Fist 666 Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 you don't seem like a bad guy at all. guess i was taking things the wrong way due to your post that i responded to. and btw, thank you for serving. i wholly understand, my initial post was just a pissed off rant, thats why i put the "less eloquent" disclaimer... at this point i rarely find the argument to be is war itself right or wrong, rather arguing whether or not sympathy towards the rest of mankind is necessary or if a lack of sympathy makes me a bad guy.... serving is really my pleasure, but thanks for appreciating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 do you follow ron paul at all? do you agree or disagree that foreign policy (the bush administrations) is all out of whack and needs to rely more heavily on talks than to rely on the u.s. being a bully? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 this isn't about my personal reaction to 9/11. i'll argue that war(ring) is the nature of man, i'm glad to be on what is most frequently the winning side, it happens, and will happen for the rest of mankind's wretched span. OIF/OEF are not mindless attacks, they are capitalist driven attacks, which i am okay with. i don't wave my flag on remembrance day, i wear it on my right shoulder every fucking day, tragedies happen (on our side and theirs). take your death count (as theo mentioned) and eliminate al quaeda, insurgents, madhi, etc... give me that number and make it look as extreme. every fucker that drives his vbed into a gate gets counted in their death toll, every civilian killed by their suicide bombs gets counted; don't be so foolish as to blame every death on American soldiers. man up and acknowledge the fact that American soldiers, my brothers, kill innocent people? i wouldn't deny it for a second. suck my thumb because we got attacked? no. but iraq IS NOT about 9/11, do not accuse me of that sort of reasoning, afghanistan was in reaction to 9/11, OIF/OEF are not. and to casek: i appreciate you not bringing up conspiracies... 1. i know, i believe it to be a combination of GW finishing his father's war and simply put, an oil war, also a bit of "eh, it'll help the economy while i'm in..." 2. i know, too late though to debate the right or wrong of it... 3. pretty much 4. this has happened, and i'd bet i'm more offended/disgraced by it than you... its a mark on me. but it is NOT by any means an everyday occurrence 5. i agree completely 6. this is true, and i can see you're jumping at a cia/drug run conspiracy... 7. wars are not won. wars come to an end. attrition will decide no victory, we all lose, period. wars do however ensure the economic stability for future generations, my family will be better off than their families, and i'm willing to overlook tragedy and atrocity for that. what a machiavellian motherfucker you sound like! it's cool to kill people, commit atrocities and invade countries because it'll bring economic stability for future generations of your family, wow what a selfish sentiment, sounds like darwinism gone mad! good luck with the rest of your life pal i hope you develop into a more compassionate less nationalistic young man. Just remember those who live by the sword die by the sword and if you go into another country as a soldier with the aim of securing economic stability for your own country then i hope that whoever it is your fighting gets you first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 do you follow ron paul at all? do you agree or disagree that foreign policy (the bush administrations) is all out of whack and needs to rely more heavily on talks than to rely on the u.s. being a bully? dude did you not read his post? his sentiments for justifying foreign war go completely against what Ron Paul stands for. also casek why do you have such a hard on for the military when almsot everything they do is against your proclaimed libertarian beliefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreSixO Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 that new Osama tape is def not him. His beard hair is blacker and less grey hair, but grey hairs are seen as a sign of power and wisdom in mideast culture. He would never dye that shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 word it's definitely not him. i didn't notice his beard hair was blacker, but now that you mention it, i see what you mean. grey hair is indeed a sign a wisdom in mideast culture, but this cliche analogy hasn't been used in other parts of the world. he would never dye that shit and lose his wisdom. thanks for the insight man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 what a machiavellian motherfucker you sound like! it's cool to kill people, commit atrocities and invade countries because it'll bring economic stability for future generations of your family, wow what a selfish sentiment, sounds like darwinism gone mad! good luck with the rest of your life pal i hope you develop into a more compassionate less nationalistic young man. Just remember those who live by the sword die by the sword and if you go into another country as a soldier with the aim of securing economic stability for your own country then i hope that whoever it is your fighting gets you first haha, i knew you'd fucking love me. where did i say its cool to kill or commit atrocities? i said it happens and i'm willing to put my personal benefit over it. not because i'm selfish but because not everyone is going to win anyways... people are going to die, bad things are going to happen, you and your posse of bleeding hearted liberals cannot change this fact. i'm not saying you have to be completely misanthropic and you're wrong if you're not, i just don't see a point in trying to save the world, it doesn't need to be saved, and it can't be. relating it to darwinism isn't bad, why wouldn't survival of the fittest come into play? nature has been eliminated from her role as the great selector, it seems a natural transition for economics to replace her... i can pick sides. you want all men to love all men, and thats an ideal that is too far gone... i'm not a nationalist. i admit America does wrong, a lot. i am patriotic, i do believe we have the greatest country in spite of our wrong doings and failings. live by the sword, die of old age son. fight smarter, faster, more advanced. if i die, i die. i did my part towards what i believe is the best for my side, my genepool, and for those of an ethos similar to mine. (better to die from something than live for nothing, yes, i'm calling trying to save the world nothing[but you can count your karma points if you want]) i don't shun compassion. i just view it as unnecessary. hard hearted. brainwashed. whatever. humans are vile creatures, the earth would be far better without us here, ha! and for the record, just because you don't recognize my views to be inline with those of ron paul, does not mean i am not familiar with his politics. i'm familiar with jesus and hitler, too, but i certainly don't live a life in line with their thinking... you fail. you'd be amazed how many people in the military are pro ron paul, and how many are adamant libertarians. we're not all pro-bush neo-cons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 you'd be amazed how many people in the military are pro ron paul, and how many are adamant libertarians. we're not all pro-bush neo-cons. I have come across this alot, people think I am one way because I wear a uniform and it is not at all what I am like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 dude did you not read his post? his sentiments for justifying foreign war go completely against what Ron Paul stands for. also casek why do you have such a hard on for the military when almsot everything they do is against your proclaimed libertarian beliefs? a hard on for the military? jesus. are you serious? are you just a cocksucker or are you just a cocksucker? these young people put their lives on the line voluntarily. they don't make up the orders, they just follow them. i have a deep respect for the warriors of many cultures. you don't have to agree with policy to support your own country's military men and women. it's just something that is a given and it is quite patriotic, whether it's serving or just supporting. my libertarian beliefs are not in jeopardy of anything, but thanks for being such a little nancy bitch to try and put that out there like it would offend me. i hope you get raped by a dingo. not really, but just the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 haha, i knew you'd fucking love me. where did i say its cool to kill or commit atrocities? i said it happens and i'm willing to put my personal benefit over it. not because i'm selfish but because not everyone is going to win anyways... people are going to die, bad things are going to happen, you and your posse of bleeding hearted liberals cannot change this fact. i'm not saying you have to be completely misanthropic and you're wrong if you're not, i just don't see a point in trying to save the world, it doesn't need to be saved, and it can't be. by 'cool' i didnt mean 'totally gnarly dude' i meant you're fine with it. I'm not liberal at all although, as a matter of fact I hate extreme liberals as much as i hate extreme conservatives, however i do believe in the maxim that we should treat humanity as an end in itself and never jsut a means. I don;t think i need to save the world or that you do either, but there's a massive difference between living and letting live and taking an active role in the demise of the planet for your own benefit. relating it to darwinism isn't bad, why wouldn't survival of the fittest come into play? nature has been eliminated from her role as the great selector, it seems a natural transition for economics to replace her... i can pick sides. you want all men to love all men, and thats an ideal that is too far gone... haha dude the economic system isn't even slightly resemblant of survival of the fittest. It allows old men and royal families who have never done anything in their lives to be on top of the pecking order. And guess what mate if the economic system was the form of natural selection you and me are as good as dead. (i don't think students or grunts rank really highly on that chain) once again i dont want all men to love all men, i dislike plenty of men i jsut dont think i have the right to kill them for my own privelage. It's about civil and human rights for me not some gay brotherhood of man hting. i'm not a nationalist. i admit America does wrong, a lot. i am patriotic, i do believe we have the greatest country in spite of our wrong doings and failings. i'd say the belief that your country has the right to exploit other country's because you feel you are better than them is nationalistic live by the sword, die of old age son. fight smarter, faster, more advanced. if i die, i die. i did my part towards what i believe is the best for my side, my genepool, and for those of an ethos similar to mine. (better to die from something than live for nothing, yes, i'm calling trying to save the world nothing[but you can count your karma points if you want]) why are you so afraid that everyone else is out to get you and you need to kill them to secure your own position? don;t US soldiers swear an oath to the constitution? doesn't the constitution say that there are certain truths that are self evident? that all men are created equal and that each man has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? what gives you the right to deprive them of that for your own warped values? i'm particularly interested to hear your response to this last point so please don;t ignore it in your reply! i don't shun compassion. i just view it as unnecessary. hard hearted. brainwashed. whatever. humans are vile creatures, the earth would be far better without us here, ha! if you believe that the world would be better off without us why do you obsessively attempt to further the chances of the survival of your own genetic strand? and for the record, just because you don't recognize my views to be inline with those of ron paul, does not mean i am not familiar with his politics. i'm familiar with jesus and hitler, too, but i certainly don't live a life in line with their thinking... you fail. you'd be amazed how many people in the military are pro ron paul, and how many are adamant libertarians. we're not all pro-bush neo-cons. i never said you didn;t know about ron paul, casek asked if you followed him and i thought it was evident from your views on exploitation of foreign nations that you didn't anyway i find it very impressive that you don't gloss over your views to try to make them less radical. i look forward to hearing your justification to some of the points i raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 casek you're nothing but a petty coward, you don't deserve to lay claim to any of the lofty sentiments that america was founded upon, because you don;t have the balls to apply them to anything that doesn't suit your pussy little military cocksucking mindset. you think the founding fathers would believe someone to be in the right that VOLUNTEERS to invade foreign nations expressly against the teachings of the constitution. arent you the sniveling faggot that is always quoting the foudning fathers? remember what they said about a standing army being 'the bane of liberty' i thought you were pro liberty casek? obviously your just a little bandwagon hopping faggot with no idea about the true meaning of the ideals you pretend to adhere to i hope you get raped by a redneck as dumb as yourself. (not really, i'm sure it would be consensual) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 I understand that in America the system is set up in such a way as to practically force disadvantaged people into the military as it is their only option for further education after serving their terms and they are often unqualified for other types of employment. I really do empathise with the people who are coerced into the military in this fashion and think its a real tragedy that they are exploited like this by their own government. I don't have anything against servicemen and women (i'm proud as hell that both my grandfathers served in WWII) however i do have a problem with what the military is engaged in these days (securing profits rather than freedom) and above all i can't stand faggot like casek who make out like the army is just one big bunch of heroes (wake up to yourself go and ask them if they think they're heroes only a fraction of deluded ones might say they are doing something worthwhile, this is my experience with australian servicemen anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 being patriotic towards your military men and women doesn't mean you support the policies upon which they fight, it has nothing to do with that. that has nothing to do with bandwagons. my father served, i am patriotic towards why he chose to serve for his country but not what was going on at the time. several of my ancestors served, even back to the founding of this country. soldiers don't volunteer to invade anothe rnation, they volunteer to fight for their countrymen. i think that is the highest form of honor one can have. to fight for those who cannot, now, to put your quote in context.... An Army (an armed force) can be called up by volunteers from the community *as needed* when there is some threat, such as the threat of invasion. This is generally called the "Militia". But a Standing Army is a paid, armed military force that exists before there is any threat. A Standing Army that lives among the citizenry is most likely to be used against the citizenry. Our present system demonstrates this. While none of the Founding Documents mention the word "police", our Municipal, City, County, and State Police fit this description of a Standing Army. The Founding Fathers are on record for opposing the abuses of Standing Armies: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789) i support militias, but a militia is our homeland defense. the last vestige of freedom. it is a separate matter from that which you speak of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 so you don;t support the standing army then is that what you're saying? "soldiers don't volunteer to invade anothe rnation, they volunteer to fight for their countrymen. i think that is the highest form of honor one can have. to fight for those who cannot," dude you realise the entire point of the militia is that THERE ARE NO AMERICANS WHO CANNOT FIGHT FOR THEMSELVES! it's completely incompatible to say you support a professional armed force because they protect those who can't and then say you also support the founding fathers concept of a milita take your pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 so you don;t support the standing army then is that what you're saying? "soldiers don't volunteer to invade anothe rnation, they volunteer to fight for their countrymen. i think that is the highest form of honor one can have. to fight for those who cannot," dude you realise the entire point of the militia is that THERE ARE NO AMERICANS WHO CANNOT FIGHT FOR THEMSELVES! it's completely incompatible to say you support a professional armed force because they protect those who can't and then say you also support the founding fathers concept of a milita take your pick a militia serves to protect the homeland. a government formed military stands (stood for, bush fucked up posse comitatus) to protect from foreign or domestic enemies, but cannot (could not, should not) police those within the nation of origin. i can support both. i support any man willing to die for his country. that is the highest form of sacrifice. also, your little quote is speaking of police. not an armed military. there are americans who cannot fight for themselves. the very old and the very young. you're just a dumbshit who speaks out of his ass and remarks about things which you have no understanding of. militia: a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 the democrats need to leave general petraeus alone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 a militia serves to protect the homeland. a government formed military stands (stood for, bush fucked up posse comitatus) to protect from foreign or domestic enemies, but cannot (could not, should not) police those within the nation of origin. i can support both. i support any man willing to die for his country. that is the highest form of sacrifice. also, your little quote is speaking of police. not an armed military. there are americans who cannot fight for themselves. the very old and the very young. you're just a dumbshit who speaks out of his ass and remarks about things which you have no understanding of. militia: a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. you're an unrepentant hypocrite and i have no further interest in talking to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CELT Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Theo save this thread.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Yum, do you know anyone at all that is currently serving in the military? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Have you ever asked them what they thought about anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CELT Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Yum, do you know anyone at all that is currently serving in the military? I sure do , and they all fucking hate Iraq & Afghanistan as much as you'd think . My best friend Antonio Reyes got out of the USMC earlier this year . 10 years served..and they wanted him to stay and become a D.I. to which he said go fuck yourself . :lol: He's adjusted as a civilian a lot better than my other friends . Tony lost a guy from boot camp...what are the odds of that , seriously ? After 2 years in Iraq he had enough . Single guy , saved his money , bought a Cobra and threw in another $10000 into it and moved to Miami to run a Salsa Club . I miss that little bastard . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viperface Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 2 cents: I'd say the problem regarding U.S. army and many other armies, is the ignorance and stupidity that seems to guide them. United States army has long history of neglecting war veterans. This maddens me almost as much as the precision bombs that kill babies in middle east and wherever. Note that I am not from USA. Blaming individual soldiers about the war is the first mistake. Second mistake is to think that military training destroys individual thought, or subdues any pacifist thought. Another common misconception among all sides seems to be that being a soldier means pro-war. Even among troops this is very common. What these troops fail to realize that no one will ever ask them anyway. Military isn't/shouldn't be political or religious at all. It should exist solely to defend the nation's culture and geography, Not as a tool or asset to achieve international power. Whether the war in Iraq is absolutely neccessary to maintain american culture, or just political-economical play, will be decided probably 10 years from now, and not by me anyway. That's why I don't want to say much about it. If there's any neo-darwinist/nationalist in here, talking about how war can be accepted through the achieved national good, I must blame them for intellectual and emotional laziness. Darwin's logics are so often used to justify inhuman "reality", fucked up behaviour and atrocity that it makes me sick. Darwin's writings were meant to explain the nature, not complex sociological events or human behaviour. Anyone who might have any clue of human agony, in international, universal level, shouldn't be able to justify any of that suffering with any human writing ever made. You might've seen photographs of dead people. If you are capable of imagining experiencing that view with every sense, 24 hours a day without relief, I'd say you wouldn't give a fuck about Darwin nor any other wise man. No matter if the horror is happening in some distant country among people whose language is incomprehensible. Like many other of my writings, I'm sure this one also fails to attract the nature of current discussion. At least I got an excuse to practice my english... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Have you ever asked them what they thought about anything? yes i do and yes i have, they hate the hwole thing, the australian military is fiercly independant of the government and they loathe being used as pawns for some bullshit other htan defense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 2 cents: I'd say the problem regarding U.S. army and many other armies, is the ignorance and stupidity that seems to guide them. United States army has long history of neglecting war veterans. This maddens me almost as much as the precision bombs that kill babies in middle east and wherever. Note that I am not from USA. Blaming individual soldiers about the war is the first mistake. Second mistake is to think that military training destroys individual thought, or subdues any pacifist thought. Another common misconception among all sides seems to be that being a soldier means pro-war. Even among troops this is very common. What these troops fail to realize that no one will ever ask them anyway. Military isn't/shouldn't be political or religious at all. It should exist solely to defend the nation's culture and geography, Not as a tool or asset to achieve international power. Whether the war in Iraq is absolutely neccessary to maintain american culture, or just political-economical play, will be decided probably 10 years from now, and not by me anyway. That's why I don't want to say much about it. If there's any neo-darwinist/nationalist in here, talking about how war can be accepted through the achieved national good, I must blame them for intellectual and emotional laziness. Darwin's logics are so often used to justify inhuman "reality", fucked up behaviour and atrocity that it makes me sick. Darwin's writings were meant to explain the nature, not complex sociological events or human behaviour. Anyone who might have any clue of human agony, in international, universal level, shouldn't be able to justify any of that suffering with any human writing ever made. You might've seen photographs of dead people. If you are capable of imagining experiencing that view with every sense, 24 hours a day without relief, I'd say you wouldn't give a fuck about Darwin nor any other wise man. No matter if the horror is happening in some distant country among people whose language is incomprehensible. Like many other of my writings, I'm sure this one also fails to attract the nature of current discussion. At least I got an excuse to practice my english... very well said, where are you from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viperface Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Finland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Yum, your from australia? I just trained with some australian navy guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Yum, your from australia? I just trained with some australian navy guys. so, you dressed as a kangaroo, got them drunk and then raped them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 How did you know? Good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 heh, easy enough to figure out if you watch PBS. Researcher: Bin Laden's beard is real, video is not http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9777136-7.html?tag=head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 what do you guys think about that this video, where neocons try to link iraq to 9/11: that video is disgusting, and more propaganda that many weak-minded americans will surely grovel to. what amazes me is that polls indicate that nearly 1/3 of americans actually believe saddam hussein and iraq were directly involved in orchestrating 9/11. are many americans just fucking stupid or what? are they not reading? what the fuck is going on? i used to always think americans in general had much more common sense than what those polls indicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.