Bush and freedom.......

[The_Pikeman]

Well good to see that Bush is serious about spreading freedom and peace in the nations he decideds are run by evil dictators that have a iron grip on the media.

From the guardian:

Al-Jazeera demands answers after claim that Bush wanted to bomb headquarters (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1650505,00.html)


A senior executive of the Arabic news channel, al-Jazeera, is seeking an urgent meeting with Tony Blair over a report that George Bush discussed bombing the satellite channel's headquarters in Qatar.

Wadah Khanfar, al-Jazeera's director general, is flying to Britain this weekend after newspaper reports that President Bush made the comments during a face-to-face meeting with Mr Blair at the White House on April 16 last year.

Mr Bush's alleged comments about bombing al-Jazeera's building in Doha are reported to be contained in a note of the meeting. The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, has warned newspapers they could be charged under the Official Secrets Act if they publish further material from the note. In the Commons yesterday, the Liberal Democrat MP David Heath said Lord Goldsmith had threatened editors with the Official Secrets Act to prevent government embarrassment rather than protect national security. The attorney general's warning was "not on the grounds of national security but on the grounds of potential embarrassment to the prime minister or to any presidents he happens to have conversations with", he said.

Geoff Hoon, the leader of the Commons, replied that Lord Goldsmith had a "legal responsibility". He added: "It is done only in certain limited circumstances. But it is an important power that needs exercising from time to time.

The White House meeting, in April 2004, took place at a time British officials and military commanders were appalled by US tactics in Iraq, particularly the assault on Falluja. Pictures shown on al-Jazeera of the attack infuriated US generals, who accused the station of broadcasting anti-US propaganda. General Kimmet, the US commander, was reported to have demanded the removal of al-Jazeera journalists from Falluja.

Good to see our goverment is acting responsably too, banning all further reporting just incase it embarrasses the goverment. What a wonderfull world we live in. Bombs away lads.
-How.

[BTH]

freedom of killing
to make other people have the right to kill too

[geogob]

I wonder when someone will decided to actually do something. Now would be a good time for something like economic sanction, moving the UN to a more decent place (a place that actually cares about them), etc.

From what I see, the arab country where probably better our with Mr Hussein. At least he didn't use chemical weapons against his people in more then a decade. Nice to see the us forces caught up with this way of doing things.

[yurch]

Hey, it's nothing they haven't done before (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1653887.stm).

[Pipe_Dream]

I wonder when someone will decided to actually do something.

not soon e-fukn-nough. I really hate that fukn guy

[Almost]

Just bomb them all to hell and be done with it.

[BTH]

em, who?

[TheShiningWizard]

Gesundheit.

[Arethusa]

Freedom is delicious?

[Rostam]

Not sure what disgusts me more, the fact that there aren't mass demonstrations DAILY about all the crap going on right now, or the fact that I'm not doing anything either.

But one day I'm going to try and do my part. Hopefully there will be something left fighting for by then.

[Cap'n Beeb]

Yeah, because demonstrations totally work.

[Derelan]

everyone wants peace, but some people will kill to get it.

[Nukeproof]

Bush's definition of freedom is to bomb da sh!t out of everyone stepping his toe.

[Harrm]

So I was watching the History Channel yesterday, and they had a segment on Bush, which was odd considering that their normal programming consists of the ethic "Okay, so how much more Hitler can we show before this gets tired?" One of the quotes I got from that particular show was "[The Presidents'] intelligence is an emotional intelligence...he know's how to size people up...knows how to find their weaknesses."

Last time I checked, emotional intelligence doesn't build skyscrapers.

I got to thinking, if he knows so much about other peoples' social weaknesses and so little about economics and money, why the hell is he leading our country? I mean, sure, that's a great thing to have as a politician, but that's also a great thing to have if you're a crack dealer.

Also, one can notice that as this whole affair has dragged on, Bush's stuttering problem while in the public eye has only gotten worse and worse. If that's not a surefire sign that he's losing confidence of his actions in the public eye, I dont know what is.

--Harrm

EDIT: I'm not a Bush hater. I'm an Army man myself and I'm actually pro-Bush.

[Pipe_Dream]

EDIT: I'm not a Bush hater. I'm an Army man myself


Dear Harrm,

I love you man, but these two things have little or nothing in common. This man, Mr. Fuktard Bush, has nothing to do with the Army. In fact, when it was his time to be a part of a war, he squatted in the National Guard and went AWOL and then lied about it.

How many of his family members a currently serving? Where are those two sluts of his? I mean, shouldn't his family donate a soul for their fortune? This guy is full of ****. He let his VP fabricate "truth" to pay for a second term in office. Sad, but true.

I have a cousin and a brother-in-law currently serving, one in the AF and the other in the Army and neither of them like this piece of sh1t. My brother-in-law has been to Kuwait twice (he's there right now) while my sister has to take care of their two kids by herself, why?

Yes, I agree that if you enlist then you have no right to b1tch about where you get deployed, but they were not deployed for a legitimate reason. It was a LIE and a lot of people have already died for this BS.

It's hard for me to digest the fact that thousands of Iraqi civilians are dying because of this BS. So far, we have probably murdered 1000+ times as many civilians in Iraq as Al-Queda did Americans on 9/11 and Iraq had nothing to do with anything. Sh1t, two days ago we celebrated the Native American Holocaust. Yes, another fine example of the Great American Hypocrisy.

Sincerely,

P. Diddle

P.S. I respect your opinions.

[Nukeproof]

I totally agree with Pipe here.

Bush claiming to be a friend of the army is nothing but a cheap move to get some sympathy aka votes.

And btw. as Michael Moore discovered, only 2 members of the entire congress (or was it parliament) have relatives actually serving in the army. It's always the young and poor fighting old men's wars.

[5eleven]

Blah blah blah, I watch Michael Moore movies, blah blah blah, Cindy Sheehan is a great American Patriot, blah blah blah, distorted facts and figures, blah blah blah.
While there are legitimate gripes and concerns about the president and the administration, as there are with ANY administration, your points are well.............****ing stupid. He should "donate a soul" for their "fortune"? What the hell are you talking about? That doesn't even make any sense. Really. Think about what you said. I realize you have some emotional attachment to this war, but that is utterly retarded.
And btw. as Michael Moore discovered, only 2 members of the entire congress (or was it parliament) have relatives actually serving in the army. It's always the young and poor fighting old men's wars.
It was Congress, the US version of a parliamentary body. This idea that elected officials in Congress don't have the right to vote on or support a war unless their children are in it, is just dumb. Thank you Mr. Moore. You're such a wizard. Pull another spectacularly ignorant statistic out of your fat ass. Here's an idea if someone can actually find the numbers: Take the population of the United States. Determine what the percentage of the population is that is currently in the military serving IN THEATRE in Iraq. Determine the percentage. Then take the total numbers of the members of Congress and apply the same percentage, and see if elected representatives actually represent the constituency of the United States. That would be a much more interesting figure, IMO.

**EDIT** I almost forgot: Who in the hell wants old rich men fighting wars? Guaranteed loss.

Along the same lines Pipe, I'm sorry that your sister has to take care of the children. I truly am and I'm being serious. It sucks. It's horrible, and I wish her husband safe return. But regardless of what they think of the president, (who likes their boss anyway, and there is no requirement to like your Commander-In-Chief, only that you respect the position) they ENLISTED. WE ARE AT WAR. I'm sorry that they have to be deployed, I'm sorry that they have to do extended and repetitive tours. Had they wanted a job that would keep them at home, perhaps they should have signed on to something less.....how do I say it? MILITARY. And regardless whether you think that their deployment is for a legitimate reason, or frankly whether THEY think it's a legitimate reason, it doesn't matter. They are where they are and it is what it is.

we have probably murdered 1000+ times as many civilians in Iraq as Al-Queda did Americans on 9/11
Do you mean killed or murdered? Sorry, I don't think flying a plane into a building compares to being a casualty in a combat zone. I just don't agree.

I respect your opinion too, Pipe. And I'm not too happy about the war myself. But I don't have the answer and I don't profess to have the answer. What sickens me more than the war in Iraq is the political fighting that I watch on the news daily. The jockeying for position, the lies, the half-truths, the undignified comments and speeches, the resolutions with no substance, the spin, all of it. I'm sick of all of it.

[HoZ]

the thing is when you demonstrate you get riot police after you.... damn government....

[Rostam]

Do you mean killed or murdered? Sorry, I don't think flying a plane into a building compares to being a casualty in a combat zone. I just don't agree.
I'd say there is a difference to those actually doing the job (soldiers vs omg terrists), but the ones really responsible are the same on both sides.

On top of that, I don't think there is a big difference between flying a plane into a building and a casualty in a combat zone. Most importantly, it doesn't matter to the dead guy.

But the war is much more sickening than this. US soldiers have been deprived of sleep to cloud their judgement and increase trigger happiness, and people bunching up are the target of aerial missions. And that's just what I know, there must be much more to it than this. Compare this to the abuse of hate and possible brainwashing that the omg terrists are doing, and you will be torn. Ever questioned if 'we' are the good guys? Ever questioned, if there are any good guys at all...? Edit: I'm using this term because it's what so many people naturally assume, and never question. It might seem childish, but think about it.

I'm trying to do my part by not hurting anybody on purpose. That way atleast I won't be able to be abused. But then on the other hand, not many people got very far this way.

[BTH]

a pisstake television poll desguised as a serious poll, the results are stunning:
http://www.yonkis.com/media/wheretoattack.wmv

this is the kind of people giving Bush wings, i hope it's just a small minority of the american population... please tell me it is

[Derelan]

i love how people interrupt themselves when they post. people will stop themselves to make sure they know that whatever the other person is thinking about them at the moment, its wrong, it goes deeper than that.

thats whats wrong with the world in the first place. people are too concerned about what everyone else is thinking.

the world will find peace, maybe not in our generation, and maybe a lot of people will die before then.

[The_Pikeman]

Although I find Bush's actions questionable I must admit that I'm very dissapointed with the goverment on this. Anyone who thinks the innocent have nothing to fear really should take a look at what our goverment is doing. We supposidly "gave" the goverment the power to censor the media to help this so called "war on terror" and all they have done is use it to cover thier arses making sure this gets very little media coverage. This is why people fought against the identity card bill.
-How.

[Pipe_Dream]

I guess 511 wants "truth be told." Well, you got it. You're a ***** with a gun! Fuk you faggot!


That is all.

Edit: I just finished the reading the rest of your post, sorry. I respect you too. I saw retard and got pissed.

Edit pt. 2 I don't like Kerry or Michael Moore. I'm pro abortion (though not my choice) and very pro gun (I have many).

[Pipe_Dream]

Do you mean killed or murdered? Sorry, I don't think flying a plane into a building compares to being a casualty in a combat zone. .

Who decides this, you? War is war!

[Pipe_Dream]

Goddamnit, 5/11

I tried to go to bed and couldn't, you got me so fired the fuk up. You distorted my fukn point. Don't spin my sh1t. My comparison to 9/11 and the Iraqi civilians was just that... civilians! and then, if you read my post, I said that the Iraqis had "nothing to do with anything," just like the 9/11 civilians.

I don't give a fuk about politics or the lying saks of sh1t that sell them, I'm comfortable with myself. I don't need anybody or any abstract train of thought to define me.

Yes, you're fukn right I have "emotional ties" to this BS. Anyone who supports the war should carry their fat-asses to Iraq and let us get on with our missions. I'm going to bed now and will not respond to this again. Just do me a favor and read my post before letting somone spin my sh1t.

[5eleven]

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Sorry Pipe, I wasn't trying to spin what you said - I was just expressing what I thought about it. Having a bad day perhaps. Don't let it get to you man, it's just the internet, and we're all retards browsing and posting in these forums that mean absolutely dick.

Derelan, I don't know what you meant, and I don't know if/how that was directed at me.

Pikeman, I'm not getting your point........I was under the impression that the media "agrees" to certain amounts and forms of censorship when requested to withold certain aspects of their reporting. That, I guess, would be the fault of the media, not the government. Hell, if I could get by with only presenting my side of the story when I screwed up, I would do it too. :lol:

[The_Pikeman]

Pikeman, I'm not getting your point........I was under the impression that the media "agrees" to certain amounts and forms of censorship when requested to withold certain aspects of their reporting. That, I guess, would be the fault of the media, not the government. Hell, if I could get by with only presenting my side of the story when I screwed up, I would do it too.
Well supposidly this act was to stop the media reporting things like the location of troops, plans to attack etc. but they are using it to stop the media reporting something that has nothing to do with the safty of the troops or anything.
-How.

[omni]

Bush loves freedom. Bush loves peace, democracy, the constitution, and puppy dogs! Oh and 2 + 2 = 5

[Nightmare]

Allawi: Iraq Abuses As Bad As Under Saddam

LONDON - Human rights abuses in
Iraq are as bad now as they were under
Saddam Hussein and could become even worse, the country's former interim prime minister said in an interview published Sunday.

"People are doing the same as Saddam's time and worse," Ayad Allawi told The Observer newspaper. "It is an appropriate comparison."

Allawi accused fellow Shiites in the government of being responsible for death squads and secret torture centers and said the brutality of elements in the new security forces rivals that of Saddam's secret police.

Although Allawi is a Shiite, he is secular in his politics and is running separately from the Shiite religious parties in the Dec. 15 election. His comments appear to be an attempt to appeal to Sunni voters, who claim their community has been unfairly targeted by the Shiite-led security forces.

"People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same thing," the newspaper quoted him as saying.

Iraqi officials have played down reports of rights abuses, insisting they are lies created by their enemies.

[5eleven]

Does anyone here even know the differences between Shia and Sunni Muslims?

Aside from the obvious, that Saddam is a Sunni and ruled with hatred for Shiites, I'll tell you what I know. Muslim does not equal Muslim in all parts of the Middle East. Shiites commemorate Imam Hussein, who I believe was a grandson of the prophet Muhammad. He was killed after approaching Karbala and instead of being greeted by followers, he was captured, imprisoned and beheaded. Hussein is believed to be a symbol against tyranny and oppression for the Shia people. If you've ever seen video of Muslims cutting their foreheads and bleeding while on their pilgrimmage to Karbala, 40 days after Hussein's capture - those are Shiites. The Shiites also only believe in the fourth religious head of state, Ali, because he was allegedly a direct descendant of Muhammad.

Conversely, the Sunni only believe in the first four religious heads of state (aka caliphates). They also do not believe in the reverance and commemoration of Imam Hussein. The pilgrimmage to Karbala, very important to Shiite Muslims was not allowed during Saddam Hussein's rule. To some Muslims and Muslim sects, if you do not believe literally in the Q'uran as written, you are not a Muslim.

Now, I'm not Muslim, and I realize that I have paraphrased a very complex set of circumstances.

But two things about this article do not surprise me:
Allawi accused fellow Shiites in the government of being responsible for death squads and secret torture centers and said the brutality of elements in the new security forces rivals that of Saddam's secret police.
Is it difficult to comprehend why the oppressed become the oppressors when an oppressive regime drawn through religious lines is removed?
Although Allawi is a Shiite, he is secular in his politics and is running separately from the Shiite religious parties in the Dec. 15 election. His comments appear to be an attempt to appeal to Sunni voters, who claim their community has been unfairly targeted by the Shiite-led security forces.
Hmmmm. Guess it doesn't really sound any different than Republican v. Democrat politics here in the states, now does it?
And by the way: Osama Bin Laden is a Sunni.

[Harrm]

but they are using it to stop the media reporting something that has nothing to do with the safty of the troops or anything.

Apparently, you don't understand the concept of a confidence war. In war, any bad press whatsoever is a direct threat to the troops, because it builds opposing propaganda. A lot of people say "I have faith in the troops, but I have no faith the war." That's sort of like getting a dozen apples and putting them in a basket you don't think will hold them. While they shouldn't be in that basket in the first place, they're already there, and standing around complaining about the basket isn't going to fix it. You've got to do something about it.

P.S. I respect your opinions.

Haha. Actually, a personal goal of mine is one day to party with Georges' girls and then slip 'em a rufee. I'd put that ish on my gravestone.

Nightmares' post.

Isn't Iyad Allawi that guy who told MI6 about all those "weapons of mass destruction" that Iraq had? Also, he has British citizenship and has lived about half his life in the UK. No offense to Allawi supporters, but I've seen urinal cakes with more credibility than him.

Iraqi officials have played down reports of rights abuses, insisting they are lies created by their enemies.

I don't understand, there's really no proof of either in this article. I don't want anyone to mistake this article as legitimate news. This is an opinon piece. Being said, shame on you Nightmare for being too shallow to foster an opinion of your own.

--Harrm

[Nightmare]

I don't understand, there's really no proof of either in this article. I don't want anyone to mistake this article as legitimate news.

It was legitimate enough to turn up on Yahoo News through AP. Not that you should take that as proof, of course.

Posting that thing was mostly a comment on Bush and freedom. IMO he doesn't care about it at all despite all the rhetoric. Is that a clear enough opinion for you?

[5eleven]

Isn't Iyad Allawi that guy who told MI6 about all those "weapons of mass destruction" that Iraq had?
I thought that was Ahmed Chalabi. I thought Allawi was a former Ba'athist Shiite. A slight contradiction, like Tariq Aziz being a Ba'athist Christian. But I guess I'm confusing political alliances with religious faith. :D

[Arethusa]

Yeah, that was Chalabi, not Allawi. Two very, very different people.

[edit]

Apparently, you don't understand the concept of a confidence war. In war, any bad press whatsoever is a direct threat to the troops, because it builds opposing propaganda. A lot of people say "I have faith in the troops, but I have no faith the war." That's sort of like getting a dozen apples and putting them in a basket you don't think will hold them. While they shouldn't be in that basket in the first place, they're already there, and standing around complaining about the basket isn't going to fix it. You've got to do something about it.
**** you.

There is a very real chance I will have to join the army soon. The idea that one cannot differentiate support for the members of the military and how the military is used is nothing short of insulting and astonishingly asinine.

[omni]

Apparently, you don't understand the concept of a confidence war. In war, any bad press whatsoever is a direct threat to the troops, because it builds opposing propaganda. A lot of people say "I have faith in the troops, but I have no faith the war." That's sort of like getting a dozen apples and putting them in a basket you don't think will hold them. While they shouldn't be in that basket in the first place, they're already there, and standing around complaining about the basket isn't going to fix it. You've got to do something about it.

Sorry but that sounds like more spin to me.. so you think media coverage of the war is a "direct threat" to the troops. Really? You believe that? So a journalist who goes out and shows the reality of war (which is never pretty) is a direct threat to Johnny Marine out there? If he, for example, captures Johnny on video, shooting a bus full of civilians thinking they were terrorists... that's propaganda? No, that's just real reporting (although it may be used as propaganda). The direct threat are the guys with the guns who are not happy with foreign occupation. Journalists are only armed with the images they show, which can incite others and provoke angry responses but are not capable of killing marines (which means they are not a "direct threat" as you said). If you had to blame someone other than the insurgency for the dangerous situation the troops are in, then blame Bush and his political allies for sending them into the disaster in the first place. They at least have some culpability for using them as chess pawns to advance their own interests (which are never altruistic).

[geogob]

That comment, omni, reminds me of the footage of a US marine shooting an injured iraqi insurgent/civilian (we'll never really know I guess).

[Arethusa]

If we're thinking of the same one, that Marine was deservedly court martialed, though I don't know what came of it.

[Derelan]

paranoia....

[The_Pikeman]

Apparently, you don't understand the concept of a confidence war. In war, any bad press whatsoever is a direct threat to the troops, because it builds opposing propaganda.....
I hope that was sarcasim .......
-How.

[Saladin]

mmm, what was done in kabul was obviously not a mistake then, and even more obviously not a mistake now.

it was stupid.
it sucks.

probably no one will do anything about this, itll just suck some more.

[geogob]

.

[Harrm]

Taken from wikipedia:

A former Ba'athist, Allawi set up the Iraqi National Accord, which carried out bombings in Saddam Hussein's Iraq and is today an active political party. In the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq the INA provided intelligence about alleged weapons of mass destruction to MI6

Okay, so it was his organization that provided said information to MI6, while apparently simulatenously conducting bombings inside of Iraq. Grand.

**** you.

See, this is the reaction most people tend to give when an opposing viewpoint is given to a situation they feel very strongly about. It just goes to show, whether you are conservative or liberal, you are not smarter than everyone else: you are different. Unfortunately, people like to think they are (called self-serving bias, psychology majors!), which is pretty much why arguing on the internet (and mosttimes in person) never, ever gets anywhere. Also, the flip side of that reaction is shock:

I hope that was sarcasim .......
-How.

No, it wasn't. So called "confidence wars" (my term, not theirs) have been raging since time began. You might remember the worlds largest of these: the Cold War.

There is a very real chance I will have to join the army soon. The idea that one cannot differentiate support for the members of the military and how the military is used is nothing short of insulting and astonishingly asinine.

I am in the military as of this summer when my contract begins, so I really dont know where you're leading with that comment. Also: you never "have" to do anything, and if you tell your recruiter that you "have" to join the army, there's a fair chance he won't sign you up. If you don't believe in the war, I don't think a warlike institution such as the army is a good career choice for you.

No, that's just real reporting (although it may be used as propaganda).

As opposed to what? Fake reporting? Tidbit of info: all reporting is propaganda.

*...deep breath...*

I understand that the rest of the thread is going to go somewhat to the tune of: OMG I CANT BELIEVE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME HARRM FAG because of the general bias of the forum tends to be liberal (that, or the ones who speak tend to be liberal), and I often feel that opinions are good despite the semmingly universal ethic that they are not. Granted, people are going to post horrific stories about things they have heard/read that have 'happened' in Iraq. Of course bad things are going to happen, on both sides even. I haven't seen any posts about allied nations' civilians being executed over there. From this, I could easily draw the conclusion that apparently the hatred of Bush seems to dominate the love for your fellow man.

But I'm not trying to build a case either way. This is war. War is ugly, and war is brutal, and nobody is ever the good guy in war.

--Harrm

[5eleven]

From this, I could easily draw the conclusion that apparently the hatred of Bush seems to dominate the love for your fellow man.
Hmmmm. That's an interesting comment. With permission, I shall use it in future arguments.

[Rostam]

Harrm, you believe opinion is a good thing? Strange, I can't remember an opinion EVER being of any advantage.
Oh and I remember reading that argueing is indeed pretty pointless, since both sides will just take their original prejudices and move it to a new extreme (polarisation). However, it does depend on the objective in a discussian, when I argue I often just want to know what another guy has to say about something, I rarely try to 'win' a discussion.

From this, I could easily draw the conclusion that apparently the hatred of Bush seems to dominate the love for your fellow man.
Can't say I know many people that see him as a fellow man. But in all honesty, there has been a post about civilians being hold as hostage (by zundfolge I think).

Hmmmm. That's an interesting comment. With permission, I shall use it in future arguments.
To prove what? That people aren't perfect, aren't honest and quite often hypocrites? Duh?

[Harrm]

Not to pick on Rosdam, but I have work tonight, and this is the last time I'll be able to get on until late tomorrow, and he's the only who has posted:

by zundfolge I think

He hasn't posted in this thread at all...?

Strange, I can't remember an opinion EVER being of any advantage.

Erm...the US Constitution and cessation from the throne?

I rarely try to 'win' a discussion.

I never once spoke about "winning" the discussion...but I'd like to know where you read that arguing is pointless? That doesn't seem like it should be an all-encompassing statement, since argument certainly serves a purpose on both psychological and biological needs.

--Harrm

[Rostam]

Pointless was my own interpretation. And I meant that zundfolge once posted a thread. As for the US constitution, please do explain why that's an opinion (when you have the time of course).

[Logan6]

There is a very real chance I will have to join the army soon.

Lol. There is a very real chance we'll ALL be joining the military soon!

[The_Pikeman]

No, it wasn't. So called "confidence wars" (my term, not theirs) have been raging since time began. You might remember the worlds largest of these: the Cold War.
Right to clarify you think that its acceptable for the goverment to stop the publication of articals like this on the grounds of "national security"?
-How.

[Arethusa]

See, this is the reaction most people tend to give when an opposing viewpoint is given to a situation they feel very strongly about. It just goes to show, whether you are conservative or liberal, you are not smarter than everyone else: you are different. Unfortunately, people like to think they are (called self-serving bias, psychology majors!), which is pretty much why arguing on the internet (and mosttimes in person) never, ever gets anywhere.
No, it shows little more than emphatic invective. Reading more into it is sophomoric and silly, as is the every popular let's-not-argue-on-the-internets sentiment.

No, it wasn't. So called "confidence wars" (my term, not theirs) have been raging since time began. You might remember the worlds largest of these: the Cold War.
And that one really worked out well for everyone involved.

I am in the military as of this summer when my contract begins, so I really dont know where you're leading with that comment. Also: you never "have" to do anything, and if you tell your recruiter that you "have" to join the army, there's a fair chance he won't sign you up. If you don't believe in the war, I don't think a warlike institution such as the army is a good career choice for you.
And I wish you well, all the same. I brought it up because the overwhelming majority of people who talk about 'confidence wars' and unwavering support love war and know nothing of it. I'm not bringing it up because I think it makes me great, or anything— only that the full ramifications of war have been weighing on me heavily lately, and that I am likely to be much more intimately acquainted soon enough. I mistook your statement for the jingoist hypocrisy that has become unfortunately common in this country, which all too often is quick to paint all military as blindly in love with war.

Regardless, bandying about aphorisms about 'confidence wars' is nothing short of an insult to everything this country is supposed to stand for. We do not blindly follow our leaders because they will lead us, and we do not blindly support our wars simply because they are happening. Bad press is not a threat to our soldiers. A lack of press is a direct threat to survival of this country. I will not stand by and be blackmailed into supporting a war built on a house of lies. If you want to talk about people who are direct threats to our soldiers, I suggest you start with the politicians who so willingly put them in the sand. The only direct threat to the America I believe in is people believing we have a duty not to question. I will not defend freedom abroad by abandoning at home.

Though I have to admit, I wonder how much of the process you've thought through if you think a recruiter would turn me down for having misgivings about anything short of liking girls. Recruiters are liars, and for your sake, I do sincerely hope you know everything yours told cannot be relied upon, and everything yours didn't will one day bite you in the ass.

[Derelan]

I think, the reason you are all arguing on this forum is for the same basic simple reasons that we went and stayed in war with iraq. Concern for self (forum rep/oil for the country, language skills/military economy), and concern for others (do they believe their point of view is right?/do they believe their leader and government is right?).

[Harrm]

I was gone for a bit and the thread died. Oh well.

please do explain why that's an opinion

"Hey, this constitution is a pretty good way of running the country."
"I Agree. Let's adopt it."

And that one really worked out well for everyone involved.

Indeed it didn't, but it could have been much, much worse for us had support failed on our side before the Soviets'.

I brought it up because the overwhelming majority of people who talk about 'confidence wars' and unwavering support love war and know nothing of it.

I never said my support was unwaivering, but I am willing to put my pride aside as say that there are good things and bad things tied to it, rather than making a broad generalization that "it is wrong" or "it is right." 99.9% of us suffer from groupthink. Taking a hardline stance puts you firmly in that 99.9%.

Also, my family has a long history of military service and loss of life from military service. Every single member of my family is or was in the military one way or another (except my brother). I lost several uncles to war conflicts. Saying I have no respect of the ins and outs of war is a bit offensive.

Right to clarify you think that its acceptable for the goverment to stop the publication of articals like this on the grounds of "national security"?
-How.

No, I don't know where you pulled that from. I was saying that information should be presented in a standardized, non-bias format so as to not put the war under good or bad pretexts because overconfidence either way can present a danger to the troops.

No, it shows little more than emphatic invective. Reading more into it is sophomoric and silly, as is the every popular let's-not-argue-on-the-internets sentiment.

That doesn't make anything I've said any less true. There comes a point in every cliche's life where it becomes just that...cliche'. People tend to bash things because they seem ever-popular and once they become general knowledge, infantile in nature. Newsflash: Shakespeare is cliche', and is currently being taught in schools worldwide.

Also: "Not reading into things too much" is almost never a good idea.

I think, the reason you are all arguing on this forum is for the same basic simple reasons that we went and stayed in war with iraq. Concern for self (forum rep/oil for the country, language skills/military economy), and concern for others (do they believe their point of view is right?/do they believe their leader and government is right?).

Well, when you get right down to it, every argument is virtually the same: I'm right vs. you're right. As you climb up the ladder, it's this same idea impressioned over and over again. The idea of this is that we try to achieve idealistic harmony. The problem with that is as groups we tend to villify those we percieve different than ourselves, which I figure is why I tend to get a strong reaction in this forum when I disagree with others.


Arethusa: When are you going in? They have a buddy program in the Army where you can join up with someone you know and get put in the same general unit. I'd rather go into this with present company than with a bunch of idiots I don't know.

--Harrm

[Arethusa]

Also, my family has a long history of military service and loss of life from military service. Every single member of my family is or was in the military one way or another (except my brother). I lost several uncles to war conflicts. Saying I have no respect of the ins and outs of war is a bit offensive.
It is, and for that much, I apologize. Like I said, just tends to be true of the popular 'I love war' people in the US right now, and I mistook your comments for that.

When are you going in? They have a buddy program in the Army where you can join up with someone you know and get put in the same general unit. I'd rather go into this with present company than with a bunch of idiots I don't know.
At the moment, I'm not. To be honest, I'm trying my hardest not to, and in a week, I'm planning on going back to my old job and getting a second and working my ass off until February. With some cash and enough luck, I might be able to move out to California and get enough financial aid to go to school as an independant.

But all that is obviously shaky, so the army's still a strong possibility. If things don't look like they're coming together by mid February, I'm just going to sign up then and haggle at MEPS for option 40 on my contract and some good bonuses. I hear they need Rangers badly enough right now that my chances of getting that are very strong. I don't know what your plans are, but if you are planning on going in around that time or a bit later and I do go in, I wouldn't mind doing the buddy program at all. Don't know if you'd want to go in for the same stuff, though, or even if the buddy program extends past basic (and even if it does, past stuff like AIT?).

[Pipe_Dream]

Like I said, just tends to be true of the popular 'I love war' people in the US right now


I don't think it's so much that people love war, as much as it's that they will go to any length to not have to recognize issues that are closer to home. Think about how much debate there is over Iraq, then think about all of the important issues that have no debate. However, this is probably true for most of the worlds population. Just think, you don't have to spend much time looking at your own problems when it's so much easier to judge ours.

[ecale3]

i love how people interrupt themselves when they post. people will stop themselves to make sure they know that whatever the other person is thinking about them at the moment, its wrong, it goes deeper than that.

thats whats wrong with the world in the first place. people are too concerned about what everyone else is thinking.

the world will find peace, maybe not in our generation, and maybe a lot of people will die before then.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No it won't, and you're either very niave or completely retarded for thinking so. The world will find peace my ass. The world will find peace (or something that sounds similar, pieces perhaps) when humans destroy themselves (and probably the planet with them).

Think what you will of me, just don't lie to yourself. So long as there is life on this planet, this world will never see peace.