying our economy at the moment. In fact, we will soon go bankrupt as a country, unless we stop the wars that are doing so much damage to our economy.

lol - this is laughable. Seriously, war is an encouraging economical factor, you just refuse to see how. People react and buy things in response to emergencies, people buy things in response to wars, etc.

Eg. the news breaks, "Osama's going to rip shit up in New York, be careful" suddenly house security goes up along with food supplies. People panic and spend accordingly. Just like with other natural disaster scares.

I do not think you're looking at the whole picture.

Or you are just stuck in a "fuck the government" mentality..? I cannot tell and you have not explicitly stated.

~

First off the WW2 didn't solve anything during the depression. We just lowered unemployment a bit, by recruiting a ton of people into the army and sending them to die.

People like to say war improves the economy but that flies in the face of all logic. Building stuff that is just going to be destroyed is wasteful. Its basically flushing a large precentage of out GPD down the toilet each year. How does that help anything? The fact is, if there wasn't a war, the same amount of money would be spent, but instead of one time purchases that have no long term value, it would go into producing things of value.

As for people invading us, no one has invaded mexico or canada either. I am sure that it is because of their huge military?

As for Caprisun, what exactly do you think, I don't understand? I know what I am talking about, and I have no problem saying it to some marines face. If you buy into that bullshit war propaganda then yes you are naive. Though I am sure a good deal of them, know exactly what is going on. Though I doubt a person is going to admit that they joined the army for the thrill of it, when they got an excuse like "I am saving america" handy.

O'nus that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Mass panic is not good for the economy. I don't know where you even get this stuff.

Originally Posted by Alric

First off the WW2 didn't solve anything during the depression. We just lowered unemployment a bit, by recruiting a ton of people into the army and sending them to die.

I am not speaking of WW2.

If you'd like to though, please tell me you are willing to argue that the baby boom is detrimental to the economy..?

People like to say war improves the economy but that flies in the face of all logic. Building stuff that is just going to be destroyed is wasteful. Its basically flushing a large precentage of out GPD down the toilet each year. How does that help anything? The fact is, if there wasn't a war, the same amount of money would be spent, but instead of one time purchases that have no long term value, it would go into producing things of value.

Weapons are valuables.

As for people invading us, no one has invaded mexico or canada either. I am sure that it is because of their huge military?

I think I just do not get your point. What are you really trying to say in this thread..?

O'nus that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Mass panic is not good for the economy. I don't know where you even get this stuff.

I never said anything about mass panic, just panic. Economy is a delicate thing to discuss. Panic about war is just as good as Christmas really. I hope you see what I mean by this - I certainly do not really get what you are trying to get.

Honestly, I am just prying you to get a point out of you.

~

Bombs, missiles and ammo shot over seas has no value however. They don't even have the value of protecting us, since they are lost in pointless wars.

I will sum up my points, which I had a few of.

The vast majority of people who join the army do not protect our country. They fight in wars not related to our defense as a country, or are stationed in a forign country that we are not at war with and are not there for our direct defense.

Joining the army to defend freedom is silly, since your basically a hired gun that will be used in over sea conflicts not related to our protection. It has nothing to do with freedom.

War is wasteful, and has put our country in massive debt that is seriously damaging our economy.

We do not need a military as large as the one we got, if we used it in the proper way. As in for defending american soil.

Originally Posted by Alric

Bombs, missiles and ammo shot over seas has no value however. They don't even have the value of protecting us, since they are lost in pointless wars.

How do you think they are made and distributed..?

The vast majority of people who join the army do not protect our country. They fight in wars not related to our defense as a country, or are stationed in a forign country that we are not at war with and are not there for our direct defense.

You know, the vast majority of people who join the army are actually still on grounds doing work for the country in borders. Do you have family in the army or know of anyone? Perhaps you have heard of "tours" whereas there is time in between them - what do you think they are doing then?

You are doing a gross disservice to your fellow countrymen. Embarrassing.

Note; I am Canadian.

Joining the army to defend freedom is silly, since your basically a hired gun that will be used in over sea conflicts not related to our protection. It has nothing to do with freedom.

We can debate the wars and how they affect the countries, but what you are attacking is persons motives to join the army.

Do you not realize that most people actually join the army, not to fight for freedom, but to make money? To make a life of themselves?

A lot of people do not know what to do with their lives and hope to find purpose and a comfortable lifestyle (and retirement) through the army.

They join, almost always, with full intent to give back to their families and loved ones.

But here you are denigrating their motives.

War is wasteful, and has put our country in massive debt that is seriously damaging our economy.

My concern is not really your view on the purpose of war, but the purpose of why people join it.

I will note that I think it is easily arguable that "some" war is a good thing for the economy (if nothing else).

We do not need a military as large as the one we got, if we used it in the proper way. As in for defending american soil.

I think this may lead to the politics involved with what keeps america thriving and how important GDP and distribution is - but that's not my concern anymore.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

How do you think they are made and distributed..?

By deverting resources away from other productive goals. People like to say that war helps the economy because the government pays people to produce weapons and stuff, but you have to ask yourself. Where do they get the money? From taxing people and businesses, taking resources away from the productive citizens and using it in unproductive manners.

As for the rest of it, I already said I had no problem with people joining the army to make money. Only with people who join the army and claim that they are doing it to protect freedom and america. Since that are doing no such thing.

Originally Posted by Alric

By deverting resources away from other productive goals. People like to say that war helps the economy because the government pays people to produce weapons and stuff, but you have to ask yourself. Where do they get the money? From taxing people and businesses, taking resources away from the productive citizens and using it in unproductive manners.

As for the rest of it, I already said I had no problem with people joining the army to make money. Only with people who join the army and claim that they are doing it to protect freedom and america. Since that are doing no such thing.

Well okay then. I understand where you're coming from.

I liked fringing on the political debate - you'll understand when I just want to leave it there, heh.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

lol - this is laughable. Seriously, war is an encouraging economical factor, you just refuse to see how. People react and buy things in response to emergencies, people buy things in response to wars, etc.

This again?

"...They tell us how much better off economically we all are in war than in peace. They see 'miracles of production' which it requires a war to achieve. And they see a world made prosperous by an enormous "accumulated" or "backed-up" demand. In Europe, after World War II, they joyously counted the houses, the whole cities that had been leveled to the ground, and that 'had to be replaced.' In America they counted the houses that could not be built during the war, the nylon stockings that could not be supplied, the worn-out automobiles and tires, the obsolescent radios and refrigerator...

...The more war destroys, the more it impoverished, the greater is the need...But need is not demand. Effective economics demand requires not merely need but corresponding purchasing power...

...The war, in short, changed the postwar direction of effort; it changed the balance of industries; it changed the structure of industry...

...Since World War II ended in Europe, there has been rapid and even spectacular 'economic growth' both in countries that were ravaged by war and those that were not. Some of the countries in which there was greatest destruction, such as Germany, have advanced more rapidly that others, such as France, in which there was much less. In part this was because West Germany followed sounder economic policies. In part it was because the desperate need to get back to normal housing and other living conditions stimulated increased efforts. But this does not mean that property destruction is an advantage to the person whose property has been destroyed. No man burns down his own house on the theory that the need to rebuild it will stimulate his energies...

...Many of the frequent fallacies in economics reasoning come from the propensity, especially marked today, to think in terms of an abstraction - the collectivity, the 'nation' - and to forget or ignore the individuals who make it up and give a meaning. No one could think that the destruction of war was an economic advantage who began by thinking first of all of the people whose property was destroyed...

...There may be, it is true, offsetting factors. Technological discoveries and advanced during a war may, for example, increase individual or national productivity at this point or that, and there may eventually be a net increase in overall productivity. Postwar demand will never reproduce the precise patterns of prewar demand. But such complications should not divert us from recognizing the basic truth that the wanton destruction of anything of real value is always a net loss, a misfortune, or a disaster, and whatever the offsetting considerations in a particular instance, can never be, on net balance, a boon or a blessing...

Chapter III: The Blessings of Destruction, Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt

Originally Posted by cygnus

oh yeah, i definitely acknowledge that, UM - but i have to agree with blueline regarding the 'overkill' bit...

do you think there could ever be an end to starvation and poverty if we continue the present (post cold war) rate of military and weapons development?

I don't know what the cure for world hunger is, but I do know that the country that spends the most money on fighting it is also the country that spends the most money on military.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The Great Depression didn't end until after WW2. You can't create wealth by creating military (not consumer) products that will be destroyed.

Yes you can. It is a fact that the weapons industry went crazy during World War II in every country involved. That created zillions of jobs when there had been hardly any. Do you agree with that much? Well, those people started getting money from the government, money the government was going to have any way, and those people started spending money. That allowed allowed other businesses to grow and hire more people, who spent more money and allowed more business to grow and new businesses to be created. The perpetuation effect of all of that grew the economies of the world, and the perpetuation effect continued even after the war ended.

Originally Posted by Alric

As for people invading us, no one has invaded mexico or canada either. I am sure that it is because of their huge military?

Those countries have a very scary neighbor. In fact, it is the presence of the United States on this planet that keeps countries from being invaded all over the world. It is well known that we have a serious problem with that sort of thing, unless it is truly justifiable. Our existence since World War II, when we made it clear that we will not put up with selfish imperialism, is what ended the old trend of constant takeovers and border changes. It was the way of the old world. It didn't end because rulers suddenly started having consciences.

Originally Posted by Alric

As for Caprisun, what exactly do you think, I don't understand? I know what I am talking about, and I have no problem saying it to some marines face. If you buy into that bullshit war propaganda then yes you are naive. Though I am sure a good deal of them, know exactly what is going on. Though I doubt a person is going to admit that they joined the army for the thrill of it, when they got an excuse like "I am saving america" handy.

I don't think you know anybody in the military, at least not very many, yet you are comfortable judging all of them. I think you are a young kid with little real world experience, who tries to form his opinions based on other people who don't have any experience. Don't you understand how condescending you are being? I don't know what war propoganda you are talking about but whose to say military men and women don't have free will or critical minds? What about a four star general? Is his mind too feeble to truley comprehend the nature of his work, despite his 20 plus years of service? My rack mate at Officer Candidate School is a Classical Studies major at an Ivy League school and we also had a guy from Princeton and a guy from Harvard in our platoon. Are they naive? Are they "not the brightest bulbs in the box?" Nobody needs an "excuse" for why they join the military, they should be damn proud. Maybe you just need to mature a little bit? After all, you are the one who is arguing against the need for a military. That's pretty naive.

And I know for damn sure that you wouldn't say that to a drill instructors face. I think it would be hilarious if you said it to my old platoon staff though, then I could watch Staff Sergeant S**** pick you up with one hand and throw you through a concrete wall.

I know a bunch of people who were in the military. Both of my parents where in the army, and my uncle made a career for himself in the navy, and was in it for some 30+ years. I also have a bunch of friends who were, and a few who still are in the military.

Some of them just wanted the money, some wanted to travel, a couple of thme actually got a thrill from it. None of them were the naive people I am talking about, who joined the military claiming they were going to promote freedom.

And yea, I would say it right to his face. The fact that you claim he is a thug and would attempt to harm me for it, only proves my point. Just remeber, I called him naive. You called him a common criminal.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Don't twist my words. I stated people that voluntarily join the military don't get my respect, even if they're only joining due to financial/unemployment abilities. They will end up doing the government's bidding in one way or another.

Of course, that doesn't mean I have some intense hatred for military personnel. One of my best friends got accepted to Valley Forge, a military school. Do I hate him? No. He's a cool guy. Do I respect his decisions? No.

you will respect his decisions if they ever reinstated the draft....but we never had that happen because people are out there fighting already.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

So you're in favor of abandoning principles and freedom to simply "get ahead?" I don't intend to twist your words or misinterpret them, but that's what the quoted piece looks like to me. Maybe you could clarify?

Thats the thing about it....no one joins to "get ahead" they join to stay afloat". and no one is abandoning principles, they're giving up there rights as a civilian. Theres a huge difference which i suggest you look up. I hope i clarified it for you.

*shakes head* gladly many others have already showed how naive the op is, but Im just going to throw in something a little more simple...the ones to be mad at are in fact the government, not the troops. That is why there is all the support the troop stuff. Being a soldier is a job.

Also, having a military helps protect our country, regardless of what the government is doing with it, so if you say that they arnt protecting freedom, that is dead wrong as well.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

This again?

"...They tell us how much better off economically we all are in war than in peace. They see 'miracles of production' which it requires a war to achieve. And they see a world made prosperous by an enormous "accumulated" or "backed-up" demand. In Europe, after World War II, they joyously counted the houses, the whole cities that had been leveled to the ground, and that 'had to be replaced.' In America they counted the houses that could not be built during the war, the nylon stockings that could not be supplied, the worn-out automobiles and tires, the obsolescent radios and refrigerator...

...The more war destroys, the more it impoverished, the greater is the need...But need is not demand. Effective economics demand requires not merely need but corresponding purchasing power...

...The war, in short, changed the postwar direction of effort; it changed the balance of industries; it changed the structure of industry...

...Since World War II ended in Europe, there has been rapid and even spectacular 'economic growth' both in countries that were ravaged by war and those that were not. Some of the countries in which there was greatest destruction, such as Germany, have advanced more rapidly that others, such as France, in which there was much less. In part this was because West Germany followed sounder economic policies. In part it was because the desperate need to get back to normal housing and other living conditions stimulated increased efforts. But this does not mean that property destruction is an advantage to the person whose property has been destroyed. No man burns down his own house on the theory that the need to rebuild it will stimulate his energies...

...Many of the frequent fallacies in economics reasoning come from the propensity, especially marked today, to think in terms of an abstraction - the collectivity, the 'nation' - and to forget or ignore the individuals who make it up and give a meaning. No one could think that the destruction of war was an economic advantage who began by thinking first of all of the people whose property was destroyed...

...There may be, it is true, offsetting factors. Technological discoveries and advanced during a war may, for example, increase individual or national productivity at this point or that, and there may eventually be a net increase in overall productivity. Postwar demand will never reproduce the precise patterns of prewar demand. But such complications should not divert us from recognizing the basic truth that the wanton destruction of anything of real value is always a net loss, a misfortune, or a disaster, and whatever the offsetting considerations in a particular instance, can never be, on net balance, a boon or a blessing...

Chapter III: The Blessings of Destruction, Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt

For the love of Dawkins;

My point was that war does have economical benefits. It is not completely detrimental.

Listen, I am not debating that we ought to be in war, stop exaggerating. I am just saying that, if the government threatens that "we might be in war!" then people will spend money.

That is all I was saying.

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole-hill. I think you were just anxious to use that reference but I am really not debating that at all.

~

Originally Posted by Akono

you will respect his decisions if they ever reinstated the draft....but we never had that happen because people are out there fighting already.

There would be no point in respecting his/her decisions if they reinstated the draft because they would be forced to go against their own free will; they would have no decision. Of course, my attention would then shift from the soldier to the government should the draft be reinstated.

Thats the thing about it....no one joins to "get ahead" they join to stay afloat". and no one is abandoning principles, they're giving up there rights as a civilian. Theres a huge difference which i suggest you look up. I hope i clarified it for you.

I say "get ahead" in life from their current position, you say "stay afloat." Doesn't really matter.

"Giving up rights as a civilian" (whatever that means) to go get paid to fight [usually] non-threatening people across the world so the gov. can pay for their college education (or other issue - by taxing the general populace) sounds like giving up principles to me.

Originally Posted by Onus

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole-hill. I think you were just anxious to use that reference but I am really not debating that at all.

It looked like you were making that assumption. If not, I apologize.

And no, I wasn't anxious. Took me a while to type all of that into a post lol.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes you can. It is a fact that the weapons industry went crazy during World War II in every country involved. That created zillions of jobs when there had been hardly any. Do you agree with that much?

Sure, unemployment went down. However...

Well, those people started getting money from the government, money the government was going to have any way, and those people started spending money. That allowed allowed other businesses to grow and hire more people, who spent more money and allowed more business to grow and new businesses to be created. The perpetuation effect of all of that grew the economies of the world, and the perpetuation effect continued even after the war ended.

You lose track here. How is taxing people to get money, then giving those same people money to buy things a plan for economic growth? It'll only get taxed away anyway. Taxes also rose during the war, usually by broad government taxes on personal income, corporations, and profits taxes on corporations. Sure, that meant more money for the gov to spend on the war, but less for the consumer to stimulate with.

Total consumption didn't grow much during WW2. It rose modestly from $70.8 billion (1940) to 119.7 billion (1945). Consumer spending also fell a lot considering the shortage of consumer products (cars, appliances, etc). The focus was on making military products, using private capital of course. Since private capital wasn't being used for consumer demand, there was little economic growth during that time.

Originally Posted by Alric

And yea, I would say it right to his face. The fact that you claim he is a thug and would attempt to harm me for it, only proves my point. Just remeber, I called him naive. You called him a common criminal.

Ha! Not a thug. More like an intellectual with an attitude, a cool voice, and massive biceps. I didn't say he would actually do that to someone, at least I don't think he would . I was just trying to paint you an accurate picture of the man you want to insult. I picture you standing before him with your knees trembling and piss running down your leg.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

"Giving up rights as a civilian" (whatever that means) to go get paid to fight [usually] non-threatening people across the world so the gov. can pay for their college education (or other issue - by taxing the general populace) sounds like giving up principles to me.

What? Who are these non-threatening people we are fighting?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Ha! Not a thug. More like an intellectual with an attitude, a cool voice, and massive biceps. I didn't say he would actually do that to someone, at least I don't think he would . I was just trying to paint you an accurate picture of the man you want to insult. I picture you standing before him with your knees trembling and piss running down your leg.

So people who use violence to enforce their ideals aren't thugs if they where a uniform? What is it that makes it ok for people in the military to use violence but not ok for others(talking about war, not the example with the wall)?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

What? Who are these non-threatening people we are fighting?

Civilians.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

the ones to be mad at are in fact the government, not the troops. That is why there is all the support the troop stuff. Being a soldier is a job.

Also, having a military helps protect our country, regardless of what the government is doing with it, so if you say that they arnt protecting freedom, that is dead wrong as well.

This is a load of shit. Killing people is killing people regardless of weather or not you get paid for it. In fact, if someone is paying you to do it, it's even worse because then your doing it because someone else told you to, so it's not impulse but a calculated move. To some extant there are people who have been brainwashed(/are naive as has been said) and to some degree it's not their fault. But that's even more of a reason to verbally abuse them. These people need to realize what it is they are doing, and it seems that some can and some can't.

What is it that we need protection from? Why do we need to fight for freedom?(I don't think we do)

What justification do we have for supporting our uniformed killers? They only one I see is that they are "protecting us", which is bull. They are in another country fucking with people's shit. The only thing this war protects is imperialism. Apparently it is alive and well.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

What? Who are these non-threatening people we are fighting?

Civilians, so-called "insurgents" that are only violent against us because we're invading their homes, putting embargo's and sanctions on their countries, etc.