# Remembrance Day, is it worth remembering?



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 11, 2009)

Every year a little before 11am, on the 11th day, of the 11th month, my school would hold a special assembly to remember those who died, fighting for their country in the various wars. There would be a speech of some sort and a few hymns would be sang, one that I particularly enjoyed was 'Oh valiant hearts...', and then the entire school would stand as they read out the names of all the past pupils who died in the First and Second World War and the South African border wars. In conclusion there would be a group prayer and a minute of silence leading into the playing of the last post. Making the ceremony even more poignant was that the hall in which it was held was the Memorial Hall and dedicated to those same men.


All around the world the same ceremony is held, known as Armistice Day, commemorating the day that Germany surrendered to end World War I, then known as the Great War. There are also commemorations held on Remembrance Sunday, the Sunday closest to Armistice Day.


This is probably one of the saddest days on the calender, reminding everyone of the tragic loss of life that has occurred in various conflicts, something that has always been with mankind. As a kid it probably doesn't mean much to you, it didn't particularly for me, but as you grow up it does make you think, regardless of whether you know someone who has been killed in a conflict or not. One of the things that I eventually did start to wonder during those assemblies was whether they really should be remembered as heroes.


I am against war and I'm sure that there are many people who would agree, but those same people are often all to ready to sing the praises of soldiers and call them heroes. I won't say that some aren't. There are countless stories of heroism and compassion that have occurred during wartime but I worry that praising them sends the wrong message, not just to the children of the world but to ourselves.


When I was younger I had an idealised view of war, partly derived from the innocence of childhood but I think also because of the way that soldiers are put on a pedestal and honoured for their sacrifice. The danger with this, I think, is that it glorifies a pursuit that should not be glorified. Each time you celebrate these people's contributions you send a message that there is honour in killing, that it is right to kill other humans to advance your own ideals. This is a message that I can not stand behind.


Every country in the world has laws forbidding murder, but when two countries disagree it is promoted and supported by a large number of people. Soldiers are murderers, regardless of the reasons that they fight they still fight and kill. This is not any different to any other killing. If you are attacked and have to defend yourself that is one thing, but to pretend that a soldier is not a murder is a massive contradiction with the way his actions would ordinarily be judged. The motivation is often different, with a common murder perhaps about money or jealousy while a soldier lays down his life for his country or liberty but in actual fact the common murderer's motivations are more concrete. Not to downplay liberty but money is a real object while a country is merely a piece of land under the control of an organised group of people, not a real object, and liberty, while we could argue about its importance, is just an idea and no more correct than a doctrine like communism. Soldiers should be no more allowed to go and kill someone for freedom than I should be allowed to go and kill someone because he doesn't like my taste in pants.  


Part of the problem is that war and the idolisation of soldiers and their heroism is so deeply ingrained into most people that they can not bring themselves to question it. The same goes for most things that people go to war about, patriotism being an excellent example. As a concept it's incredibly rewarding for government to emphasise, but it is a concept without substance that creates an artificial and unnecessary barrier between people, leading to wars over borders and hatred for immigrants.


We should be moving forward in the way that we interact with each other. This requires a little more thought from people, it requires people to be open to other ideas, not necessarily to accept them but to see them and try to understand them while at the same time looking at their own values and asking where they come from. We should learn that we are all people and not judge each other because of the accident of they were born and to remember that we could have been born anywhere. To me the purpose of Remembrance Day is not to honour the dead but to see the folly in war. There have been many wars but none of them have ever accomplished lasting peace, only bitterness and a temporary respite. We must demand an end to senseless deaths and learn to come to an agreement without conflict.  


There needs to be an entire change in society if that is to ever happen. Even our entertainment emphasises winning and losing. Soon the Soccer World Cup will be held in South Africa and it will pit country against country with someone winning and someone losing. There is not much to be learned in that if it continues to promote a division between people. Make the sport about the game, not about teams. If players were independent then before a match people could be shuffled around and there would be a match between two teams but they would be a mix of people and at the end everyone could celebrate the match. And the next match two new teams would be formed, the same game could be played but with a constant flow of new people, a joining and mixing that blurred the differences between people.


And so what of those people that died fighting the wars? I don't think we should honour them. Perhaps we should remember their bravery but to call them heroes might be going too far. I believe that they did what they thought was best and that they had the best of intentions but I also believe that were misguided and made mistakes, mistakes that we must not continue to copy. No more names should be added to those that died in war.


----------



## Azure (Nov 11, 2009)

You lack both depth and character. I don't even want to bother with this. Context is everything. There are no heroes in war, but to cheapen the sacrifice of people who fought for something good when nobody else would is disgusting. I suppose you enjoyed slavery, the holocaust, and other things like that, right?


----------



## Hir (Nov 11, 2009)

The only reason I remember this day is because it is my mothers birthday.


Now she is rotting where she belongs.


----------



## Aurali (Nov 11, 2009)

OP. Have you ever heard the saying, "We learn of history as we will be doomed to repeat it?" It's true. 



AzurePhoenix said:


> You lack both depth and character. I don't even want to bother with this. Context is everything. There are no heroes in war, but to cheapen the sacrifice of people who fought for something good when nobody else would is disgusting. I suppose you enjoyed slavery, the holocaust, and other things like that, right?



Inb4 Zoo comment.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 11, 2009)

> OP. Have you ever heard the saying, "We learn of history as we will be doomed to repeat it?" It's true.



I have heard it, but I don't see why it has to be true. I don't understand why people never learn anything. Or how people who claim to be Christians, where they are specifically told not to kill, have no problem with war.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 11, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I am against war and I'm sure that there are many people who would agree...



Like the majority of the soldiers we pause to remember this day.  I don't think you'll find many soldiers who _like_ war, and if they do, that opinion tends to change once they get to one.  

War is horrible, bloodly and dark - but if no one where to stand against tyranny, the world would be a very different place.  It is the intent of the fallen to provide us with a lasting peace and the sacrifice it cost us which we honour.


----------



## Dass (Nov 11, 2009)

TL;DR

And what I got through sounds an awful lot like the Charge of the Light Brigade. Except far less deep.

An ideal world would have no war, but then again, an ideal world is impossible.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 11, 2009)

> Like the majority of the soldiers we pause to remember this day.  I don't think you'll find many soldiers who _like_ war, and if they do, that opinion tends to change once they get to one.
> 
> War is horrible, bloodly and dark - but if no one where to stand against tyranny, the world would be a very different place. It is the intent of the fallen to provide us with a lasting peace and the sacrifice it cost us which we honour.



That's one thing I do cling to, and I'm sure it's mostly true when conscriptions involved but there are a large number of people who join the military of their own free will. 

Everyone talks about peace but there are few countries that have actually taken steps towards that. I think there's only one country that doesn't have a military, their defence is managed by the US. There are one or two that no longer send military into conflict but do have a defence force, probably a necessity until everyone agrees not to kill each other. I don't see why it's such a hard choice.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 11, 2009)

*Lest we forget.*

Remembrance Day is about honouring those who died for our country, our freedoms, and our honour. About thanking those men and women who gave their lives and livelihoods for the greater good. But most importantly of all, *it's about remembering the atrocities of wars past, so that they may never happen again*. History is doomed to repeat itself, as it did in 1939 when the world became embroiled in a second Great War. It's perhaps the lessons learned through these times that averted a catastrophic crisis during the Cold War, and it serves as a reminder of the evils of fascism and imperialist expansion.

If we stopped observing this day, not only would we dishonour those who paid the ultimate sacrifice in the name of our country, but we also run the risk of rendering their gift to our generations meaningless. And while that in itself is the ultimate dishonour, it sets the stage for yet more bloodshed. For us, war as it was known decades ago is abstract, only something we see on TV, and in video games. None of us know the reality of total war, the bloodshed and the destruction. Entire cities were razed, both conventionally and with nuclear weapons, and millions upon millions of people died in the line of duty, to protect their loved ones and their countries. Even those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting and dying for that, but not even they could imagine what their forefathers had to endure during the first and second world wars.

It's because we remember, because we keep their memory and the tragedies of the past in our hearts and minds, that we can avoid the need for more tragic sacrifices - May the peace they gave us live on, and may we never forget their gift to us.

EDIT: As a side note, I believe in the need for defensively-minded armed forces. Military forces do more than just fight - They also provide search and rescue capabilities, policing of borders and waterways, disaster relief, and much more. It should be the duty of any nation to adequately maintain a defensive force for this purpose and for preparation for the unthinkable. After all, those who prepare for the worst are much more likely to survive than those who don't. Offensive military capability, on the other hand, such as that wielded by the United States, Russia, and China, aren't something that I consider necessary in any degree - So long as an offensive stance is maintained, there is a greater likelihood that those who maintain it will become willing to use it. We've seen this with America (Iraq) and Russia (Georgia), and while I mean no disrespect to those who are told to go, those who follow their duties, I question - as all patriots should - the motives and reasons for such actions. The people must stand ever-vigilant in their watch over their leaders; Words can be spun in any manner to make even the most lucid, intelligent person a blind slave to the state - How did the Nazi party in Germany manage to win the hearts and minds of the people in such a complete, absolute manner?


----------



## Azure (Nov 11, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> That's one thing I do cling to, and I'm sure it's mostly true when conscriptions involved but there are a large number of people who join the military of their own free will.
> 
> Everyone talks about peace but there are few countries that have actually taken steps towards that. I think there's only one country that doesn't have a military, their defence is managed by the US. There are one or two that no longer send military into conflict but do have a defence force, probably a necessity until everyone agrees not to kill each other. I don't see why it's such a hard choice.


How is a conscription any different?  The fact that people volunteer so YOU don't have to should bring your mind to a different place.  To make the statement you just did means that I joined for the simple fact of me liking murder and death.  Which I don't.  An ideal world will never exist, you will always need people like me, whether you like me or not. It's Remembrance Day, not Honor Aggressive Wars Day.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 11, 2009)

> How is a conscription any different? The fact that people volunteer so YOU don't have to should bring your mind to a different place. To make the statement you just did means that I joined for the simple fact of me liking murder and death. Which I don't. An ideal world will never exist, you will always need people like me, whether you like me or not. It's Remembrance Day, not Honor Aggressive Wars Day.



Conscription is different because people are forced in, forced as in they get arrested for saying that they don't want to kill people. So why did you join the military then? Suppose I accept that you don't want to kill people then why would you join an organisation that is there to use force rather than a human rights organisation that promotes dialogue and works for the upliftment of people?


----------



## Dass (Nov 11, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Conscription is different because people are forced in, forced as in they get arrested for saying that they don't want to kill people. So why did you join the military then? Suppose I accept that you don't want to kill people then why would you join an organisation that is there to use force rather than a human rights organisation that promotes dialogue and works for the upliftment of people?



DOES AL QAEDA STRIKE YOU AS INTERESTED IN TALKING IT OUT?

Edit: Forgot about the Taliban. DO THEY?


----------



## Aurali (Nov 11, 2009)

It's not about killing people... It's about PROTECTING others. That's what this is about. Fighting for a cause. NOT just fighting. I wouldn't associate with assholes like that.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 11, 2009)

> It's not about killing people... It's about PROTECTING others. That's what this is about. Fighting for a cause. NOT just fighting. I wouldn't associate with assholes like that.



I could stand behind the idea of protecting people but I don't see it happening. To me protection is not going into other countries and killing people. To me that is an attack. If you want to protect people join the police or a similar group.


----------



## Azure (Nov 11, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Conscription is different because people are forced in, forced as in they get arrested for saying that they don't want to kill people. So why did you join the military then? Suppose I accept that you don't want to kill people then why would you join an organisation that is there to use force rather than a human rights organisation that promotes dialogue and works for the upliftment of people?


Because sometimes force is needed.  Are you one of those people who think everything can be solved with talk? I joined because I was willing to take the risk that one day I might have to use force in order to achieve an objective, and that I thought my skills would make a difference in shortening that conflict, so there was less suffering and more humanitarianism, so it would be over quicker. I don't fight to kill, I fight to protect, to achieve an objective, to alleviate suffering.

Also, conscription have been gone forever. Your model of thinking is outdated.


----------



## Aurali (Nov 11, 2009)

Azure, some countries still force conscription. An old friend of mine just returned from service.


Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I could stand behind the idea of protecting people but I don't see it happening. To me protection is not going into other countries and killing people. To me that is an attack. If you want to protect people join the police or a similar group.



There is a great need to have an international protective scheme seeing as there will always be someone trying to bully others out of power. This is why there is an army. The army is currently deployed as a retaliatory effort that is attempting to withdraw, but there is too much fear of a collapse that people will not do so.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 11, 2009)

> Because sometimes force is needed. Are you one of those people who think everything can be solved with talk? I joined because I was willing to take the risk that one day I might have to use force in order to achieve an objective, and that I thought my skills would make a difference in shortening that conflict, so there was less suffering and more humanitarianism, so it would be over quicker. I don't fight to kill, I fight to protect, to achieve an objective, to alleviate suffering.
> 
> Also, conscription have been gone forever. Your model of thinking is outdated



I know not everything will be solved with talk, not because it can't be but because people do not have the self-control to see it through. If you are attacked I have no problem with you fighting back, it would be ridiculous to expect otherwise. However I think the use of force should be discouraged as much as possible and viewing people who use it as heroes does not help.

As for conscription I know a fur who either came from Greece or has part-Greek citizenship. It was something like that and he told that he has to do 6 months of military service for Greece to be allowed to live in the country.



> The army is currently deployed as a retaliatory effort that is attempting to withdraw, but there is too much fear of a collapse that people will not do so.



I assume you're referring to the US in Iraq here? I don't really want to deal with specific conflicts but I don't think the US should be there in the first place.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 11, 2009)

> I could stand behind the idea of protecting people but I don't see it happening. To me protection is not going into other countries and killing people. To me that is an attack. If you want to protect people join the police or a similar group.


I think you're only thinking of the United States in this case - The Canadian Forces are one of many examples of a defensive military force that's used for search and rescue, disaster relief, peacekeeping/policing, and a lot more. I personally think we need a stronger military to adequately defend our borders, but as far as function goes, our armed forces are definitively defensive and multifunctional, and need to stay that way. In spirit, our armed forces are a model for what a military should be for a peace-seeking nation. In equipment, not so much. 

In addition, to say that in order to want peace, one must disarm completely is silly - The Cold War was fought by keeping parity in arms - Should the balance of power shift one way or the other, it could have been disparate enough that military action could have been seen as a viable option. This is called deterrence - Something that must be upheld. In the example of the US military, however, there is a major ballooning and spending problem. It could be slashed in half and still remain effective; Its budget is larger now than the entire world combined. There's an awful lot of waste going into the upkeep of the Cold War-era dinosaur.

It's much the opposite, really; In order to want peace, all must achieve an equal strength - The Cold War was an amazingly accurate depiction of this. The means for war must remain in order for their usage to be reduced as much as possible. To completely disarm a country not under the explicit protection of another is to surrender to the wills of the world. All must be equal for peace to reign.



> Also, conscription have been gone forever. Your model of thinking is outdated.


Sweden does conscription, as does Russia, Germany, Israel, China, North Korea, hell, more than half the world over.


----------



## Azure (Nov 11, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Sweden does conscription, as does Russia, Germany, Israel, China, North Korea, hell, more than half the world over.


My mistake.  And yes, our budget is retarded. Bloody generals and their legacy programs.  Streamline I say.  But don't you dare cut my pay ;3.


----------



## Wreth (Nov 11, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> That's one thing I do cling to, and I'm sure it's mostly true when conscriptions involved but there are a large number of people who join the military of their own free will.
> 
> Everyone talks about peace but there are few countries that have actually taken steps towards that. I think there's only one country that doesn't have a military, their defence is managed by the US. There are one or two that no longer send military into conflict but do have a defence force, probably a necessity until everyone agrees not to kill each other. I don't see why it's such a hard choice.



 War is a terrible thing, and I wish it was wiped from the earth. But if no one joined the military and no one was forced into military who would defend your country against invaders? Remembrance day is about remembering the soldiers who fought to defend you, not bloodthirsty conquering.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 11, 2009)

I was going to post something serious, but then I saw who the OP was, so...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 11, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Conscription is different because people are forced in, forced as in they get arrested for saying that they don't want to kill people. So why did you join the military then? Suppose I accept that you don't want to kill people then why would you join an organisation that is there to use force rather than a human rights organisation that promotes dialogue and works for the upliftment of people?



This post caught my attention because it mentions "human rights" Did hitler give a shit about human rights when he slaughtered jews left right and center? Did Osama bin ladan give a shit about human rights in 2001? The answer is no, they didn't. 

Ever heard of the saying "Fight fire with fire?" I am not saying war or violence is the right way to go about solving any dispute, no matter how big or small, but if someone comes at me with a baseball bat, I am gonna grab the nearest two by four and go back at them with it. I don't think any country leader should stand back and let some prick like Osama attack their country, To be honest if I was in bushes shoes back then I would of done the same thing he did and gone into war in the middle east. 

Sometimes though, I do wonder why world leaders can not just sit down and communicate with each other like the adults they are.


----------



## Corto (Nov 11, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I have heard it, but I don't see why it has to be true. I don't understand why people never learn anything. Or how people who claim to be Christians, where they are specifically told not to kill, have no problem with war.


Because conflict is part of our nature, and so is violence. It's written deeply in our DNA. Long time ago there were two cavemen families, one which loved to play and frolic and one which liked to kill other cavemen. Guess which one survived. 
There will always be evil men, be it a genetic flaw or a mistreated child that gets to a position of power, a kid raised as a racist or a man with a great loss and lust for revenge. Hell, there's lots of people that simply cause others harm because they like it, no big reason behind their behaviour. There will always be men who are out to hurt others, and those we honor are the brave men, heroes if you will, that oppose those threats to our families or countrymen, to our land or to humanity itself. Darkness is nothing but the abscence of light, and that's a phrase you should remember every time your ask yourself whether those people that died defending your country, ideals or fellow men should be honored and treated as heroes.

About the Christian thing, I'm about 90% sure that the "thou shalt not kill" thing is a mistranslation, I think the original commandment was "you should not murder", killing in self defense, in war and such was allowed. Can't remember where I read that though, so make of it what you want.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 11, 2009)

really, if you dont understand why people remember the past you dont deserve to then.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 11, 2009)

Corto said:


> About the Christian thing, I'm about 90% sure that of the "thou shalt not kill" thing *entire Bible* is a mistranslation...



Fixed.  Subjectively.


----------



## wendyw (Nov 11, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Every country in the world has laws forbidding murder, but when two countries disagree it is promoted and supported by a large number of people. Soldiers are murderers, regardless of the reasons that they fight they still fight and kill. This is not any different to any other killing.



I'd argue that it is different.
I know that not all soldiers join up for purely altruistic reasons, but for those that do, why shouldn't they be honoured?

They're doing it because it is, unfortunately necessary to support their people, because their leaders have not found another way.

No matter how much I disagree with a war I will not criticise the soldiers for going there, only for their actions should they abuse the power they hold. I'm against the current occupation of Iraq for one. Whilst I felt that we had just cause to go into Afghanistan I believe our governments were wrong to go into Iraq as well. I would not however put any blame on the soldiers who are there or have been there.

For the most part people don't sign up to fight a particular war. They sign up to support their country, the people around them and when wars happen they do what they agreed to do when they signed up.

There are cases of people signing up to fight particular wars though, the first and second world wars are obvious ones, and it's in these cases only that I feel it's right to criticise them if the war is not just.

I disagree with your comment about conscription though. Although I do have respect for conscripts I have an extra kind of respect for people who actively chose to risk their lives and in some cases lost them, because they thought it was the right thing to do.

I'm a pacifist and I have some pretty strong political beliefs, but I do agree with Remembrance Day, because those people deserve to be honoured and because our losses should be remembered as a deterrent against such things happening again.

People forget the mistake of the past too easily. Anything that keeps them in people's minds is a good thing in my book.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 11, 2009)

wendyw said:


> I'd argue that it is different.
> I know that not all soldiers join up for purely altruistic reasons, but for those that do, why shouldn't they be honoured?
> 
> They're doing it because it is, unfortunately necessary to support their people, because their leaders have not found another way.
> ...



I can understand where Rakuen is coming from, I mean we as the public can not commit murder, not even if it is to protect ourselves, loved ones or our property, yet, when world leaders dissagree they send in the army to "murder" mass people, whether the intentions is to kill innocents or not, the reality is innocents are still killed due to a disagreement between world leaders. One rule for the public and another rule for the government. I find it rather hypocritical.

I know they do it for reason but why can't we the public do the same when we get threatened, our property gets threatened or our loved ones become threatened?


----------



## Sulacoyote (Nov 11, 2009)

Violence isn't the answer, it's the question. Sometimes the answer is "Yes".

I've argued it into the ground a million times, and it all boils down to people having an emotionally-guided "Wah, war is bad cause of guns and violence and stuff ;___;" feeling about it. Whatever, people can spin flowery stuff about nonviolence all they want. I'll be over here loving my place as a gear in the soul-grinding industrial war machine.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 11, 2009)

wah, war is bad cause of guns and violence and stuff


----------



## Corto (Nov 11, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I can understand where Rakuen is coming from, I mean we as the public can not commit murder, not even if it is to protect ourselves, loved ones or our property, yet, when world leaders dissagree they send in the army to "murder" mass people, whether the intentions is to kill innocents or not, the reality is innocents are still killed due to a disagreement between world leaders. One rule for the public and another rule for the government. I find it rather hypocritical.
> 
> I know they do it for reason but why can't we the public do the same when we get threatened, our property gets threatened or our loved ones become threatened?



Unless I've been living in the Matrix for the last 19 years, I'm almost sure that acting in self defence (and in defence of others that are threatened, and even in defense of your property) is allowed, and does drastically decrease punishment should you take said defense to it's extreme (ergo: killing someone). I'm sure you're not punished if you kill a guy that runs into your house shooting a machine gun. 


What I'm trying to say is that you're horribly wrong.


----------



## Jack (Nov 11, 2009)

Iv had relatives fight in each war since the civil war.
so ya, I respect our soldiers as heroes.
dang wish i could remember all of my grandfathers stories of WWII. 
he was part of the iwojima team. (idk if spelled it right)


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 11, 2009)

Corto said:


> Unless I've been living in the Matrix for the last 19 years, I'm almost sure that acting in self defence (and in defence of others that are threatened, and even in defense of your property) is allowed, and does drastically decrease punishment should you take said defense to it's extreme (ergo: killing someone). I'm sure you're not punished if you kill a guy that runs into your house shooting a machine gun.
> 
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that you're horribly wrong.



Not by british law I'm not. Man a attacks man b, man b retaliates to protect himself man b is the one likely to be arrested aswell as man a. 

man a breaks into man b's house while man b is present, man b decks man a and chases him outside where it escalates, again man b would also be arrested  and charged with assault aswell as man a. 

British law system is fucked up in many ways. If someone came into my house wielding a gun and shot his gun and I fired mine back (supposing I have one for arguments sake) Over here I would most likely be jailed for manslaughter. Unfortunately that is how the british justice system works. And it is not a system I fully agree with.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 11, 2009)

TL;DR.  

Well, I started reading it, but I got bored.

The men were heroes for defending their country or an allied country, it's not like the Allies were in the war because of aggression.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 11, 2009)

I have had 2 close friends die in war, and a girlfriend iw as gonna marrry got blown to hell brining aid to war torn regions. I say its worth remembering.


----------



## Corto (Nov 11, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> TL;DR.
> 
> Well, I started reading it, but I got bored.
> 
> The men were heroes for defending their country or an allied country, it's not like the Allies were in the war because of aggression.



Well they were not completely free of guilt, you know. They let the German military develop way beyond what was allowed by the Versailles treaty, and didn't interfere with the Japanese conquering and raping everything in their way until it was too late. Besides, the whole "peace" after WWI was flawed, especially the way they treated Germany. I don't remember the exact quote I read somewhere, but it was something like "The Versailles treaty was not a peace declaration, it was a long term armistice".


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Nov 11, 2009)

READ _WAR IS A RACKET_ FREE ONLINE


----------



## Takun (Nov 11, 2009)

Corto said:


> Unless I've been living in the Matrix for the last 19 years, I'm almost sure that acting in self defence (and in defence of others that are threatened, and even in defense of your property) is allowed, and does drastically decrease punishment should you take said defense to it's extreme (ergo: killing someone). I'm sure you're not punished if you kill a guy that runs into your house shooting a machine gun.
> 
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that you're horribly wrong.




Depending on the state your right to defense varies.  Some you can get away with shooting a guy just for being on your property (uninvited and posing harm of course).


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 11, 2009)

Corto said:


> Well they were not completely free of guilt, you know. They let the German military develop way beyond what was allowed by the Versailles treaty, and didn't interfere with the Japanese conquering and raping everything in their way until it was too late. Besides, the whole "peace" after WWI was flawed, especially the way they treated Germany. I don't remember the exact quote I read somewhere, but it was something like *"The Versailles treaty was not a peace declaration, it was a long term armistice".*



sounds like something from Woodrow Wilson.


----------



## wendyw (Nov 11, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Not by british law I'm not. Man a attacks man b, man b retaliates to protect himself man b is the one likely to be arrested aswell as man a.
> 
> man a breaks into man b's house while man b is present, man b decks man a and chases him outside where it escalates, again man b would also be arrested  and charged with assault aswell as man a.
> 
> British law system is fucked up in many ways. If someone came into my house wielding a gun and shot his gun and I fired mine back (supposing I have one for arguments sake) Over here I would most likely be jailed for manslaughter. Unfortunately that is how the british justice system works. And it is not a system I fully agree with.



British law does allow for self defence as long as the force is not considered to be excessive. There was a recent case of two professional fighters who were attacked whilst dressed in drag for someone's stag night. They retaliated with the minimum effort to stop the attackers and were not charged with anything.

I do agree however that many cases are treated incorrectly and people that were not excessive charged when they shouldn't have been. Not everybody can gage what amount of force is necessary to stop an attacker.

The law does allow you to defend yourself as long as you don't keep kicking them when they're down. The problem arises when different people have their own interpretations of what is reasonable force and what isn't.

Just as an aside, I would kick them when they're down if they'd attacked me, because I'd be too scared of what would happen if they managed to get up again.


----------



## Corto (Nov 11, 2009)

> man a breaks into man b's house while man b is present, man b decks man a and chases him outside where it escalates, again man b would also be arrested and charged with assault aswell as man a.


Well yeah there's a line between "self defense" and "murder". And that line is crossed when you chase a guy outside your house and then decide to fight him. Use common sense.


----------



## WatchfulStorm (Nov 11, 2009)

War is not something to be taken lightly. It is not full of glory like seen in the media, it is an horrible thing that should be avoided at any cost. But mankind's nature has ensured that the worst cannot always be avoided. There are military groups in the world that only want to fight to expand their own beliefs or destroy those of another culture, yes, but that is why other nations must fight to stop them. The individual soldier is not a murderer. They kill for their country, and are killed for their country. When there is need for someone to leave their home and their family, possibly never to come back, they step forward when many others would back away. In many instances, the soldiers who have fought and died have preserved almost everything that we have. We owe them our lives; At the least they deserve a day to be remembered.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 12, 2009)

wendyw said:


> I'm a pacifist and I have some pretty strong political beliefs, but I do agree with Remembrance Day, because those people deserve to be honoured and because* our losses should be remembered as a deterrent against such things happening again.
> 
> People forget the mistake of the past too easily. Anything that keeps them in people's minds is a good thing in my book.*



I agree. Remembrance Day - and ANZAC Day down here in Australasia - should be about remembering the sacrifices of those who fell in war, not an exercise in glorification and "victory" celebration. War should be something that is engaged in only as a last resort, and should NEVER be embarked upon lightly.

"Because a Serb shot an Austrian-Hungarian politician, it became necessary in order to support British and French troops fighting Germans for Australian and New Zealand troops from the far side of the planet to fight Turks..." 



Corto said:


> Besides, the whole "peace" after WWI was flawed, especially the way they treated Germany. I don't remember the exact quote I read somewhere, but it was something like "The Versailles treaty was not a peace declaration, it was a long term armistice".



_"This is not Peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years."_ - French Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch (he apparently felt the treaty was too _soft_ on Germany).

Versailles would up being a complete botch-up in the end, sadly - the French thought it was too soft, the Germans thought it was too harsh, the British didn't want France getting too powerful in Europe, the Italians and Japanese were ignored, and the Americans walked away from the whole thing into isolationism.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 12, 2009)

Corto said:


> Well they were not completely free of guilt, you know. They let the German military develop way beyond what was allowed by the Versailles treaty, and didn't interfere with the Japanese conquering and raping everything in their way until it was too late. Besides, the whole "peace" after WWI was flawed, especially the way they treated Germany. I don't remember the exact quote I read somewhere, but it was something like "The Versailles treaty was not a peace declaration, it was a long term armistice".


Tell me what the soldiers that actually fought had to do with ANY of that.

Nothing.


----------



## Organic Sprout (Nov 12, 2009)

If you don't want to stand behind our soldiers, feel free to stand in front of them.

Jackass.
I have too many hateful things to say to you right now.
But I'm sick and tired..
So I won't.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 12, 2009)

hate the establishment, not the people. 
If you can not look at a person that devoted years of their life to the service of a group voluntarily then you need your head checked. I don't believe being forced to go into the army makes it more agreeable because I think those people that volunteer know they are about to do something that will fuck them up, and they are doing it anyway. 
It's not remembering the nasty bloody stuff, it's remembering that all this nice freedom, and not death we have it at the expense of others and we owe them a great deal.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Nov 12, 2009)

Organic Sprout said:


> If you don't want to stand behind our soldiers, feel free to stand in front of them.



Smells like fascism of the worst sort. 

Maybe next you'll suggest setting up concentration camps for pacifists and other Jews, hm?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

Corto said:


> Well yeah there's a line between "self defense" and "murder". And that line is crossed when you chase a guy outside your house and then decide to fight him. Use common sense.



I never said anything about murder in my last post and you are still failing to see my point. >.<

SELF DEFENSE DOES NOT EXIST IN THE UK! perhaps that is clear enough.


----------



## Yaps (Nov 12, 2009)

I don't see why not...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

I don't think what the soldiers did in the wars matters, what does matter is remembering loved ones that lost their lives during the wars. Also to remember those who have fell during the current war.


----------



## Corto (Nov 12, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I never said anything about murder in my last post and you are still failing to see my point. >.<


Your whole point was that "murder was allowed to leaders but not in case of self defense".


----------



## Dass (Nov 12, 2009)

Fascist Bastard (needs killing) said:


> If you don't want to stand behind our soldiers, feel free to stand in front of them.
> 
> *I'm a* Jackass.
> I have too many hateful things to say to you *Jews, Gypsies, Pacifists, and Commies* right now.
> ...



Fixed it for ya, you jackasshole.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

Corto said:


> Your whole point was that "murder was allowed to leaders but not in case of self defense".



which is true. I am not saying we as the public should kill in self defense, what I am saying is it is hypocritical that our governments do exactly what they tell US not to do, shouldn't they "set an example?"

WWII was and still is one of my favourite history subjects. Both grandparents fought in that war, only one is alive today (the other died when I was just a year old) anyway I think the grandfather that has passed on was in the "home guard" and the one that is still alive doesn't talk about it, all I know is he was a held as a POW in japan.

Mom always gets on her high horse when she hears on the news almsot everyday that a soldier(s) have died in Afghanistan, she will always argue "They never got that much attention in WWII and I always reply with "This is 2009, not 1939" And for some reason she dislikes how armistace day also remembers the fallen in the current middle east war, and I am just like "You sound like the soldiers that have died recently don't deserve to be remembered." She aqlso argues that "They go into the army and fight by their OWN choice these days" which is true, as back in the world wars you were forced to join, and if you had a disability you were forced to do something else to help the war effort. Everyone in WWII did something to help fight back the nazi's. As for soldiers who choose to go into the army and fight for their country I think deserve alot of respect. Modern soldiers fight for their country on their own free will, by that I mean they have a choice on whether to join the army or not, I mean when someone joins the army they KNOW what it will entail and what risks it involves. 

I am not one that likes war, or solving any dispute, big or small with violence, but in some cases violence is the only way some people will listen. Sometimes sacrifices need to be made, to put things right.

Sheesh I am in a talkative mood, fecking energy drink is making buzz all ready.

Oh and Corto, hope I clarified what I was getting at. Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

Dass said:


> Fixed it for ya, you jackasshole.



Nicely re-worded for him! lol.


----------



## D Void (Nov 12, 2009)

Every Rememberance Sunday there is a big parade in a local village, a parade I am proud to take part in as an air cadet and british citizen. I belive we should remember those who give their lives for the benifit of those who will not or can not do so.
I will be leaving to join the RAF in a few months if I pass the remaining entry needs, and I hope that should I have to make the sacrifice that I will be remembered.

I belive that those who belive we should not continue to remember those who gave their lives in the great wars and wars since, just because they find the idea boring or old fashoned are the most disgraceful of people. 

And those who think that there is no need to remember those who have fallen because it is in the past or because it is not their problem need to remember that it is everyones problem and duty to remember the past so as not to repeat the acts in the futer. Hitler once said "A man without a sence of history is like a man without eyes or ears." In this I belive he was correct, one of the few things in which he was.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 12, 2009)

> I think you're only thinking of the United States in this case - The Canadian Forces are one of many examples of a defensive military force that's used for search and rescue, disaster relief, peacekeeping/policing, and a lot more. I personally think we need a stronger military to adequately defend our borders, but as far as function goes, our armed forces are definitively defensive and multifunctional, and need to stay that way. In spirit, our armed forces are a model for what a military should be for a peace-seeking nation. In equipment, not so much.



Admittedly a lot of my thought here is about the US forces, particularly because they are the biggest and most visible military force in the world. I know the South African military is also called in for disaster relief and such but such services can also be served by non-violent organisations. 



> It's much the opposite, really; In order to want peace, all must achieve an equal strength - The Cold War was an amazingly accurate depiction of this. The means for war must remain in order for their usage to be reduced as much as possible. To completely disarm a country not under the explicit protection of another is to surrender to the wills of the world. All must be equal for peace to reign.



You could have everyone at equal strength, which has historically not worked, or you can try keep the balance while gradually reducing the military till it's gone. If everyone agrees not to use war everyone will be better off.



> But if no one joined the military and no one was forced into military who would defend your country against invaders?



If no one joined the military who would be doing the invading?



> Ever heard of the saying "Fight fire with fire?" I am not saying war or violence is the right way to go about solving any dispute, no matter how big or small, but if someone comes at me with a baseball bat, I am gonna grab the nearest two by four and go back at them with it. I don't think any country leader should stand back and let some prick like Osama attack their country, To be honest if I was in bushes shoes back then I would of done the same thing he did and gone into war in the middle east.
> 
> Sometimes though, I do wonder why world leaders can not just sit down and communicate with each other like the adults they are.



Agree with the last part and mostly with the first. I said I'm fine with defence but let's take the Iraq war as our example. I saw didn't attack the US, a terrorist organisation did. The war however has had a terrible effect on the Iraqi civilians as well, people who had no part in the attack.



> They kill for their country, and are killed for their country. When there is need for someone to leave their home and their family, possibly never to come back, they step forward when many others would back away.



If everyone agreed not to stop forward then no one would have to die. That's why we must try and get that message through.


----------



## makmakmob (Nov 12, 2009)

I think pretty much anything in which thousands of people die or suffer horribly is worth remembering in the hope that we learn something from it.

Of course, that's not to say I'm filled with confidence that this will work, but it's worth trying anyway.


----------



## Wreth (Nov 12, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> If no one joined the military who would be doing the invading?



Right because if your country got rid of the military, that'd make everything better right? EVeryone else would leave you alone right?


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 12, 2009)

Re title: to keep morons from letting it happen again.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 12, 2009)

> Right because if your country got rid of the military, that'd make everything better right? EVeryone else would leave you alone right?



What makes you think I'm directing this to just one country. I'm directing it to everyone.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 12, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> Right because if your country got rid of the military, that'd make everything better right? EVeryone else would leave you alone right?



You're missing his point: If no-one - that's no-one _anywhere_ in your country or anywhere else - was in the military, who would be doing the invading?

And along the same lines, what gives certain countries the right to build up their own military forces with (say) nuclear weapons while demanding people they don't like aren't armed with so much as a popgun?

Fun fact: The US Navy has as many active aircraft carriers _as the rest of the world put together._


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 12, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> Right because if your country got rid of the military, that'd make everything better right? EVeryone else would leave you alone right?



Well actually this can be said about several countries, but the fact that it can't be said about most is sad.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 12, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> You're missing his point: If no-one - that's no-one _anywhere_ in your country or anywhere else - was in the military, who would be doing the invading?[/I]



The world can't be trusted to disarm overnight - Therefore, a strong defensive military is still necessary until such a time as that becomes reality, because keeping a balance of power is the only way to maintain the peace in that situation. In addition, and I keep saying this but nobody listens, *the military has capabilities far greater than police or other rescue units when it comes to search and rescue operations, disaster relief, and so on*. The Canadian military is a good example, as is the Japanese Self-Defence Force.

In addition, even if the world disarmed, who's to say some radical organization won't rise to power by force (who will stop them? Regular police forces?) and begin an arms buildup? It would very quickly and easily be possible for any nation to springboard ahead and topple the balance of power while other nations attempt to spool their resources to a point where they can match it, if they wish to do it at all.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 12, 2009)

Runefox said:


> The world can't be trusted to disarm overnight - Therefore, a strong defensive military is still necessary until such a time as that becomes reality, because keeping a balance of power is the only way to maintain the peace in that situation. In addition, and I keep saying this but nobody listens, *the military has capabilities far greater than police or other rescue units when it comes to search and rescue operations, disaster relief, and so on*. The Canadian military is a good example, as is the Japanese Self-Defence Force.
> 
> In addition, even if the world disarmed, who's to say some radical organization won't rise to power by force (who will stop them? Regular police forces?) and begin an arms buildup? It would very quickly and easily be possible for any nation to springboard ahead and topple the balance of power while other nations attempt to spool their resources to a point where they can match it, if they wish to do it at all.


WHAT IF ALIENS (or gods) ATTACK? WE'LL ALL DIE.


----------



## Wreth (Nov 12, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> What makes you think I'm directing this to just one country. I'm directing it to everyone.


There are countries that will try conquer others that are weaker than them, and others who simply have a military for defence.

You don't like people joining the military because you have a childish hypothetical utopia in your mind that will never happen. If any country completely got rid of their military they would be ovewhelmed by another in days. Getting every country to get rid of it's military is just impossible. Even if somehow it happened private armies or organised criminals would somehow gain access to military technology.


----------



## Wreth (Nov 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well actually this can be said about several countries, but the fact that it can't be said about most is sad.



I'm aware, but the more corrupt countries would think nothing of invading another if they could, or at least those in charge wouldn't.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 12, 2009)

But how is that justification for using the military/defense force? I mean, you have it there for defense and that's all fine and dandy, but take a look at the USA (for example) and afgan/iraq. They had no real reason to attack; they assaulted (went over there and made the first strike) a nation without any actual reason, no evidence backing up the fabricated reason they picked out of a hat.

There's also the case of other countries doing this shit too, but most of them aren't on this scale and none are 1st world nations.

If you want a defense force, have a defense force. The US hasn't been attacked by a country since 1941.


----------



## Wreth (Nov 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> But how is that justification for using the military/defense force? I mean, you have it there for defense and that's all fine and dandy, but take a look at the USA (for example) and afgan/iraq. They had no real reason to attack; they assaulted (went over there and made the first strike) a nation without any actual reason, no evidence backing up the fabricated reason they picked out of a hat.
> 
> There's also the case of other countries doing this shit too, but most of them aren't on this scale and none are 1st world nations.
> 
> If you want a defense force, have a defense force. The US hasn't been attacked by a country since 1941.



When did I say I agreed with the USA's military use?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> But how is that justification for using the military/defense force? I mean, you have it there for defense and that's all fine and dandy, but take a look at the USA (for example) and afgan/iraq. They had no real reason to attack; they assaulted (went over there and made the first strike) a nation without any actual reason, no evidence backing up the fabricated reason they picked out of a hat.
> 
> There's also the case of other countries doing this shit too, but most of them aren't on this scale and none are 1st world nations.
> 
> If you want a defense force, have a defense force. The US hasn't been attacked by a country since 1941.



I was under the impression that Osama Bin Ladan admitted the 9/11 attacks and that the USA's intelligence said he was in Afghanistan and lead the terrorist group al'quida  (fuck knows how that's spelt ) At least that is what was reported in the news over here, that Osama was responsible for ordering the attacks. 

I know US and British troops went to iraq/afgan to fight the taliban back and have killed innocent people, but if the news reports are correct it sounds like to me that suicide bombers and taliban/al' quida have done more damage to their own country. Which just tells me these terrorists don't give a flying fuck who dies. Which to me, we must do what ever it takes to stop this insanity.


----------



## ~secret~ (Nov 12, 2009)

I'm not reading something that long and crap. Do you even understand wtf you're talking about?


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 12, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I was under the impression that Osama Bin Ladan admitted the 9/11 attacks and that the USA's intelligence said he was in Afghanistan and lead the terrorist group al'quida  (fuck knows how that's spelt ) At least that is what was reported in the news over here, that Osama was responsible for ordering the attacks.


What if I said I was behind 9/11? The USA would of attacked Canada instead? He was of no importance to Afgan's government. He had no ruling, he wasn't in any power. His actions were not Afgan's. And yet, he only took credit but there was zero evidence that supported this. The US fabricated a few things, such as who the pilots were, but it's actually unknown. How could they know?



> I know US and British troops went to iraq/afgan to fight the taliban back and have killed innocent people, but if the news reports are correct it sounds like to me that suicide bombers and taliban/al' quida have done more damage to their own country. Which just tells me these terrorists don't give a flying fuck who dies. Which to me, we must do what ever it takes to stop this insanity.



I also don't agree with this, this is the reason I didn't join the Canadian Forces.
We're influenced by the USA too much is the real reason we're over there, but we are providing relief which is a good thing I suppose.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> What if I said I was behind 9/11? The USA would of attacked Canada instead? He was of no importance to Afgan's government. He had no ruling, he wasn't in any power. His actions were not Afgan's. And yet, he only took credit but there was zero evidence that supported this. The US fabricated a few things, such as who the pilots were, but it's actually unknown. How could they know?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I based it on what the news told/tells us, but as we all know media tells us what THEY want us to know and believe, a lot of media would not know the truth if it jumped up and bit them on the ass. To be honest I often find you to be more believable than the media. 

One thing that I think is good that came out of this war is that we got rid of that tyrant Sadam. And either way, I still thing terrorism needs to be dealt, terrorists need to learn no country is going to stand aside and be pushed around. 

Aren't our British troops out there as support for the US troops? I know our two countries are like big allies.

It is sad that innocent people get caught up in these wars and suffer a hell of alot.


----------



## Azure (Nov 12, 2009)

Gee, sure is cloudyhead idealist in here.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> What if I said I was behind 9/11? The USA would of attacked Canada instead? He was of no importance to Afgan's government. He had no ruling, he wasn't in any power. His actions were not Afgan's. And yet, he only took credit but there was zero evidence that supported this. The US fabricated a few things, such as who the pilots were, but it's actually unknown. How could they know?


The Taliban government supports and harbors him.  

The people used ID's to get on the plane, the US probably investigated the identities of everyone on the plane and found out who the people with no outside connections or family and were originally from somewhere else and decided that they were the pilots.

Not everything is false, even if the media and the government tend to lie a lot.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 12, 2009)

The "taliban government" isn't afgans government.
And no such ID's were found, they boarded at canadian airports and we never gave the US any such information. They fabricated it all.


----------



## Azure (Nov 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The "taliban government" isn't afgans government.
> And no such ID's were found, they boarded at canadian airports and we never gave the US any such information. They fabricated it all.


Actually, it used to be Afghanistan's government. Or did you miss that whole part of the war?


----------



## Tycho (Nov 12, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Actually, it used to be Afghanistan's government. Or did you miss that whole part of the war?



It's Newf.  He's missing a whole part of his fuckin' brain.

In retrospect we should have let the Soviets roll Afghanistan like a drunk in a back alley.


----------



## Organic Sprout (Nov 12, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Smells like fascism of the worst sort.
> 
> Maybe next you'll suggest setting up concentration camps for pacifists and other Jews, hm?




What?
Where did you get that from?

Sure, be against war.
That's fine.
I wouldn't mind peace as well.

But we live in a world that deals with very evil people, and those evil people do like to create war.
So, instead of standing back and letting their country take it, there are men who go and fight for us.
Would you have rather gone?
No, I doubt it.
You're probably too chicken shit.




Dass said:


> Fixed it for ya, you jackasshole.



WHAT!?
I'm liberal you asswhipe!
I'm also canadian.
Sorry I support our troops going and fighting for us.
Such as I said to the other guy, would you rather go and prevent them assholes from putting us in a concentration camp!?
I'm not against any religion, or any way of life.
I'm agaisnt people who don't support the people who risk their lives so we can have a free life.

Holy crap, are you all on crack!?
Those people went in our name to save our sorry asses, so we can have bread on the table, and so and so forth. UGH. They gave their lives to save ours. They didn't choose to make war. Instead, they chose to fight it, so we wouldn't have to. They deserve more recognition than most people give.


----------



## Dass (Nov 12, 2009)

Organic Sprout said:


> WHAT!?
> I'm liberal you asswhipe!
> I'm also canadian.
> Sorry I support our troops going and fighting for us.
> ...



Yes, but you're asking for full 100% support of people who's job is to kill people, regardless of which people they are killing. That doesn't strike you as even remotely fascist? I support them PRESENTLY, but if they were to say, invade Switzerland for no good reason, I'm not exactly "behind" them.

Also note that we've never had to fight on home soil, so I wouldn't exactly attribute our freedom entirely to the troops.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

Organic Sprout said:


> What?
> Where did you get that from?
> 
> Sure, be against war.
> ...



There is the old saying which goes "Two wrongs don't make a right" I am all for protecting our own countries, but ya know by fighting back which has also caused a large number of innocent deaths, does that make us any better than our enemies? Are we not stooping down to their level by storming in with our military? Did Bush give the Afgans and Iraqi's time to explain themselves? No he barged right into things with guns blazing. Shoot first, ask questions later sort of thing. Having said that, if I was in Bush's shoes I would of probably wanted to do the same thing


----------



## Dass (Nov 12, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> There is the old saying which goes "Two wrongs don't make a right" I am all for protecting our own countries, but ya know by fighting back which has also caused a large number of innocent deaths, does that make us any better than our enemies? Are we not stooping down to their level by storming in with our military? Did Bush give the Afgans and Iraqi's time to explain themselves? No he barged right into things with guns blazing. Shoot first, ask questions later sort of thing. Having said that, if I was in Bush's shoes I would of probably wanted to do the same thing



She said she's Canadian. Our military is actually helping people.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Nov 12, 2009)

Organic Sprout said:


> Holy crap, are you all on crack!?
> Those people went in our name to save our sorry asses, so we can have bread on the table, and so and so forth. UGH. They gave their lives to save ours. They didn't choose to make war. Instead, they chose to fight it, so we wouldn't have to. They deserve more recognition than most people give.



Iraq or Afghanistan were never a threat to the first world. You should try not listening to propaganda, it helps.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The "taliban government" isn't afgans government.
> And no such ID's were found, they boarded at canadian airports and we never gave the US any such information. They fabricated it all.


I know, I meant to put that in the past tense, but I made a mistake.


How do you know what information the Canadian government gave the US?


----------



## wendyw (Nov 12, 2009)

The Taliban were told to do something about the fact there were international terrorists openly operating from their country. They refused to do anything about them choosing instead to allow them to continue.

This means that any country that Al Qaeda had previously attacked or threatened to attack were under risk from Afghanistan at the time. The fact that the government were a dictatorship with an absolutely horrendous human rights record meant that there was really no reason not to go in.

I do think that we have done a terrible job there personally, something which I blame on the leadership not the troops, but I don't think we were in the wrong to go in.

Al Qaeda had a long history of violence against other nations and the Taliban refused to do anything about it. The Taliban may not have attacked the US and it's allies, but it did allow it to go on when it could have done something to stop it.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 12, 2009)

at a massive expense with an undoubtedly terrible outcome for regional stability


----------



## wendyw (Nov 12, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> at a massive expense with an undoubtedly terrible outcome for regional stability



I personally think that our invasion of Iraq is the thing that has cause the biggest instability, taking a country that had some level of control, even if we didn't agree with who was controlling, and turned it into a free for all. As I've said before I don't agree with that war. There were no links to any attacks on any of the countries that went in and there was no evidence of a military threat from Saddam Hussein.

We screwed up both jobs horribly and still haven't fixed our mess, but in one out of the two cases I do think we were right to do something. We just screwed up the job.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 12, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> I know, I meant to put that in the past tense, but I made a mistake.
> 
> 
> How do you know what information the Canadian government gave the US?



Because our news never mentioned such evidence, you would think we would wave that information around a little; we would flaunt the fact we had evidence that proved who was responsible behind 9/11, but we didn't and we to my knowledge we've never even had anything close to it.  The americans never actually showed the evidence they had, and won't to this day, even upon request it's denied. 

I also have yet to hear about any canadian airports having, or releasing any information anywhere and believe me I looked, only for a few days but either way I can't find any actual evidence. A lot of she said he said, but no canadian documents. Unless you have something proving me wrong?


AzurePhoenix said:


> Actually, it used to be Afghanistan's government. Or did you miss that whole part of the war?


Their actions did not, and do not represent afganistan and the US should not be the world police and barge into any country it wishes to invade without any real reason. Again, no evidence they had anything to do with 9/11 -and- it was another country not asking for aid from the USA.

And no, no they weren't the government. The Taliban declared themselves the legitimate government of Afghanistan, however the UN continued to recognize the former government of Rabbani and -their- words/actions represented the country, not the taliban. And -they- weren't even given the right to deny aid from the USA.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 12, 2009)

wendyw said:


> I personally think that our invasion of Iraq is the thing that has cause the biggest instability, taking a country that had some level of control, even if we didn't agree with who was controlling, and turned it into a free for all. As I've said before I don't agree with that war. There were no links to any attacks on any of the countries that went in and there was no evidence of a military threat from Saddam Hussein.
> 
> We screwed up both jobs horribly and still haven't fixed our mess, but in one out of the two cases I do think we were right to do something. We just screwed up the job.



i, uh...okay (jumping from one subject to the other?)

but yeah, i agree
but its pretty difficult not to make sacrifices for globalism


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Because our news never mentioned such evidence, you would think we would wave that information around a little; we would flaunt the fact we had evidence that proved who was responsible behind 9/11, but we didn't and we to my knowledge we've never even had anything close to it.  The americans never actually showed the evidence they had, and won't to this day, even upon request it's denied.
> 
> I also have yet to hear about any canadian airports having, or releasing any information anywhere and believe me I looked, only for a few days but either way I can't find any actual evidence. A lot of she said he said, but no canadian documents. Unless you have something proving me wrong?
> 
> ...



Ok so we had the man himself claim to be responsible for the attacks,  on video which was also broadcast on TV, also we had attacks in England by people who worked for Al' queda or just agreed with what Al' Queda were doing. And yet you still say no evidence? People admitting it point blank is not evidence enough? Do you require a 12 foot neon sign aswell? And yes I am being sarcastic now. But hell if someone is willing to admit to such attacks KNOWING full well what the consequences would be, must be completely fucked in the head.


----------



## wendyw (Nov 12, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> i, uh...okay (jumping from one subject to the other?)



Sorry. I think there's currently too many conversations going on around here and to be honest I'm starting to get a little lost. It doesn't help that I haven't gotten a feel for individual users here yet.

Sorry if it seemed a bit random.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 12, 2009)

wendyw said:


> Sorry. I think there's currently too many conversations going on around here and to be honest I'm starting to get a little lost. It doesn't help that I haven't gotten to get feel for individual users here yet.
> 
> Sorry if it seemed a bit random.



its cool


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Nov 12, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Al' Queda


"Al-Qaeda" is not spelled with a "U".

I don't have anything else to add to this clusterfuck. Each and every one should be ashamed for posting in this thread.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

Easog said:


> "Al-Qaeda" is not spelled with a "U".
> 
> I don't have anything else to add to this clusterfuck. Each and every one should be ashamed for posting in this thread.



I don't give a shit how Al qaeda is spelt, I don't care about Al qaeda. And why should we be ashamed to post in this thread? are we all NOT entitled to our opinions cause you say so? gtfo.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 12, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Ok so we had the man himself claim to be responsible for the attacks,  on video which was also broadcast on TV, also we had attacks in England by people who worked for Al' queda or just agreed with what Al' Queda were doing. And yet you still say no evidence? People admitting it point blank is not evidence enough? Do you require a 12 foot neon sign aswell? And yes I am being sarcastic now. But hell if someone is willing to admit to such attacks KNOWING full well what the consequences would be, must be completely fucked in the head.



No, no it's not. You need physical evidence. Which is pretty much impossible, I know, but that means anybody can make any attack anywhere and blame it on anybody. And no, just because some organization is behind terrorist attacks does not deem worth to invade (full-out, no less) an entire country for eight years.

People take credit for serial killers all the time, and if somebody from country xx attacks county yy does that mean yy can attack country xx, even if xx's government wasn't actually involved and it was a rogue man/group?

Look at MW:2, in one mission you're an american undercover special opps that commits a terrorist attack with a bunch of russians on a russian airport. You slaughter hundreds of civilians then are yourself killed and left for the russian government to find your corpse. Then Russia blames -all- of the US for one US citizen's doings and ful-out invades and pretty much destroys the country, even launching a nuke. It would never happen because there's no way you can pin an entire country for one man/groups actions. That's not how governments deal with things, other than the USA and iraq/afgan...lol.

Anyway, stupid thread is stupid, and stupid topic is stupid. I should have used another example of this besides the US because the US could nuke Canada and most of you would think "they deserved it", they're diplomatic gods apparently; alas there's no other country that would fit this example in a modern setting, maybe Russia assaulting Georgia.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> No, no it's not. You need physical evidence. Which is pretty much impossible, I know, but that means anybody can make any attack anywhere and blame it on anybody. And no, just because some organization is behind terrorist attacks does not deem worth to invade (full-out, no less) an entire country for eight years.
> 
> *People take credit for serial killers all the time, and if somebody from country xx attacks county yy does that mean yy can attack country xx, even if xx's government wasn't actually involved and it was a rogue man/group?*



Good point.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 12, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Iraq or Afghanistan were never a threat to the first world. You should try not listening to propaganda, it helps.



Afghanistan has been a breeding ground and safe haven for people like bin Laden for quite some time - more or less ever since the Soviets got chased out of Afghanistan with the aid of American weapons.  As for Iraq, anyone with half a fucking brain knows that it was unnecessary and didn't believe for a goddamn minute that Hussein would tolerate radical cells in his country, much less trade WMDs to them.  He NEVER had nuclear, he was smart enough to thoroughly hide/export/sell off any and all chemical and biological weaponry of any significance before we set foot there, and he was no terrorist's ally.

The first war in Iraq was driven by the Saudis pulling the strings of their puppet, Bush.  The reason we pulled out and left the deed half-done the first time is because the Saudis decided no further pressure on Hussein was necessary, a decision that may or may not have been influenced by the fact that the Saudis are Sunni, and the people who stood to benefit the most from Hussein being toppled were the Shiite majority in Iraq.  The second war was Cowboy Dubya going after the man that tried to kill his pa, under the guise of finishing what his inept father started with Desert Storm and was supposed to finish.

Also: The Taliban WAS the government of Afghanistan.  The "Rabbani" was impotent and irrelevant.  Whether the UN chose to recognize the Taliban as the governing body in Afghanistan is unimportant.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Afghanistan has been a breeding ground and safe haven for people like bin Laden for quite some time - more or less ever since the Soviets got chased out of Afghanistan with the aid of American weapons.  As for Iraq, anyone with half a fucking brain knows that it was unnecessary and didn't believe for a goddamn minute that Hussein would tolerate radical cells in his country, much less trade WMDs to them.  He NEVER had nuclear, he was smart enough to thoroughly hide/export/sell off any and all chemical and biological weaponry of any significance before we set foot there, and he was no terrorist's ally.
> 
> The first war in Iraq was driven by the Saudis pulling the strings of their puppet, Bush.  The reason we pulled out and left the deed half-done the first time is because the Saudis decided no further pressure on Hussein was necessary, a decision that may or may not have been influenced by the fact that the Saudis are Sunni, and the people who stood to benefit the most from Hussein being toppled were the Shiite majority in Iraq.  The second war was Cowboy Dubya going after the man that tried to kill his pa, under the guise of finishing what his inept father started with Desert Storm and was supposed to finish.
> 
> Also: The Taliban WAS the government of Afghanistan.  The "Rabbani" was impotent and irrelevant.  Whether the UN chose to recognize the Taliban as the governing body in Afghanistan is unimportant.



Ok now I am confused.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 12, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Ok now I am confused.



By what?


----------



## Sulacoyote (Nov 12, 2009)

Bush lied furs died. Murf. 

3:


----------



## Azure (Nov 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Their actions did not, and do not represent afganistan and the US should not be the world police and barge into any country it wishes to invade without any real reason. Again, no evidence they had anything to do with 9/11 -and- it was another country not asking for aid from the USA.
> 
> And no, no they weren't the government. The Taliban declared themselves the legitimate government of Afghanistan, however the UN continued to recognize the former government of Rabbani and -their- words/actions represented the country, not the taliban. And -they- weren't even given the right to deny aid from the USA.


LOL the UN, the Rabbini government was a sham.  The Taliban was the defacto government at the time in question, ruling most of Afghanistan through fear or proxy. They harbored both Al Qaeda, and had pretty grievous human rights violations themselves. Or did you forget that Mullah Omar and Bin Laden were buds and pretty much combined fortunes and forces, appearing in videos and audio statements together on a few occasions.  You're blind to the most obvious things.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 12, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> LOL the UN, the Rabbini government was a sham.  The Taliban was the defacto government at the time in question, ruling most of Afghanistan through fear or proxy. They harbored both Al Qaeda, and had pretty grievous human rights violations themselves. Or did you forget that Mullah Omar and Bin Laden were buds and pretty much combined fortunes and forces, appearing in videos and audio statements together on a few occasions.  You're blind to the most obvious things.



He blinds himself by choice, as he feels it is convenient to do so.  Things like facts can get in the way sometimes.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 12, 2009)

For once, I've actually gotta agree with Azure on that one. The Tailban were and for all intents and purposes still are in control of Afghanistan. Not terribly long ago, there was even a resurgence of support and fighting in the region. That having been said, the Taliban is officially classified as a radical religious movement, not a terrorist organization. Their ties to Al'Qaeda, however, blurs the lines a little.

Anyway, the Taliban did rise to power in the 90's, and while only a few closely-knit states acknowledged the new government, it didn't mean they didn't exist. It's sort of like the United States not acknowledging the Cuban revolution or Europe not acknowledging the Russian revolution, or on the flipside, North Korea not recognizing the existence of a sovereign South Korea. Just because people don't officially recognize it doesn't mean the reality is any different. The Taliban were the ruling power as of 9/11, and plans were in place by the CIA to remove them even prior to then. The United Nations later set up ISAF to support the interim government in maintaining peace and reducing the Taliban threat level, but it's obviously easier said than done, here.

I was in support for the Afghanistan campaign (but not the "War on Terror" - that's just silly), but the Iraq campaign seemed to come out of left field - Though it served its purpose rather well in distracting from the fact that even with all the new, expensive gear the US had to play with, they (nor their allies) couldn't find Osama Bin Laden (or if you want to go the conspiracy theorist route, they didn't _want_ to catch him, because he was working for them to give them reason to go after the Taliban - Either explanation works). Even now, nearly a decade after they began their search, they still can't find him. And frankly, not a lot of people even remember him any more.

Oh, but there is one thing that I don't find savoury about the Afghan campaign - The US classified the combatants as terrorists, not soldiers, and thus evaded the need to abide by the Geneva Convention (and hence we have such lovely stories about Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib (in Iraq).


----------



## Lobo Roo (Nov 12, 2009)

You disgust me.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 12, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I have heard it, but I don't see why it has to be true. I don't understand why people never learn anything. Or how people who claim to be Christians, where they are specifically told not to kill, have no problem with war.


There is no avoiding it. It's a universal law. Until something huge changes, history will continue to repeat.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Nov 12, 2009)

Meh. Better than Australia's National Sorry Day.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 13, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> LOL the UN, the Rabbini government was a sham.  The Taliban was the defacto government at the time in question, ruling most of Afghanistan through fear or proxy. They harbored both Al Qaeda, and had pretty grievous human rights violations themselves. Or did you forget that Mullah Omar and Bin Laden were buds and pretty much combined fortunes and forces, appearing in videos and audio statements together on a few occasions.  You're blind to the most obvious things.



lol the bin ladens were also buds of bush, so I don't see your point there.
And yeah, it does matter what the UN deemed the official government, it also isn't an excuse to assault a country because you don't like what's going on over there. They did nothing to the US, at all. There's zero evidence that shows they've done a single thing, yet you spend like 400 billion a year (just on afgan, actually I bet it's more) to demolish the country and then bring it up as you see fit. There's no real goal either, it's just perpetual.

I don't agree with the Taliban, but them existing doesn't mean you can demolish the country they're hiding in. Or did you forget the many, many civilians that have been killed in this war? Or homes destroyed, or other damages. Baghdad doesn't even exist anymore, and that was mostly all civilians.


----------



## wendyw (Nov 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I don't agree with the Taliban, but them existing doesn't mean you can demolish the country they're hiding in. Or did you forget the many, many civilians that have been killed in this war? Or homes destroyed, or other damages. Baghdad doesn't even exist anymore, and that was mostly all civilians.



You're getting confused.

The Taliban did not hide. They were very public and claimed control of the country. They taxed people, enforced their laws and killed or imprisoned people who fought against those laws. They were in control.

Al Qaeda were also not hiding. The Taliban could easily find them. They were out in the open and perfectly safe in the knowledge the Taliban agreed with many of their goals. The reason that we went to war is because they were allowing terrorists that were attacking other countries to operate openly. 

Baghdad does still exist. It's not as if someone went and dropped a nuke on it. Also it's in a different country. Baghdad is in Iraq not Afghanistan and no, none of the cities in Afghanistan have been wiped off the map either.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 13, 2009)

wendyw said:


> You're getting confused.
> 
> The Taliban did not hide. They were very public and claimed control of the country. They taxed people, enforced their laws and killed or imprisoned people who fought against those laws. They were in control.
> 
> ...


When did I say they were hiding?

And no, baghdad was bombed into near destruction. There's nothing left to the city but ruins and shacks. But again that was for reference to all the civillians killed during the war, not just afgan. The USA is starting wars without just-cause; imposing their law and their military force on whoever they wish, using "terrorism" as a cloak to get away with it. They can do what ever they want and nobody can stop them, it's atrocious that anybody supports or defends what they're doing at all.

Also what countries were they attacking? The USA? No. So why is the USA there? The countries they were attacking didn't request the USA's assistance, and the USA isn't the world police. So they're over there kicking up a shitstorm with no justification and all the drooling retards that are in the USA support them. Nobody else supports them, many countries denied supporting the US in this war and several countries were slandered severaly because of it (France, for example, denied to assist the USA and because of that the US deemed the french cowards and a whole slew of insults began about france and how cowardly they are, plus the whole freedom fry/toast thing is lol). The same goes for Canada, we're called pussies for not helping the USA even though England and Canada are over in afgan providing relief now after basically being forced to go.

I don't agree with what the US is doing in any way, they can't go around being the world police and I hope they'll pay for it soon.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 13, 2009)

You make me laugh, Newf.

You do realize that the Afghanistan campaign and the War in Iraq are two separate things, right?  We went into Iraq because they had "WMDs".  That was us being stupid and going somewhere we didn't belong.  We went into Afghanistan because the government was harboring terrorists and supporting them.  No, it doesn't matter what the UN officially recognized, because the Taliban were actually in control.


----------



## wendyw (Nov 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> When did I say they were hiding?



Right here:



NewfDraggie said:


> I don't agree with the Taliban, but them existing doesn't mean you can demolish the country they're *hiding in.*


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 13, 2009)

wendyw said:


> Right here:



I meant they're in the country, not actually hiding -inside- there, but that's where they're located to.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> You make me laugh, Newf.
> 
> You do realize that the Afghanistan campaign and the War in Iraq are two separate things, right?  We went into Iraq because they had "WMDs".  That was us being stupid and going somewhere we didn't belong.  We went into Afghanistan because the government was harboring terrorists and supporting them.  No, it doesn't matter what the UN officially recognized, because the Taliban were actually in control.



Yeah they're strung together though, but you're right.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 13, 2009)

OP: they (well, most of them) died so you can enjoy your freedom to sit there and rant.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> OP: they (well, most of them) died so you can enjoy your freedom to sit there and rant.



im somewhat doubtful of that


----------



## wendyw (Nov 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I meant they're in the country, not actually hiding -inside- there, but that's where they're located to.



There's a major difference between saying where they're located and saying where they're hiding. Also, as has been stated numerous times, they were in charge of the country, legally or not and they were willingly hosting a terrorist organisation that had recently attacked the US.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 13, 2009)

wendyw said:


> There's a major difference between saying where they're located and saying where they're hiding. Also, as has been stated numerous times, they were in charge of the country, legally or not and they were willingly hosting a terrorist organisation that had recently attacked the US.


They didn't attack the US though, and there's no evidence that supports such a claim.


----------



## wendyw (Nov 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> They didn't attack the US though, and there's no evidence that supports such a claim.



Al Qaeda did and the Taliban did not do anything about them.
They chose to support them. Al Qaeda needed to be stopped and the Taliban were on their side not ours. 

How would you have gone about dealing with a terrorist organisation that were sheltering in a country that refused to deal with them or let anyone else do so?


----------



## Azure (Nov 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> lol the bin ladens were also buds of bush, so I don't see your point there.
> And yeah, it does matter what the UN deemed the official government, it also isn't an excuse to assault a country because you don't like what's going on over there. They did nothing to the US, at all. There's zero evidence that shows they've done a single thing, yet you spend like 400 billion a year (just on afgan, actually I bet it's more) to demolish the country and then bring it up as you see fit. There's no real goal either, it's just perpetual.



I don't agree with the Taliban, but them existing doesn't mean you can demolish the country they're hiding in. Or did you forget the many, many civilians that have been killed in this war? Or homes destroyed, or other damages. Baghdad doesn't even exist anymore, and that was mostly all civilians.[/QUOTE]
ITT, Newf talks right out of his ass.  They killed thousands of their own citizens in stupid blood and territory feuds, defaced religious monuments, and committed a whole laundry list of terrible deeds.  Also, an international force removed them from power, which means it was pretty much universally agreed that they had to go.  But whatever, it's worthless to argue with somebody who ignores basic facts and reality.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> They didn't attack the US though, and there's no evidence that supports such a claim.



Yes they did attack the US. You have had Al qeada admit it many times. Ontop of other known terrorists supporting what those al queada terrorists did and went as far to attack a london bus and the london underground. When you have people supporting such terrorist attacks mixed with many admissions from Al queada, that is good enough evidence to me they are responsible.



wendyw said:


> Al Qaeda did and the Taliban did not do anything about them.
> They chose to support them. Al Qaeda needed to be stopped and the Taliban were on their side not ours.
> 
> How would you have gone about dealing with a terrorist organization that were sheltering in a country that refused to deal with them or let anyone else do so?



What Newf should think about is how he would feel if HIS country came under a similar attack. Then he might understand how Americans and British feel about terrorism.

We had some guy arrested locally due to having photographs of the Bacton Gas terminal which supplies a third of the gas to the UK (gas as in natural gas not gasoline) Also they found evidence that he supported Al queada on his laptop. 

Also,. and this is judging by the news reports, terrorists have murdered more civilians bu suicide bombers and car bombs during this war than our own troops.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 13, 2009)

> What Newf should think about is how he would feel if HIS country came under a similar attack. Then he might understand how Americans and British feel about terrorism.


And here we have the biggest load in the entire debate. I agree that terrorism is a terrible thing and that the things that have happened by Al'Qaeda's and others' hands (such as the IRA in England) are atrocities, and I'm not out to discount that. But Al'Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organization out there, nor the only terrorists - Hell, there have been and are American terrorists with no connection to Al'Qaeda whatsoever. But how many people have actually been killed as a direct result of terrorism in the past decade? 9/11, widely considered _*the most*_ devastating terrorist attack to date, killed 2,997 people in all. Now look at the number of people who die *every year* of disease and other preventable causes even in the Western world alone, and yet look at the disparity of priority.

In the United States alone, over 40,000 people died each year from the 1980's to 2001, *from the flu alone*. And yet 2,997 people are killed in a terrorist attack and it causes such an outrage that people are willing to roll over and let the government wiretap them, let the government instate unconstitutional road blocks and check points ("papers, please"), choke the life from the liberties they'd cherished so much, all for the sake of "security" against something that happens so rarely, and is so often so ineffective. Is it merely because a human face is behind it? The reaction that the United States and the world has given was just what Al'Qaeda needed to spread its influence and the message that their cause can be heard. No publicity is bad publicity.

Again, I did support the Afghan campaign (Operation Enduring Freedom) to oust the Taliban government who were supporting and aiding Al'Qaeda and likely numerous other cells, and the international community (at the very least, NATO) supported it, too. However, the erosion of rights and freedoms since then (even the PATRIOT act alone was an atrocity), and the sheer stupidity and terror instilled into the populace at even the mention "terrorism" is simply insane. So, too, was the later, simultaneous military campaign against Iraq - Whose sole purpose, in my mind was to distract from the fact that not only was the United States military and its allies unable to root out Al'Qaeda in Afghanistan, but that the threat of terrorism wasn't as great as it seemed. So, a new threat was thought up to placate the people, and soon nobody knew what Al'Qaeda was, nor who Bin Laden was, and a shocking number of people thought Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. The capture of the oil fields as priority during the Iraq campaign was also rather telling of priorities in Washington at the time.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that has it _really_ been worth it?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 13, 2009)

Runefox said:


> And here we have the biggest load in the entire debate. I agree that terrorism is a terrible thing and that the things that have happened by Al'Qaeda's and others' hands (such as the IRA in England) are atrocities, and I'm not out to discount that. But Al'Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organization out there, nor the only terrorists - Hell, there have been and are American terrorists with no connection to Al'Qaeda whatsoever. But how many people have actually been killed as a direct result of terrorism in the past decade? 9/11, widely considered _*the most*_ devastating terrorist attack to date, killed 2,997 people in all. Now look at the number of people who die *every year* of disease and other preventable causes even in the Western world alone, and yet look at the disparity of priority.
> 
> In the United States alone, over 40,000 people died each year from the 1980's to 2001, *from the flu alone*. And yet 2,997 people are killed in a terrorist attack and it causes such an outrage that people are willing to roll over and let the government wiretap them, let the government instate unconstitutional road blocks and check points ("papers, please"), choke the life from the liberties they'd cherished so much, all for the sake of "security" against something that happens so rarely, and is so often so ineffective. Is it merely because a human face is behind it? The reaction that the United States and the world has given was just what Al'Qaeda needed to spread its influence and the message that their cause can be heard. No publicity is bad publicity.
> 
> ...



Firstly the IRA was Irish not English. Secondly there are many diseases out there that can not be cured. Thirdly terrorism is the DELIBERATE killing of innocent people, just like murder is. Murderers get punished for deliberately killing people and so should terrorists. Yes it is worth it, do you really want those mother fucking assholes to repeat what they did on 9/11? Do you really want that to be repeated? Should we stand by and allow these terrorists to freely kill our people on OUR land?

It is fucking stupid that you are comparing terrorism, the DELIBERATE killing of people to illnesses. For starters those that died from flu were either old and old peoples body's can not cope with illness like a young persons can, or tehy were ill with something else. Compareing terrorism to those that die of disease and illness is just so fucking dumb.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> OP: they (well, most of them) died so you can enjoy your freedom to sit there and rant.


Because Germany was going to invade and conquer South Africa and oppress them?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> lol the bin ladens were also buds of bush, so I don't see your point there.
> And yeah, it does matter what the UN deemed the official government, it also isn't an excuse to assault a country because you don't like what's going on over there. They did nothing to the US, at all. There's zero evidence that shows they've done a single thing, yet you spend like 400 billion a year (just on afgan, actually I bet it's more) to demolish the country and then bring it up as you see fit. There's no real goal either, it's just perpetual.
> 
> I don't agree with the Taliban, but them existing doesn't mean you can demolish the country they're hiding in. Or did you forget the many, many civilians that have been killed in this war? Or homes destroyed, or other damages. Baghdad doesn't even exist anymore, and that was mostly all civilians.



You forget that the afgans are more responsible for the civilian deaths out there than we are. You have also been told many times that Al Queada WAS in power, even RuneFox gave an explanation but you are being narrow-minded and ignoring everything else said to you as if your version is gospel.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 13, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> You forget that the afgans are more responsible for the civilian deaths out there than we are. You have also been told many times that Al Queada WAS in power, even RuneFox gave an explanation but you are being narrow-minded and ignoring everything else said to you as if your version is gospel.


Stay out of this, Randy.  You don't know what you're talking about.  You're just going to make yourself look worse.

The Afghan citizens weren't responsible for the civilian deaths.  Al Qaeda is responsible for the terrorist activity (Or is at least accused to be.), but they're not and have not been in power over Afghanistan.  The Taliban is the group that was in control, they just harbored Al Qaeda.  Also, stop spelling "Qaeda" wrong.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Because Germany was going to invade and conquer South Africa and oppress them?



Possibly. You know Hitler didn't care for black people (even refused to shake Jesse Owens's hand at the 1936 Olympics).


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> Possibly. You know Hitler didn't care for black people (even refused to shake Jesse Owens's hand at the 1936 Olympics).


No, not possibly.  Do you realize how pointless it would be for Hitler to try to conquer all of Africa when he had the rest of Europe to worry about?  

South Africa was never in danger during WWI or WWII.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> No, not possibly.  Do you realize how pointless it would be for Hitler to try to conquer all of Africa when he had the rest of Europe to worry about?
> 
> South Africa was never in danger during WWI or WWII.



Italy had already conquered most of North Africa, around the Mediterranian, and probably would have gone south, though I doubt would have taken it all of Africa by itself, so Germany would probably have helped.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Stay out of this, Randy.  You don't know what you're talking about.  You're just going to make yourself look worse.
> 
> The Afghan citizens weren't responsible for the civilian deaths.  Al Qaeda is responsible for the terrorist activity (Or is at least accused to be.), but they're not and have not been in power over Afghanistan.  The Taliban is the group that was in control, they just harbored Al Qaeda.  Also, stop spelling "Qaeda" wrong.



Al Qaeda reside in Afghanistan, witch to me makes them Afghan citizens. And I am not going to stay out of a discussion just because you tell me too. Also I don't give a flying fuck how Qaeda is spelt just like I don't give a flying fuck about them.

The whole point of this "war" is to stop terrorism. All we know is Al Qaeda claimed responsible, that the Taliban claimed "rule" over Afghanistan and did nothing to stop Al Qaeda, nor would they tell us where AL Qaeda was, if Al Qaeda is innocent why are they not protesting their innocence? Why have they continued with the suicide bombings? the car bombs? If Al Qaeda are innocent then why did they claim responsibility for the 9/11 attacks? 

The fact Qaeda does not protest their innocence and claimed responsibility in the first place, and continue to hide, just makes them look guilty. 

Ok so maybe sending in our troops so early was jumping the gun a bit. But what else can we do? I don't want to sit back and allow these people to continue their terrorist ways, I do not want to stand aside and say "Hey you blew up my buildings and killed thousands of innocent people, that's ok though"


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> Italy had already conquered most of North Africa, around the Mediterranian, and probably would have gone south, though I doubt would have taken it all of Africa by itself.


I don't think you realize how big Africa is, nor how harsh of a continent most of it is.


RandyDarkshade said:


> Al Qaeda reside in Afghanistan, witch to me makes them Afghan citizens. And I am not going to stay out of a discussion just because you tell me too. Also I don't give a flying fuck how Qaeda is spelt just like I don't give a flying fuck about them.
> 
> The whole point of this "war" is to stop terrorism. All we know is Al Qaeda claimed responsible, that the Taliban claimed "rule" over Afghanistan and did nothing to stop Al Qaeda, nor would they tell us where AL Qaeda was, if Al Qaeda is innocent why are they not protesting their innocence? Why have they continued with the suicide bombings? the car bombs? If Al Qaeda are innocent then why did they claim responsibility for the 9/11 attacks?
> 
> ...


The KKK is in America, does that make the average American responsible for lynching blacks?  

No one ever claimed that Al Qaeda was innocent, Newf only claimed that there wasn't proof to support their confessions.  I disagree, but that's his right to an opinion.  

Your post is going off on some random tangent that isn't related to anything that anyone's been saying.  Well, except the not wanting to sit back and let them go part, that is actually related to the topic at hand.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> No, not possibly.  Do you realize how pointless it would be for Hitler to try to conquer all of Africa when he had the rest of Europe to worry about?
> 
> South Africa was never in danger during WWI or WWII.



Hitler wasn't exactly entirely in his right mind, and was not above overextending/wasting his resources on attempted ideological victories.

That being said South Africa was way out of his way and would likely not have felt the Nazi crush until much later if at all.  (Hitler would have no doubt LOVED to get those diamond mines.)

Also, Randy: Afghanistan is just ONE of a myriad of places that Al-Qaeda has made home.  Yemen, Pakistan, parts of the 'Stans of the former USSR, Syria, any place there's a sympathetic or apathetic hand or eye or none at all, they'll make a den for themselves.  Afghanistan happened to be one of the more egregious harborers of Al-Qaeda, and also happened to be one that had been a trouble zone for a long time (IIRC during the Clinton administration we were chucking Tomahawk missiles inland towards Taliban-held Afghanistan.  Not a bright move IMO).  Afghanistan was most notably where bin Laden had planted his flag, and he was and still is our biggest target.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 13, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Ok so maybe sending in our troops so early was jumping the gun a bit. But what else can we do? I don't want to sit back and allow these people to continue their terrorist ways, I do not want to stand aside and say "Hey you blew up my buildings and killed thousands of innocent people, that's ok though"



We didn't "jump the gun", the US asked the Taliban to turn over bin Laden, and they refused, so we went in to get him.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> I don't think you realize how big Africa is, nor how harsh of a continent most of it is.



I know it's larger than the 48 contiguous states put together, and the Sahara covers a vast majority of it.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 13, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Hitler wasn't exactly entirely in his right mind, and was not above overextending/wasting his resources on attempted ideological victories.
> 
> That being said South Africa was way out of his way and would likely not have felt the Nazi crush until much later if at all.  (Hitler would have no doubt LOVED to get those diamond mines.)


He would have had to have complete and utter control over all of the 1st world in order to be able to even attempt a conquest like that.  He wasn't in his right mind, but I don't think he was THAT arrogant, as to waste troops trekking through Africa while there was still a high potential for instability.  So, in essence, this is agreeing with your second half of your statement.  Even if he would've been able to eventually get there, it wouldn't have been anytime soon.  


Ty Vulpine said:


> I know it's larger than the 48 contiguous states put together, and the Sahara covers a vast majority of it.


Exactly.  Of course, he could always have tried to just sail to the other tip and conquer from that way up, but that is really far away and he would be risking submarine attacks on large boats of soldiers.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Exactly.  Of course, he could always have tried to just sail to the other tip and conquer from that way up, but that is really far away and he would be risking submarine attacks on large boats of soldiers.



And the tip of South Africa, Cape Horn is it?, is known for bad storms and such, iirc.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> And the tip of South Africa, Cape Horn is it?, is known for bad storms and such, iirc.


They wouldn't necessarily have to go to the very tip to get South Africa, but point taken, nonetheless.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> And the tip of South Africa, Cape Horn is it?, is known for bad storms and such, iirc.



Cape of Good Hope actually.  Cape Horn is South America (and rather notorious in its own right).

Since the Suez Canal didn't exist yet he would have had to make hops down the west coast of Africa and likely would have come in at Cape Town to establish a stronghold.  I don't recall there ever being a strong U-boat or sub presence in the South Atlantic, though that could obviously have changed.

(Did Cape Town exist circa WW2?)


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 13, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Cape of Good Hope actually.  Cape Horn is South America (and rather notorious in its own right).
> 
> Since the Suez Canal didn't exist yet he would have had to make hops down the west coast of Africa and likely would have come in at Cape Town to establish a stronghold.  I don't recall there ever being a strong U-boat or sub presence in the South Atlantic, though that could obviously have changed.


Well, yeah, there wasn't because it wasn't a route that was traveled.  If America found out that the Germans were sending a bunch of soldiers there, they sure would've tried to hit the German boats and do some real damage.  

Anyways, back on topic.

Most people that don't support Remembrance Day, Veteran's Day, or whatever you call it don't do it because "No war is good", right?  These wars were in self defense, protecting their own countries from being taken over and their people from being oppressed.  Why is that not noble?


----------



## Tycho (Nov 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Most people that don't support Remembrance Day, Veteran's Day, or whatever you call it don't do it because "No war is good", right?  These wars were in self defense, protecting their own countries from being taken over and their people from being oppressed.  Why is that not noble?



Because they're stupid and their definition of "noble" is conveniently mentally narrowed down to Albert Schweitzer and Gandhi.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Most people that don't support Remembrance Day, Veteran's Day, or whatever you call it don't do it because "No war is good", right?  These wars were in self defense, protecting their own countries from being taken over and their people from being oppressed.  Why is that not noble?



well to some people killing others is not supported even in conflict

to me, personally, i believe they've been decently compensated for their trouble
a capitalistic country is a series of jobs
i dont much care to hand off honor to murderers in service to the state, i would rather they be well-paid and decently taken care of, if we "must" have them, but i dont like to be reminded that we've had them and i dont think they have a special place of note above anyone else keeping their society functioning and working towards its welfare

i dont really hold them in low esteem, they did as the state told them as their culture motivated them to do

besides, we were the ones that cut the cord to japanese welfare, under intense pressure to do something an attack was formulated ;D

(no really, i dont care - i forgot it was veteran's day like a hundred times, although, seriously if everyone else is working the bank doesnt need to be closed thats kind of a dick move bro)


----------



## Runefox (Nov 13, 2009)

> Firstly the IRA was Irish not English


I realize this - The IRA waged attacks on English and Irish targets in both England and Ireland, which is what I was referring to.



> Yes it is worth it, do you really want those mother fucking assholes to repeat what they did on 9/11? Do you really want that to be repeated? Should we stand by and allow these terrorists to freely kill our people on OUR land?



No, and that's why I supported the campaign in Afghanistan to displace/remove Al'Qaeda from the region and to shatter one of its major supporters. What I don't support is the idea that rights and freedoms should suffer in the witch hunt. It isn't about not retaliating or just rolling over, it's about not resorting to the panic and lunacy that people have gotten themselves into over the idea of terrorism - Which they are now terrified over. What I am asking is, is the universal panic, the fear that somewhere in the shadows, a bomb is ready to go off and the government must do whatever is in their power, no matter the cost, to stop it, really worth it? Is the lull of perceived security worth the loss of freedoms? I'm not asking if military action was wise, nor am I asking if it was worth going to Afghanistan - I in fact believe that it was. If, for no other reason, to right the wrong that the CIA created in training and equipping Bin Laden's Mujahideen in the first place.



> It is fucking stupid that you are comparing terrorism, the DELIBERATE killing of people to illnesses. For starters those that died from flu were either old and old peoples body's can not cope with illness like a young persons can, or tehy were ill with something else. Compareing terrorism to those that die of disease and illness is just so fucking dumb.



Death is death, is it not? Regardless of how they died, these people died, and both causes can be prevented. Why is so much focus, so much attention, being placed on the idea of preventing terrorism, when there are other killers at home? You seem to have confirmed my previous assumption - That it's merely because there is a face behind it, that makes it intolerable. I'm not saying pull the plug on the operation. I'm saying that all eyes are focused squarely on that issue and that issue alone when there are other matters that need to be addressed, too. People have become so obsessed, so terrified that a bomb will go off, or some person with an AK-47 is going to show up and shoot up the place, that it's giving them tunnel vision, and that, in my mind, is precisely what both Al'Qaeda and terrorists the world over wanted. As a radical, what better way to get your point across, now that people are so terrified of it, than by terrorist attack?

The United States spends more than the entire world's military budgets combined on its defence budget (a base value of over $500 billion, expanded to between over $900 billion to over $1 trillion via emergency/supplementary expenditures), a chunk of which goes to the DHS ($52 billion) and into the campaigns abroad. There are an awful lot of organizations (schools, health care, medical research, and more) where even the chunk that the DHS receives would do a world of good.

It's not my position that opposing terrorism is a bad idea. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that since day one after 9/11 began all the way up to now, people have been terrified of terrorism to such an irrational degree that it has dictated law (PATRIOT, others) and the way people live their lives. Terrorism has always existed, and always will; It's a means to an end, an ideal, and so long as people live, it will continue to be. The best way to destroy terrorism is to shatter their support structures, to remove their financial backing, and their popular support. Not constricting security measures, wiretapping the citizenry, setting up prison camps operating outside of US law with unlawful detainment, and creating new government divisions (DHS) to do what for all intents and purposes was being done beforehand (there was evidence that the 9/11 was discovered, yet no action was taken - not even heightened security).

Anyway, please refrain from saying that I'm "fucking stupid" for feeling a certain way about something, particularly when I never did say what you accuse me of saying. Because that would be "fucking stupid", would it not?

EDIT:



> Most people that don't support Remembrance Day, Veteran's Day, or whatever you call it don't do it because "No war is good", right? These wars were in self defense, protecting their own countries from being taken over and their people from being oppressed. Why is that not noble?



The biggest reason I've heard among people I've met in person and argued about this is that "If you don't remember it, how can you repeat it?", which is a fallacy. It happened to begin with, ergo, it can happen again. If we don't keep it fresh in our minds, how can we be equipped to recognize it when it happens? To stop it? The very reason we have Remembrance Day and Veteran's Day and so on are so that we can remember what these people sacrificed themselves for, remember what got them embroiled in conflict, and ensure for as much as we can that it should never happen again, that no more heroes are made of men and women without reason. Should conflict erupt, we must remain prepared to take up the flag they left us, but by all means we must avoid taking their sacrifices in vain.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 13, 2009)

Runefox said:


> It's not my position that opposing terrorism is a bad idea. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that since day one all the way up to now, people have been terrified of terrorism to such an irrational degree that it has dictated law (PATRIOT, others) and the way people live their lives.



Terror alert scale that the Bush admin would constantly bring up to cause fearmongering...("Okay, guys, what level should we use today?" "Red, of course!" "Why never green or blue?" *Roars of laughter*)


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> Terror alert scale that the Bush admin would constantly bring up to cause fearmongering...("Okay, guys, what level should we use today?" "Red, of course!" "Why never green or blue?" *Roars of laughter*)


You can't control people when they aren't scared and are not crawling to you for protection, afeterall.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> You can't control people when they aren't scared and are not crawling to you for protection, afeterall.



There was no way the general American populace was going to respect the Bush administration, so they went to plan B right away.

Respect > fear, but sometimes you're a political Rodney Dangerfield.


----------



## Organic Sprout (Nov 13, 2009)

Dass said:


> Yes, but you're asking for full 100% support of people who's job is to kill people, regardless of which people they are killing. That doesn't strike you as even remotely fascist? I support them PRESENTLY, but if they were to say, invade Switzerland for no good reason, I'm not exactly "behind" them.
> 
> Also note that we've never had to fight on home soil, so I wouldn't exactly attribute our freedom entirely to the troops.




Please, tell me what a fascist is.
You honestly do not seem to know.

Those troops were not the ones to decide to start this war, they simply decided to defend us.
Get your head out of it's hole and think about it.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 13, 2009)

Tycho said:


> There was no way the general American populace was going to respect the Bush administration, so they went to plan B right away.
> 
> Respect > fear, but sometimes you're a political Rodney Dangerfield.


Bad analogy.  Rodney Dangerfield at least deserved _some_ respect.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Bad analogy.  Rodney Dangerfield at least deserved _some_ respect.



...point taken.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 13, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Death is death, is it not? Regardless of how they died, these people died, and both causes can be prevented. Why is so much focus, so much attention, being placed on the idea of preventing terrorism, when there are other killers at home? You seem to have confirmed my previous assumption - That it's merely because there is a face behind it, that makes it intolerable. I'm not saying pull the plug on the operation. I'm saying that all eyes are focused squarely on that issue and that issue alone when there are other matters that need to be addressed, too. People have become so obsessed, so terrified that a bomb will go off, or some person with an AK-47 is going to show up and shoot up the place, that it's giving them tunnel vision, and that, in my mind, is precisely what both Al'Qaeda and terrorists the world over wanted. As a radical, what better way to get your point across, now that people are so terrified of it, than by terrorist attack?



There are diseases out there that have no cure such as cancer, AIDS and more. I will agree though medical problems can be prevented, but sometimes a persons body is not prepared to fight. 

One of the first things I thought about was the Bacton Gas Terminal 5 miles from my town

For those wondering what the gas terminal is and why it would be a nice target for an attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacton_Gas_Terminal
And this information is correct before anyone says "wiki is un reliable"


To top it off there is a natural gas depot place in my town. Added to which I think it was a couple years ago now a man was arrested in bacton on terrorist charges when police found photo's of the terminal and alot of terrorist information on his laptop, they found he was plotting to blow up the terminal. I mention this cause I understand why people fear another attack, I fear an attack on the gas terminal, if one man thought about it whats to say another terrorist wont do the same? I can relate to the fear factor people have. 

If by other issues you refer to murders etc, that is the job of the police, to find, catch and prosecute murderers. I mean here, we don't hear of many murders on the news, but I don't know what murder is like in the states. 

Or perhaps you mean by other issues that people in third world countries who are starving? Help me out here please. o.o


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> We didn't "jump the gun", the US asked the Taliban to turn over bin Laden, and they refused, so we went in to get him.



Not quite. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#War_on_Terrorism


> _The Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden to a neutral country for trial *if the United States would provide evidence of bin Laden's complicity in the attacks.*_ U.S. President George W. Bush responded by saying: "We know he's guilty. Turn him over", and British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned the Taliban regime: "Surrender bin Laden, or surrender power".


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 13, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Not quite.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#War_on_Terrorism



Probably why Tony Blair dropped out of office.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 13, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Not quite.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#War_on_Terrorism



Quote from that page: "_Before the United States attacked, it offered Taliban leader Mullah Omar a chance to surrender bin Laden and his top associates"_


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> Quote from that page: "_Before the United States attacked, it offered Taliban leader Mullah Omar a chance to surrender bin Laden and his top associates"_


Did you completely ignore what Mayfurr quoted?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Did you completely ignore what Mayfurr quoted?



The fact still remains that the US asked the Taliban to give up bin Laden, and they refused, so we went to get him. And then rather than stand down, the Taliban interfered.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> The fact still remains that the US asked the Taliban to give up bin Laden, and they refused, so we went to get him. And then rather than stand down, the Taliban interfered.


You quoted it like he completely ignored that the US asked first before invading the shit out of them.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 13, 2009)

I still don't think the US knows who committed 9/11, and those who did take credit for it didn't do it and the only evidence is them -saying- that they did. I don't think that's enough evidence for any courtroom, so I don't think that's enough evidence for a full-scale invasion either. THAT is my problem with the war on terror, but I do agree the taliban needed to go I just don't by the excuse to assault them.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> and those who did take credit for it didn't do it and the only evidence is them -saying- that they did.


Whoa, don't jump ahead of yourself.  Just because there isn't concrete proof that they did it doesn't mean that they _didn't  _do it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I still don't think the US knows who committed 9/11, and those who did take credit for it didn't do it and the only evidence is them -saying- that they did. I don't think that's enough evidence for any courtroom, so I don't think that's enough evidence for a full-scale invasion either. THAT is my problem with the war on terror, but I do agree the taliban needed to go I just don't by the excuse to assault them.



I don't think either of our governments will ever tell us the full truth behind it, I mean has a government ever been truthful? I don't have much faith left at all in our labour party that currently runs England.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Whoa, don't jump ahead of yourself.  Just because there isn't concrete proof that they did it doesn't mean that they _didn't  _do it.



Yeah but the default outcome of no real evidence supporting -either- side (they say they did it, but there's no evidence to prove it) shouldn't be believing them. I mean, anybody could have said they did it...

And Randy I don't think the US actually knows who did it, they're not lying to hide the real information they're lying because they don't want to make it seem like the 800 billion the spend a year on defense is actually doing something.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah but the default outcome of no real evidence supporting -either- side (they say they did it, but there's no evidence to prove it) shouldn't be believing them. I mean, anybody could have said they did it...
> 
> And Randy I don't think the US actually knows who did it, they're not lying to hide the real information they're lying because they don't want to make it seem like the 800 billion the spend a year on defense is actually doing something.



No real evidence? What about the black boxes and phone calls on the planes? The voices that flight controllers heard from at least one plane? The video surveillance from the airports? The videos of bin Laden accepting responsibility first appearing on Al-Jazeera TV, a known anti-US station?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> No real evidence? What about the black boxes and phone calls on the planes? The voices that flight controllers heard from at least one plane? The video surveillance from the airports? The videos of bin Laden accepting responsibility first appearing on Al-Jazeera TV, a known anti-US station?



I didn't know the black boxes survived that inferno.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 13, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I didn't know the black boxes survived that inferno.



At least one survived.


----------



## Krevan (Nov 13, 2009)

Murder is such a dirty word. I prefer the term... hunting trip.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> The fact still remains that the US asked the Taliban to give up bin Laden, and they refused, so we went to get him. And then rather than stand down, the Taliban interfered.



Excuse me, the sequence was:

1. US demands the Taliban hand over bin Laden.
2. Taliban offers to turn bin Laden over for trial in a neutral country if the US provides evidence of bin Laden's guilt.
3. US demands again that the Taliban hand over bin Laden, without providing evidence of bin Laden's guilt.
4. US invades.

While I have no love or regard for the Taliban (being, in my opinion, a bunch of regressive fossilised religious fundamentalists of the worst sort of whom I am ashamed to breath the same oxygen as them), one can hardly blame ANYONE for wanting to resist a foreign invasion force.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 13, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Excuse me, the sequence was:
> 
> 1. US demands the Taliban hand over bin Laden.
> 2. Taliban offers to turn bin Laden over for trial in a neutral country if the US provides evidence of bin Laden's guilt.
> ...



iirc, the US wanted bin Laden for the attack on the USS Cole, not 9/11 (he's never actually been charged with 9/11, only the Cole attack), and the Taliban still refused to give him up. And only 1 person has actually been charged with the 9/11 attacks.  The US had evidence of bin Laden masterminding the USS Cole attack and the 1993 WTC bombing(iirc).


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> At least one survived.



Oh? Then you'll have no problem showing us this evidence, links plox.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 13, 2009)

Krevan said:


> Murder is such a dirty word. I prefer the term... hunting trip.



And this is the fighting force over there, look at that attitude.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> And this is the fighting force over there, look at that attitude.


I know, right?  He must be a horrible soldier because he uses dark humor.  Just like the rest of us.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> iirc, the US wanted bin Laden for the attack on the USS Cole, not 9/11 (he's never actually been charged with 9/11, only the Cole attack), and the Taliban still refused to give him up. And only 1 person has actually been charged with the 9/11 attacks.  The US had evidence of bin Laden masterminding the USS Cole attack and the 1993 WTC bombing(iirc).



This still doesn't alter the fact that the US invaded Afghanistan AFTER 9/11 on the basis that bin Laden was responsible for that terrorist act, and that after 9/11 the Taliban DID make an offer to turn bin Laden over to a neutral country for trial - which was refused by the US just prior to the invasion.

In all the aftermath of 9/11 leading up to the US invasion of Afghanistan, I NEVER heard the USS Cole or 1993 WTC bombing being used as a justification for going after bin Laden - it was _all about 9/11._


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Oh? Then you'll have no problem showing us this evidence, links plox.



http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6

For one...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 13, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> This still doesn't alter the fact that the US invaded Afghanistan AFTER 9/11 on the basis that bin Laden was responsible for that terrorist act, and that after 9/11 the Taliban DID make an offer to turn bin Laden over to a neutral country for trial - which was refused by the US just prior to the invasion.
> 
> In all the aftermath of 9/11 leading up to the US invasion of Afghanistan, I NEVER heard the USS Cole or 1993 WTC bombing being used as a justification for going after bin Laden - it was _all about 9/11._



If this is true, then to me, this whole war could of been avoided if Bush accepted the terms. I mean I can understand handing Bin Laden over to a neutral country. If this is true it really does sound like it all could of been avoided.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 13, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> If this is true, then to me, this whole war could of been avoided if Bush accepted the terms. I mean I can understand handing Bin Laden over to a neutral country. If this is true it really does sound like it all could of been avoided.



Can you think of ANY "neutral" country that would be willing to take custody of bin Laden? Any country that did would become a "marked" country viewed as an enemy to and by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and attacked.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> Can you think of ANY "neutral" country that would be willing to take custody of bin Laden? Any country that did would become a "marked" country viewed as an enemy to and by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and attacked.



They attacked Britain anyway, supposedly. Or at least supporters of the terrorist attacks did. 

Russia might, Russia is quite a tough country, I mean would you want a Russian and a US army on your ass? Did Bush want Bin Laden to try to avoid other countries being targeted? Or was it out of anger that Bush wanted Bin Laden so badly?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 13, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> They attacked Britain anyway, supposedly. Or at least supporters of the terrorist attacks did.
> 
> Russia might, Russia is quite a tough country, I mean would you want a Russian and a US army on your ass? Did Bush want Bin Laden to try to avoid other countries being targeted? Or was it out of anger that Bush wanted Bin Laden so badly?



They also attacked Madrid. The trains, anyway. 

I don't think Bush did it out of anger, considering that just a mere SIX MONTHS after the invasion, Bush said he didn't care for finding bin Laden anymore....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> They also attacked Madrid. The trains, anyway.
> 
> I don't think Bush did it out of anger, considering that just a mere SIX MONTHS after the invasion, Bush said he didn't care for finding bin Laden anymore....
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o



Woops I forgot about Madrid too. I thought the whole idea of going into Afghanistan was to find Bin Laden?


----------



## Tycho (Nov 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> They also attacked Madrid. The trains, anyway.
> 
> I don't think Bush did it out of anger, considering that just a mere SIX MONTHS after the invasion, Bush said he didn't care for finding bin Laden anymore....
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o



Bush is like a 5 year old, and has an attention span befitting that (which is to say, very short).  Turning Afghanistan inside out for bin Laden got boring for him.  Didn't help that for every day bin Laden was still on the loose he looked even more the fool.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 14, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6
> 
> For one...



This site looks legit and provides all sorts of documents for information and to back itself up. Yeah right. Also, you posted a site that's full of adds and has like 9 pages of text/image walls. What are you referring too exactly, because none of this supports your claim they have evidence iraq/afgan was involved.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 14, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> I know, right?  He must be a horrible soldier because he uses dark humor.  Just like the rest of us.



Yeah, totally. Because dark humor is totally respectable, honorable, and etc. Shut up. I sick of that excuse. They're soldiers, they're suppose to represent not just themselves but their entire fighting force. If they're immature fucks then that must mean that every one of their fellow soldiers are as well, and soldiers are suppose to be disciplined and respected, not cracking jokes and carrying on. This is one big reason why I dislike the US military and I have the opposite of respect for them: they're -all- like this, or worse; they laugh while shooting at people and yet Amerricunts defend them with the "they're allowed to have fun because they're people". No, no they're not allowed to have fun during a FUCKING WAR. War isn't suppose to be a fun, laughing matter and anybody that thinks it should be is despicable.

I don't mind if they crack jokes after they've left, if they're -not- in the military and are civilians I'm fine with them cracking jokes and doing what ever they want, but during the time they're part of the fighting force (reserve, leave, or otherwise) they shouldn't act like retarded monkeys.

FURTHER RAGE ON THE SUBJECT!


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Nov 14, 2009)

it's gallows humor greg


it's part of the coping process


sorry if it makes things too gray for you


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 14, 2009)

Yes because the first step to coping any tragic event is to label it something it's not.

So when people get raped they should call it a sexy party!

And when police officers are forced to shoot to kill they should call it hunting!

Oh and lets not forget the firefighters, when they rescue burn victims they should call them marshmallows.

Oh boy, hahahaha.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Nov 14, 2009)

i think you should pick your battles better newf


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 14, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> i think you should pick your battles better newf



Actually I kinda laughed at the marshmallow one, sush I'm bad I can laugh at it and still be outraged...


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Nov 14, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Actually I kinda laughed at the marshmallow one, such I'm bad I can laugh at it and still be outraged...



okee dokee then


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 14, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah, totally. Because dark humor is totally respectable, honorable, and etc. Shut up. I sick of that excuse. They're soldiers, they're suppose to represent not just themselves but their entire fighting force. If they're immature fucks then that must mean that every one of their fellow soldiers are as well, and soldiers are suppose to be disciplined and respected, not cracking jokes and carrying on. This is one big reason why I dislike the US military and I have the opposite of respect for them: they're -all- like this, or worse; they laugh while shooting at people and yet Amerricunts defend them with the "they're allowed to have fun because they're people". No, no they're not allowed to have fun during a FUCKING WAR. War isn't suppose to be a fun, laughing matter and anybody that thinks it should be is despicable.
> 
> I don't mind if they crack jokes after they've left, if they're -not- in the military and are civilians I'm fine with them cracking jokes and doing what ever they want, but during the time they're part of the fighting force (reserve, leave, or otherwise) they shouldn't act like retarded monkeys.
> 
> FURTHER RAGE ON THE SUBJECT!


He's not out laughing while shooting at people, he's making a dark joke on the internet.

That's hardly as serious as you make it.

Would you rather have them all turn into mindless killing machine robots that snap due to PTSD and no way to cope with it, killing their families?


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 14, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> He's not out laughing while shooting at people, he's making a dark joke on the internet.
> 
> That's hardly as serious as you make it.
> 
> Would you rather have them all turn into mindless killing machine robots that snap due to PTSD and no way to cope with it, killing their families?



Well actually...

In all seriousness though, saying that if you can't laugh about your job in a war or you'll kill your family holds no actual weight in an argument, seeing as it's unprovable.
They can laugh about it, just noT publicly. I just mean they shouldn't be making their military look bad and acting like the war is a joke.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 14, 2009)

> Would you rather have them all turn into mindless killing machine robots that snap due to PTSD and no way to cope with it, killing their families?


Give 'em a freakin' X-Box or something. I've heard this argument used to justify the things that happened at Abu Ghraib. Not gonna fly.


----------



## Azure (Nov 14, 2009)

Ugh, this thread is so yakkity yakkity. Grow up people. Humor is a healing mechanism, btw.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 14, 2009)

> (Did Cape Town exist circa WW2?)



How can you correct the geography and then ask something like this? Cape Town was the first South African city. It's been around since 1652, I think that was when the Dutch landed anyway.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 14, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> How can you correct the geography and then ask something like this? Cape Town was the first South African city. It's been around since 1652, I think that was when the Dutch landed anyway.



Y'know, while my knowledge of South Africa's history is muddy beyond things like the Boer War and apartheid, I can pretty much guarantee I have a better grasp of geography than you, shithead.  Cape of Good Hope's been there longer than any South African city, and will be there long after those cities are dead and hollow.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 14, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well actually...
> 
> In all seriousness though, saying that if you can't laugh about your job in a war or you'll kill your family holds no actual weight in an argument, seeing as it's unprovable.
> They can laugh about it, just noT publicly. I just mean they shouldn't be making their military look bad and acting like the war is a joke.


It's not acting like the war is a joke.  Also, why does it matter if it looks bad?  


Runefox said:


> Give 'em a freakin' X-Box or something. I've heard this argument used to justify the things that happened at Abu Ghraib. Not gonna fly.


That was supposed to be a hyperbole.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 15, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> If Churchhill hadn't stood up to Hitler then many innocent civilians would have been MURDERED for the 'crime' of belonging to certain ethnic groups. You should have told the prisoners that they were not worth dying for to free.



So what you're saying is the world should stand up to the USA?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> So what you're saying is the world should stand up to the USA?



lolwut? S/he didn't say that at all. Though, the world isn't exactly afraid of the US. Look at Cuba, North Korea, China, Russia, Vietnam, Somalia...


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 15, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> lolwut? S/he didn't say that at all. Though, the world isn't exactly afraid of the US. Look at Cuba, North Korea, China, Russia, Vietnam, Somalia...



Other than Russia neither of those things started anything with the US, the US started shit with them first.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Other than Russia neither of those things started anything with the US, the US started shit with them first.



And yet, all stood up to the US (or tried to in Somalia's case), and in the case of Cuba and Vietnam, beat the US. (North Korea ended up in a draw with them).


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 15, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> And yet, all stood up to the US (or tried to in Somalia's case), and in the case of Cuba and Vietnam, beat the US. (North Korea ended up in a draw with them).



Yeah, because they were attacked they defended. Such a shock, it's so rare to see.
Russia was a draw, too. ;3


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 15, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Well sorry they shoot at people who strap bombs to themselves.


lol!


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 15, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Well sorry they shoot at people who strap bombs to themselves.



I'd aim for the bomb if they were wearing one.


----------



## Jude Prudence (Nov 15, 2009)

Growlith, I'm not even going to bother with reading your post. One damned look at the thread title said fucking everything.

It's been a minimum of six to eight months since you tried to legitimize bestiality with wearing skirts.

Six to Eight months, and you're still not ready for serious debate on complex issues.

Go back to Gaia's Extended Discussion forum.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I'd aim for the bomb if they were wearing one.



Depends how close they've managed to get. Too close and you're caught in the blast.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 15, 2009)

Jude Prudence said:


> Growlith, I'm not even going to bother with reading your post. One damned look at the thread title said fucking everything.
> 
> It's been a minimum of six to eight months since you tried to legitimize bestiality with wearing skirts.
> 
> ...




 Shuddup, don't post if you have nothing to add to the discussion.



Ty Vulpine said:


> Depends how close they've managed to get. Too close and you're caught in the blast.



Obviously I wouldn't aim for the bomb if I was in blast range of it XD I ain't that dumb.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 15, 2009)

> Y'know, while my knowledge of South Africa's history is muddy beyond things like the Boer War and apartheid, I can pretty much guarantee I have a better grasp of geography than you, shithead. Cape of Good Hope's been there longer than any South African city, and will be there long after those cities are dead and hollow.



A lot of unnecessary aggression there, try relax sometime.


----------



## Sulacoyote (Nov 15, 2009)

This thread pretty much amounted to a bunch of people who felt bitter over being too lardassed or brokedick to serve in the military and desperately trying to come up with an intellectual sounding way to delegitimize the jobs of those who did serve or do serve to make up for their angst over not getting a free Bloomin' Onion at Outback Steakhouse on Veteran's Day, but instead what we get is a pile of NYAN, WAR AND VIOLENCE AND SOLDIERS IS BAD I CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY OTHER THAN I FEEL IT IS SO, NYAN ;____________;


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 15, 2009)

Sulacoyote said:


> This thread pretty much amounted to a bunch of people who felt bitter over being too lardassed or brokedick to serve in the military and desperately trying to come up with an intellectual sounding way to delegitimize the jobs of those who did serve or do serve to make up for their angst over not getting a free Bloomin' Onion at Outback Steakhouse on Veteran's Day, but instead what we get is a pile of NYAN, WAR AND VIOLENCE AND SOLDIERS IS BAD I CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY OTHER THAN I FEEL IT IS SO, NYAN ;____________;



Obviously you are so narrow-minded you can only see war from one perspective.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 15, 2009)

Sulacoyote said:


> This thread pretty much amounted to a bunch of people who felt bitter over being too lardassed or brokedick to serve in the military and desperately trying to come up with an intellectual sounding way to delegitimize the jobs of those who did serve or do serve to make up for their angst over not getting a free Bloomin' Onion at Outback Steakhouse on Veteran's Day, but instead what we get is a pile of NYAN, WAR AND VIOLENCE AND SOLDIERS IS BAD I CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY OTHER THAN I FEEL IT IS SO, NYAN ;____________;



Also, generalizing those against it much? So people against the war are automatically lardassed on the fucking basis that there OPINION goes against war? So what does that make people like you? War mongering assholes that can't wait to go blow the shit out of other people no matter what the reason is?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 15, 2009)

My brother is in the army, and is going to be going to Afganhistan in a few weeks. I don't support the war, but I stand by my brother. While I dread the day I get that phone call, I pray he'll get through safely (and he did graduate at the top of his class) so he should be okay. I hope...


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I'd aim for the bomb if they were wearing one.


That does nothing, most explosives can't be set off by impact force.
Besides the fact you'll never actually see it and usually killing them will do nothing anyway because it'll be timed as well.


Ty Vulpine said:


> Depends how close they've managed to get. Too close and you're caught in the blast.


If you're within shooting range of any normal US soldier you're too close, the blast will kill you.



Sulacoyote said:


> This thread pretty much amounted to a bunch of people who felt bitter over being too lardassed or brokedick to serve in the military and desperately trying to come up with an intellectual sounding way to delegitimize the jobs of those who did serve or do serve to make up for their angst over not getting a free Bloomin' Onion at Outback Steakhouse on Veteran's Day, but instead what we get is a pile of NYAN, WAR AND VIOLENCE AND SOLDIERS IS BAD I CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY OTHER THAN I FEEL IT IS SO, NYAN ;____________;



Yes because if somebody doesn't serve in the US military they have to have an excuse that suits your wants.
Oh and yeah, if they don't like the US military they surely have a poor reason or no reason at all, you know the US military hasn't been at war for the past two hundred years straight or anything, mostly without any real reason or just cause. Totally needs a better reason. 



Ty Vulpine said:


> My brother is in the army, and is going to be going to Afganhistan in a few weeks. I don't support the war, but I stand by my brother. While I dread the day I get that phone call, I pray he'll get through safely (and he did graduate at the top of his class) so he should be okay. I hope...


Well at least it isn't Iraq I guess.


----------



## Hir (Nov 15, 2009)

How about we listen to some good remembrance day music?


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Nov 15, 2009)

Reign I Forever


----------



## Sulacoyote (Nov 15, 2009)

Personally I prefer We Walked In Line. I once called cadence with that song during a formation run with my training detachment when I was in MOS school.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> That does nothing, most explosives can't be set off by impact force.
> Besides the fact you'll never actually see it and usually killing them will do nothing anyway because it'll be timed as well.



You do know I was not being serious when I said that right?


----------



## Sulacoyote (Nov 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Also, generalizing those against it much? So people against the war are automatically lardassed on the fucking basis that there OPINION goes against war?



Read what I said. I was attacking the people who are against Remembrance Day and Veteran's Day, not people who were antiwar in general.



NewfDraggie said:


> Yes because if somebody doesn't serve in the US military they have to have an excuse that suits your wants.



No, I was addressing the people in this thread who are pissing and moaning about Veteran's Day. Read what I said.



RandyDarkshade said:


> Obviously you are so narrow-minded you can only see war from one perspective.



Not really. I used to be a borderline pacifist and was extremely antiwar, especially against the Iraq War, until about 2005, maybe 2006 or so.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 15, 2009)

Sulacoyote said:


> No, I was addressing the people in this thread who are pissing and moaning about Veteran's Day. Read what I said.



I did read what you said; maybe you should learn to write, that way you'll get your intending message across clearer.


----------



## Jude Prudence (Nov 15, 2009)

Sulacoyote said:


> This thread pretty much amounted to a bunch of people who felt bitter over being too lardassed or brokedick to serve in the military and desperately trying to come up with an intellectual sounding way to delegitimize the jobs of those who did serve or do serve to make up for their angst over not getting a free Bloomin' Onion at Outback Steakhouse on Veteran's Day, but instead what we get is a pile of NYAN, WAR AND VIOLENCE AND SOLDIERS IS BAD I CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY OTHER THAN I FEEL IT IS SO, NYAN ;____________;




No, it amounts to a bunch of insipid little kids and manchildren that don't know a god damned thing about what the fuck they're spewing out for the sake of attention.

That's all it amounts to. Brats and Basement Dwellers trying to look cool and edgy. The same fucking shits that still thought Dennis Miller was cool as early as 2 years ago.

Also, Don't even fucking bother with newfoundland dragon. Don't even.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 15, 2009)

Jude Prudence said:


> No, it amounts to a bunch of insipid little kids and manchildren that don't know a god damned thing about what the fuck they're spewing out for the sake of attention.
> 
> That's all it amounts to. Brats and Basement Dwellers trying to look cool and edgy. The same fucking shits that still thought Dennis Miller was cool as early as 2 years ago.



So far all I have seen you post is angry fucking shit. and yet another one who makes a generalization too.

You need to GTFO if you can't be civil on these forums.


----------



## Jude Prudence (Nov 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> So far all I have seen you post is angry fucking shit. and yet another one who makes a generalization too.
> 
> You need to GTFO if you can't be civil on these forums.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfrTAt_m1po


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 15, 2009)

Jude Prudence said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfrTAt_m1po



How old are you? 12 months?

That's a very "adult" thing to do isn't it. Perhaps you would like to go fap to some beastiality porn or something.


----------



## Sulacoyote (Nov 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I did read what you said; maybe you should learn to write, that way you'll get your intending message across clearer.



DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN COLD AS ICE NEWF. COLD AS ICE.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 15, 2009)

Sulacoyote said:


> DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN COLD AS ICE NEWF. COLD AS ICE.



He has a point though, your post confused me aswell v.v


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 15, 2009)

Sulacoyote said:


> DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN COLD AS ICE NEWF. COLD AS ICE.



ilu though <3


----------



## Runefox (Nov 15, 2009)

@Jude Prudence: Welcome to the club! Thanks for the great intro, described yourself real well there, kid.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Nov 15, 2009)

Sulacoyote said:


> Personally I prefer We Walked In Line. I once called cadence with that song during a formation run with my training detachment when I was in MOS school.



It's alright but I get a little embarrassed for Michael whenever he tries to "rock" 


Best stick to some nice organ music like your French friend Erik


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 16, 2009)

"And the Band Played 'Waltzing Matilda'"


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2009)

Man, my Bloomin Onion was way too greasy.  I drank the shit outta that free Coke though.  And I hit Applebees twice, once for lunch, once for dinner.  Fuck yeah.


----------

