To all those who overlook their sacrifice

[Sir Suomi]

It is the soldier, not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the soldier,
who salutes the flag,
who serves under the flag,
and whose coffin is draped by the flag,
who allows the protester to burn the flag. ~ Father Dennis Edward O’Brien, USMC

[Taryn98]

Amen to that! Thanks to all those who sacrifice so much so that we can be free.

[kenoloor]

And yet,
It is the soldiers who are refuting the freedom of others.
It is the soldiers who are scorching the lives and the livelihoods of innocent people.
It is the soldiers who are fighting a war that should never have even happened.
It is the soldiers who want to take away the civil rights of specific minority groups in America and around the world.
It is the soldiers who haven't "fought for freedom" since World War II.

Fuck the troops. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=142246&highlight=fuck+the+troops)

[Lyra Heartstrings]

I see where both sides are coming from.
Yes, the troops are fighting for our country and protecting our rights.
Yes, they are taking away the rights and murdering innocent people.
However..don't we have to worry about ourselves? We are in a national debt crisis, and I don't think we have the time to be worrying about Iraq because we killed their people.
(..that might be wrong but you get the point. did we go to war with iraq?
fack.)

[FreeFall]

Meh. I've a love hate with the service. Love because those are some brave as people fighting for what they love and feel others should have.

Hate because of the typical things. Rape, beating, killing babies, and because if my loved one, let's say future husband, gets drafted or somehow goes in and instead of him coming home I get a fucking flag, I will not be pleased for the rest of my life.

Also, I don't get glorifying the troops. Yes thank you troops and service citizens for protecting my country and life, but they are pawns. They do not jump unless told to. They do not wake up and go, hmmm today I shall help some people who are oppressed, someone has to decide to send troops there. They think fast when they need to but they're not the ones saying "let's free these people!" They're the messengers of the ones who said go free them. I think the most autonomy they have is blinking really.

[Human]

Now sorry but gotta disagree with this. The soldiers currently aren't at least currently directly protecting us. I'm sure we could survive if they were back home.

[Zenos]

And yet,
It is the soldiers who are refuting the freedom of others.
It is the soldiers who are scorching the lives and the livelihoods of innocent people.
It is the soldiers who are fighting a war that should never have even happened.
It is the soldiers who want to take away the civil rights of specific minority groups in America and around the world.
It is the soldiers who haven't "fought for freedom" since World War II.

Fuck the troops. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=142246&highlight=fuck+the+troops)

Sorry but the soldiers have to go where ordered and fight who they are ordered too fight.

And before you say they don't have too ..yes they do when they enlist they take a "OATH" to serve the USA,and to obey the orders of the President of the USA.And before anyone blah blah blahs the fact they took an oath,when you give an oath you gave you're word of HONOR.

And only a person with NO HONOR goes back on an oath! But then in this day and age when morals and honor is something fluid most people don't understand it.

Meh. I've a love hate with the service. Love because those are some brave as people fighting for what they love and feel others should have.

Hate because of the typical things. Rape, beating, killing babies, and because if my loved one, let's say future husband, gets drafted or somehow goes in and instead of him coming home I get a fucking flag, I will not be pleased for the rest of my life.

( We don't draft in the USA anymore,and not every soldier is committing Rape, beating people , killing babies,plus American troops aren't the only ones that have done that kinda stuff)

Also, I don't get glorifying the troops. Yes thank you troops and service citizens for protecting my country and life, but they are pawns. They do not jump unless told to. They do not wake up and go, hmmm today I shall help some people who are oppressed, someone has to decide to send troops there. They think fast when they need to but they're not the ones saying "let's free these people!" They're the messengers of the ones who said go free them. I think the most autonomy they have is blinking really.

(such narrow views,what you call glorifying is nothing more then a great showing of thanks for their service,would you rather then go risk their asses and then come home " thanks but oh well you just did what you where told to do?"
How do you think the troops that fought in oh say World war 1 or world war 2 would have felt after risking their asses for our freedom and the freedom of Europeans they didn't even know,to come home to people with you're attitude?"

The big problem is people here in America have no patriotism anymore)

Merged double post. -Gigablue

[kenoloor]

Sorry but the soldiers have to go where ordered and fight who they are ordered too fight.

And before you say they don't have too ..yes they do when they enlist they take a "OATH" to serve the USA,and to obey the orders of the President of the USA.And before anyone blah blah blahs the fact they took an oath,when you give an oath you gave you're word of HONOR.

And only a person with NO HONOR goes back on an oath! But then in this day and age when morals and honor is something fluid most people don't understand it.

And I'm saying that they are idiots for submitting themselves to the government and becoming mindless minions.

(such narrow views,what you call glorifying is nothing more then a great showing of thanks for their service,would you rather then go risk their asses and then come home " thanks but oh well you just did what you where told to do?"
How do you think the troops that fought in oh say World war 1 or world war 2 would have felt after risking their asses for our freedom and the freedom of Europeans they didn't even know,to come home to people with you're attitude?"

That's not a fair comparison. World War 2 actually concerned freedom that affected the American people. The wars that our military are fighting today do not.

The big problem is people here in America have no patriotism anymore)

Patriotism is as stupid (and as unnecessary) as faith.

[Zenos]

And I'm saying that they are idiots for submitting themselves to the government and becoming mindless minions.



That's not a fair comparison. World War 2 actually concerned freedom that affected the American people. The wars that our military are fighting today do not.



Patriotism is as stupid (and as unnecessary) as faith.


Patriotism is not stupid or unnecessary,it is the fundamental glue that holds ANY nation together.
I'm 17 but even i seen a BIG diffrence between my generation of teens and those that came before here in the USA lots of my generation don't give a daaaaamn about the USA and would probably cheer if the boarders where thrown open and the USA merged with Mexico and Canada as the start of some International Globalist nation! Where as Tee ns from previous generatiosn would have been deadset against it!

[kenoloor]

Patriotism is not stupid or unnecessary,it is the fundamental glue that holds ANY nation together.

Funny, that. You're evading the previous two point I made in my post.

And no, patriotism does not hold a country together. Borders do. Durr.

[Zenos]

Funny, that. You're evading the previous two point I made in my post.

And no, patriotism does not hold a country together. Borders do. Durr.



i'm nopt worrying about the other two.

No patriotism holds a nation together ebcause you are willing to defend those Borders because being a partiot you see it as you're DUTY to defend said boarders! derp!

[kenoloor]

i'm nopt worrying about the other two.

Which is a euphemism for "I don't have an argument." Those points were more relevant and more important than the one you're choosing to argue.

No patriotism holds a nation together ebcause you are willing to defend those Borders because being a partiot you see it as you're DUTY to defend said boarders! derp!

We wouldn't have to defend our borders if we didn't keep sticking our bigass nose into other people's business and fucking other countries over.

[Zenos]

Which is a euphemism for "I don't have an argument." Those points were more relevant and more important than the one you're choosing to argue.


NO I simply am choosing to "discuss" the lack of patriotism among us teens. No ones arguing unless it's "you".


We wouldn't have to defend our borders if we didn't keep sticking our bigass nose into other people's business and fucking other countries over.


And thats a false notion there,simply because sooner or later just about any nation even the usa runs the risk of being attacked.

Take 9-11 we where attacked by terrorist,we responded to it by driving the taliban out of Arghanistan.

yeh we had legit reason to go in there anbd to be THERE ,but I will admidt thinks got messed up and we went into Iraq when we had no legit reason to because the government saw it as a chance( big mistake on their part) to clear out a whole nest of vipers but in their seal to do so they have really messed up the region!


buit the fact is without partiotism uniting us we'd have folded as a nation long ago!

ontop of this a lot of this so-called sticking our bigass nose into other people's business and fucking other countries over starts iout as us helping others then when they get what they want they start screaming that we are butting in, combined with our own liberal media doing dishonest reporting to manpiulate the american people.

[ApresMidi]

Meh,...I too really hate the idea of glorifying the deaths of these young men killed. Are they really thinking 'I'm so proud to be doing this' as they are shot to pieces?
If I had a 20 y o son killed in Afghanistan.

Remember the Owens poem;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
*My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.*

[kenoloor]

And thats a false notion there,simply because sooner or later just about any nation even the usa runs the risk of being attacked.

Take 9-11 we where attacked by terrorist,we responded to it by driving the taliban out of Arghanistan.

yeh we had legit reason to go in there anbd to be THERE ,but I will admidt thinks got messed up and we went into Iraq when we had no legit reason to because the government saw it as a chance( big mistake on their part) to clear out a whole nest of vipers but in their seal to do so they have really messed up the region!


buit the fact is without partiotism uniting us we'd have folded as a nation long ago!

ontop of this a lot of this so-called sticking our bigass nose into other people's business and fucking other countries over starts iout as us helping others then when they get what they want they start screaming that we are butting in, combined with our own liberal media doing dishonest reporting to manpiulate the american people.

I don't know what's funnier, the fact that there was next to no punctuation used in that entire post, or the fact that you sound like you watch too much Fox News. You probably think that the gays are the reason for 9/11, no?

True patriotism in America is a lost notion. All that's left is blind patriotism. We purport to spread freedom and liberty, when we really don't have legitimate liberty in our own country. We say that we "help other countries" when, in actuality, they didn't ask for our help, and all we are doing is hurting them further. America has become extremely egocentric when it comes to spreading our "liberty." In reality, our policies aren't even carried out effectively in the United States, so how can we expect to have them carried out elsewhere?

Blind patriots such as yourself are the reason we get into so much shit. You all think that you can stick your smelly ass into whatever issue you want in whatever country you want, and you're going to "help" them. Look at Afghanistan or Iraq. We have done nothing but damage there. We have destroyed countless innocent lives. And for what? That doesn't sound like "spreading liberty" to me.

Blind patriotism is based upon idiocy that permeates today's social conservatives. America purports to be built upon the foundation of freedom, but we have yet to fulfill the freedoms we say we provide.

So no, I will not respect, honor, or support the troops. They are mindless minions who serve a broken, hypocritical government.

[World Eater]

Meh. I've a love hate with the service. Love because those are some brave as people fighting for what they love and feel others should have.

Hate because of the typical things. Rape, beating, killing babies, and because if my loved one, let's say future husband, gets drafted or somehow goes in and instead of him coming home I get a fucking flag, I will not be pleased for the rest of my life.

Also, I don't get glorifying the troops. Yes thank you troops and service citizens for protecting my country and life, but they are pawns. They do not jump unless told to. They do not wake up and go, hmmm today I shall help some people who are oppressed, someone has to decide to send troops there. They think fast when they need to but they're not the ones saying "let's free these people!" They're the messengers of the ones who said go free them. I think the most autonomy they have is blinking really.

Yeah this is pretty much how I feel.

[Sir Suomi]

And yet,
It is the soldiers who are refuting the freedom of others.
It is the soldiers who are scorching the lives and the livelihoods of innocent people.
It is the soldiers who are fighting a war that should never have even happened.
It is the soldiers who want to take away the civil rights of specific minority groups in America and around the world.
It is the soldiers who haven't "fought for freedom" since World War II.

Fuck the troops. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=142246&highlight=fuck+the+troops)

Just remember, in the long run, it was the soldier who gave you the right to say things like this. If you arn't going to stand behind our troops, please, stand in front of them.

[deadpie]

Just remember, in the long run, it was the soldier who gave you the right to say things like this. If you arn't going to stand behind our troops, please, stand in front of them.

AMERICA FUCK YEAH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault_in_the_United_States_military)

AMERICA FUCK YEAH (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/18/nation/la-na-afghan-photos-20120419)

Also anyone heard of PTSD and that Soldiers are more likely to kill themselves then to be killed now?

[nick]

Sorry but the soldiers have to go where ordered and fight who they are ordered too fight.

And before you say they don't have too ..yes they do when they enlist they take a "OATH" to serve the USA,and to obey the orders of the President of the USA.And before anyone blah blah blahs the fact they took an oath,when you give an oath you gave you're word of HONOR.

And only a person with NO HONOR goes back on an oath! But then in this day and age when morals and honor is something fluid most people don't understand it.
Which is exactly why a person with any honour at all could not possibly enlist in the armed forces as a matter of free choice. It's no different to being a mercenary. Go somewhere, kill people, get paid for it. Don't stop to think if it's right or wrong, just do what you're told.

And I'm saying that they are idiots for submitting themselves to the government and becoming mindless minions.
I think I just agreed with that.

[Gigablue]

I really don't see the point in glorifying soldiers. Since WWII, they haven't really fought for freedom. Most conflicts simply consist of going into another country, killing a few people and then leaving, with nothing really accomplished.

That being said, I do think that most soldiers genuinely believe that what they are doing is for the best, and that the real problem is with the people starting the conflict.

I don't think patriotism is a good thing. In moderation, it isn't bad, but left unchecked, it can cause huge destruction. Blind faith in the actions of the military is unwise and just plain dangerous.

[FreeFall]

( We don't draft in the USA anymore
I am aware of that, but that does not mean the draft is dead. It can always come back if we have a war large enough. Because how many men will jump at the chance of fighting in WWIII? And when they're dead or gravely injured, whom else but to force others to take up for them?
and not every soldier is committing Rape, beating people , killing babies,
Because that's totally what I said. I said typical, not that every single soldier to have ever enlisted was an abusive, rapist murderer. It happens though, so you cannot say it doesn't matter.
plus American troops aren't the only ones that have done that kinda stuff)
Oh! Ok! The Russians do it! The Chinese do it! So it's totally alright guys, I mean the focus is American troops and I had no reason to take the other nations into account, but since the other nations' troops do it too, it's all ok.

(such narrow views,what you call glorifying is nothing more then a great showing of thanks for their service
Narrow? No. There's thanking them and showing gratitude which I support. There's putting them on mountain of gold and hopping when they say jump, that I dislike. Don't say I don't feel gratuitous to them, I do. I just don't see them in a glorious light.
would you rather then go risk their asses and then come home " thanks but oh well you just did what you where told to do?"
Yea? Because...they did what they were told? Now if a troop goes rushing into a burning orphanage against orders and brings every single orphan out unscathed, then that's different.
How do you think the troops that fought in oh say World war 1 or world war 2 would have felt after risking their asses for our freedom and the freedom of Europeans they didn't even know,to come home to people with you're attitude?"
I'm attitude isn't even relevant to wars of people, of a different time period and culture, decades ago. If you wanted to parallel you should've gone with the reaction to troops coming home from Nam. Besides, those wars actually involved us and a threat to our freedom. Today's war, is not that.

The big problem is people here in America have no patriotism anymore)
The big problem here in America is the people who get up in arms with guns a blazing if someone dare not share the same mindset and then refuse to accept that the person in question as a final authority on what is right and what should be. I'm not apathetic to the troops like you seem to think.

[Aajj333]

And yet,
It is the soldiers who are refuting the freedom of others.
It is the soldiers who are scorching the lives and the livelihoods of innocent people.
It is the soldiers who are fighting a war that should never have even happened.
It is the soldiers who want to take away the civil rights of specific minority groups in America and around the world.
It is the soldiers who haven't "fought for freedom" since World War II.

Fuck the troops. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=142246&highlight=fuck+the+troops)

Fuck you these guys fight for YOUR freedom and give THEIR lives for you

[Korashk]

Fuck you these guys fight for YOUR freedom and give THEIR lives for you
HAHAHAHA no. Disproving this notion is pretty much what the thread he linked to is about. All the American military is accomplishes these days is making us LESS free, murdering and oppressing brown people, and costing money.

There's thanking them and showing gratitude which I support.
Freefall, you shouldn't be grateful for what soldiers are doing, because what they're doing is despicable.

[Human]

I really don't see the point in glorifying soldiers. Since WWII, they haven't really fought for freedom. Most conflicts simply consist of going into another country, killing a few people and then leaving, with nothing really accomplished.

That being said, I do think that most soldiers genuinely believe that what they are doing is for the best, and that the real problem is with the people starting the conflict.

I don't think patriotism is a good thing. In moderation, it isn't bad, but left unchecked, it can cause huge destruction. Blind faith in the actions of the military is unwise and just plain dangerous.

Exactly, this! These soldiers aren't exactly fighting for us. If anything, fighting for others!

[FreeFall]

Freefall, you shouldn't be grateful for what soldiers are doing, because what they're doing is despicable.
It's not so much I'm grateful as more of a, well thanks for getting out there sort of thing. I just didn't know how to word it. I'm just not falling over myself to show "appreciation" like others, which I don't understand. I'm honestly not even sure what it is they're doing at this point other than making us mad they're over where they are, and the inhabitants of that land mad they're there. I best go educate myself now.

[Abigballofdust]

It is the soldier, not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

And it's the soldier who'll take them back if ordered so.


It is the soldier,
who salutes the flag,
who serves under the flag,
and whose coffin is draped by the flag,
who allows the protester to burn the flag. ~ Father Dennis Edward O’Brien, USMC

He forgot to mention the soldier killing for the flag and being killed by somebody else fighting under an other flag. Also killing the protester that burns the flag. All in all, flags are useless and the roots of all wars. As Einstein himself pointed: patriotism is a disease.

Fuck you these guys fight for YOUR freedom and give THEIR lives for you
'Patriots always talk of dying for their country and never of killing for their country.' -Bertrand Russell, attributed.

[Aajj333]

HAHAHAHA no. Disproving this notion is pretty much what the thread he linked to is about. All the American military is accomplishes these days is making us LESS free, murdering and oppressing brown people, and costing money.


Freefall, you shouldn't be grateful for what soldiers are doing, because what they're doing is despicable.

Those guys don't have to be out their protecting you

[kenoloor]

Those guys don't have to be out their protecting you

They aren't protecting us.

[Sugaree]

Those guys don't have to be out their protecting you

They haven't protected us for a valid reason since WWII.

[FreeFall]

Those guys don't have to be out their protecting you
You're right, they don't. They chose to, they used to be forced to, but never did we beg or ask. So were you hoping to emotionally guilt us into thinking "oh those people. They're giving us the greatest gift, risking their lives for us."
Never mind that would be a gift with strings attached which most people tend to hate.

[Human]

Just remember, in the long run, it was the soldier who gave you the right to say things like this. If you arn't going to stand behind our troops, please, stand in front of them.

so you're saying the troops would like people who disagree with them to be caught in the middle of the fighting?
just like the poor villagers where they're located at then.

[Sir Suomi]

so you're saying the troops would like people who disagree with them to be caught in the middle of the fighting?
just like the poor villagers where they're located at then.

No. Stop right there.

Imagine, your are in a hostile country, where you don't know whether or not the guy walking towards you is preparing to shake your hand or blowing you sky high with a suicide vest. Where just walking/driving from point A to point B could get you killed.

It's really easy to critize our troops while you are warm at home typing on a computer, while they are out there risking their lives. So just shut the hell up.

[Guillermo]

No. Stop right there.

Imagine, your are in a hostile country,

Hmm, well let's think precisely why US troops perceive a country that they're interfering with is hostile. Oh yeah! Because the US troops are holding guns which makes themselves look hostile too. Did the people of the country ask to be intervened with? No.

where you don't know whether or not the guy walking towards you is preparing to shake your hand or blowing you sky high with a suicide vest.

Well, that's the fault of the troops if the people of the country don't even want them to be there.

Where just walking/driving from point A to point B could get you killed.

Too bad. Get the troops out of the country and there will be no more problems with US troops getting killed.

It's really easy to critize our troops while you are warm at home typing on a computer, while they are out there risking their lives.

Risking their lives for whom? For what??? You see, that's what you just don't seem to understand. The US was fighting for nothing in Iraq and Afghanistan. NOTHING. And plus the US wasn't even fighting against a whole country, just a few thousand extremist at most. It might as well have been Bigfoot that US troops were fighting against because this extremist group was so elusive. Oh, and guess what? Nothing was done either. Woo-hoo! They killed Osama Bin Ladin! Big deal. The extremist can just make a new leader. The US has killed way more civilians and innocent people than the actual targeted people. None of this would have happened in the first place if the US would have stopped putting their noses in other countries' businesses way before 9/11, because honestly, it's the US's fault that it happened. When you get too involved in someone else's business it kind of makes the other person made, right? Well that's what happened with 9/11 and these few extremist thought that it was necessary to fly planes into US buildings. Yes, it's a tragedy. But is it not also a tragedy that the US thought it was necessary to go to these countries and kill thousands of innocent people who had nothing to do with these attacks? They're still humans, right? How much fucking sense does that make? Please, explain to me...

And don't give me that bullshit about "Oh well we're fighting in a war so civilians are always going to be killed!"

1. The US isn't even at war. The US hasn't declared war with a country since WW2
2. Thousands of civilians each year being directly killed by US troops is a bit disgusting
3. The Nazi blitz on Britain during the whole of World War II killed 40,000 civilians. The US-led 'war on terror' has killed between 14,000 to 110,000 per year over the past eleven years. (http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/1573-how-many-civilians-have-been-killed-in-11-years-of-the-war-on-terror) And these deaths have been directly linked to US involvement whether or not the civilians were killed by actual US forces.

So is the US really fighting for freedoms? Or are they actually infringing on other human's rights and civil liberties?

[Aajj333]

They haven't protected us for a valid reason since WWII.

Terrorists, drugs, our asses

[Aajj333]

Hmm, well let's think precisely why US troops perceive a country that they're interfering with is hostile. Oh yeah! Because the US troops are holding guns which makes themselves look hostile too. Did the people of the country ask to be intervened with? No.



Well, that's the fault of the troops if the people of the country don't even want them to be there.



Too bad. Get the troops out of the country and there will be no more problems with US troops getting killed.



Risking their lives for whom? For what??? You see, that's what you just don't seem to understand. The US was fighting for nothing in Iraq and Afghanistan. NOTHING. And plus the US wasn't even fighting against a whole country, just a few thousand extremist at most. It might as well have been Bigfoot that US troops were fighting against because this extremist group was so elusive. Oh, and guess what? Nothing was done either. Woo-hoo! They killed Osama Bin Ladin! Big deal. The extremist can just make a new leader. The US has killed way more civilians and innocent people than the actual targeted people. None of this would have happened in the first place if the US would have stopped putting their noses in other countries' businesses way before 9/11, because honestly, it's the US's fault that it happened. When you get too involved in someone else's business it kind of makes the other person made, right? Well that's what happened with 9/11 and these few extremist thought that it was necessary to fly planes into US buildings. Yes, it's a tragedy. But is it not also a tragedy that the US thought it was necessary to go to these countries and kill thousands of innocent people who had nothing to do with these attacks? They're still humans, right? How much fucking sense does that make? Please, explain to me...

And don't give me that bullshit about "Oh well we're fighting in a war so civilians are always going to be killed!"

1. The US isn't even at war. The US hasn't declared war with a country since WW2
2. Thousands of civilians each year being directly killed by US troops is a bit disgusting
3. The Nazi blitz on Britain during the whole of World War II killed 40,000 civilians. The US-led 'war on terror' has killed between 14,000 to 110,000 per year over the past eleven years. (http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/1573-how-many-civilians-have-been-killed-in-11-years-of-the-war-on-terror) And these deaths have been directly linked to US involvement whether or not the civilians were killed by actual US forces.

So is the US really fighting for freedoms? Or are they actually infringing on other human's rights and civil liberties?

What I am getting out of this is the troops fault their are terrorist, and if it wasn't for the troops protecting us the world would be at peace

[Korashk]

What I am getting out of this is the troops fault their are terrorist, and if it wasn't for the troops protecting us the world would be at peace
It's not that simple or extreme, but basically yeah.

[Aajj333]

To all of you who are criticizing the military, FUCK YOU

They have givin THEIR lives so you can have freedom of speech, press, the right to bear arms, freedom to practice what ever religion you want, fair court, outlawed slavery in the past

They have stopped the 3rd reich, the world from destroying its self (with help from other countries)

The Navy Seals killed Osama bin Ladin and are fighting terrorists, not just protecting us but protecting other countries as well. Terrorists are trying to blow up the world! And people are saying there is no point to the war on terror. It was not the troops that caused 9/11 it was the terrorist. If the U.S. would go into a mode of only protecting ourselves and throwing everyone else under the bus than how can we expect help when we need it.

They don't have to be protecting you

[Guillermo]

To all of you who are criticizing the military, FUCK YOU

This is basically telling me that "I have no more arguments left."

They have givin THEIR lives so you can have freedom of speech, press, the right to bear arms, freedom to practice what ever religion you want, fair court, outlawed slavery in the past

When have they done this? OH and especially for the last thing? They outlawed slavery?? How? An amendment outlawed slavery. Actually all of these freedoms were given to Americans by amendments. The military has never given their lives to protect these liberties for Americans. And please, don't say the American Revolution, because 1. The colonists didn't even have an organized military in the late 1700s 2. It was made up of a bunch of farmers, with very little experience but just the will to break away from a mother country 3. The US wasn't even a country then.

They have stopped the 3rd reich,

Actually, it was not only "the military" that helped to do this. A lot of resistance groups in Europe who didn't have much military experience at all helped a lot.

the world from destroying its self (with help from other countries)

Please explain...

The Navy Seals killed Osama bin Ladin and are fighting terrorists, not just protecting us but protecting other countries as well.

Yes, they did and, along with other military branches, thousands of other innocent people in the process looking for one man. But does that honestly really matter? As I said before, they can find a new leader.

Terrorists are trying to blow up the world! And people are saying there is no point to the war on terror.

Oh god, you perfectly illustrated why people are saying that there is no point in the war on terror. If that's what you think, then go ahead. I'm not really sure that they would like to blow up countries who don't intervene in other countries businesses - like the US.

It was not the troops that caused 9/11 it was the terrorist. If the U.S. would go into a mode of only protecting ourselves and throwing everyone else under the bus than how can we expect help when we need it.

Basically, yes it was. Yet, let me ask you something - who else is the US protecting? And if the US military "thinks" that they need to protect them, then did they actually ask to be protected? There are only 2 times where other countries pleaded to ask for the US's military assistance to defeat other countries - and that was in WW1 and 2 but especially in the 2nd world war.

They don't have to be protecting you

You're right. Bravo. They're also protecting no one else.

I'd like you to take a look at this. (http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html) These are all US military interventions in other countries. Notice how over half of them occur after WW2. It's honestly disgusting at all of the US military interference's and makes me almost embarrassed to be apart of a country whose military is basically worshiped. And why? Just to "protect" civil liberties in other countries (that didn't even ask for protection) and in our own country? It's a load of bullshit, if you ask me.

[Aajj333]

This is basically telling me that "I have no more arguments left."



When have they done this? OH and especially for the last thing? They outlawed slavery?? How? An amendment outlawed slavery. Actually all of these freedoms were given to Americans by amendments. The military has never given their lives to protect these liberties for Americans. And please, don't say the American Revolution, because 1. The colonists didn't even have an organized military in the late 1700s 2. It was made up of a bunch of farmers, with very little experience but just the will to break away from a mother country 3. The US wasn't even a country then.



Actually, it was not only "the military" that helped to do this. A lot of resistance groups in Europe who didn't have much military experience at all helped a lot.



Please explain...



Yes, they did and, along with other military branches, thousands of other innocent people in the process looking for one man. But does that honestly really matter? As I said before, they can find a new leader.



Oh god, you perfectly illustrated why people are saying that there is no point in the war on terror. If that's what you think, then go ahead. I'm not really sure that they would like to blow up countries who don't intervene in other countries businesses - like the US.



Basically, yes it was. Yet, let me ask you something - who else is the US protecting? And if the US military "thinks" that they need to protect them, then did they actually ask to be protected? There are only 2 times where other countries pleaded to ask for the US's military assistance to defeat other countries - and that was in WW1 and 2 but especially in the 2nd world war.



You're right. Bravo. They're also protecting no one else.

I'd like you to take a look at this. (http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html) These are all US military interventions in other countries. Notice how over half of them occur after WW2. It's honestly disgusting at all of the US military interference's and makes me almost embarrassed to be apart of a country whose military is basically worshiped. And why? Just to "protect" civil liberties in other countries (that didn't even ask for protection) and in our own country? It's a load of bullshit, if you ask me.


1st point you made- I had a whole post full of arguments

2nd point you made-
A. When have they done this? Every single battle where a soldier died
B. How did soldiers end slavery? The north fought to end it in the civil war. Had they lost, their would still be slavery.
C. How did the military give us the rights? They fought for it from Britain, Germany, Terrorists who wanted to take it away. If it wasn't for the military, we would have none of those rights. You don't want me to say American Revolution because you know you are wrong. That army was the exact same army that we have today. They both want the same thing, freedom for them and others.

3rd point you made- The U.S. didn't help to end the 3rd reich.

They fought WWII, beat Germany (along with the Allies), and won

4th point- Please Explain? We helped end WWI and WWII which was on a path to destroy the world, we are trying to stop terrorist who want to destroy the world.

5th point- Does that really matter? Osama bin Ladin was responsible for thousands of deaths and was ready to carry out many more. While killing him didn't stop them, it really hurt them and they will find a new leader and we will stop him, like we did with Osama

6th point- It's not U.S. business.

When someone crashes two planes into the World Trade Center, a plane into the Pentagon, and planned to crash one into the White House, it is their business. Terrorist weren't picking flowers one day and got attacked by the U.S. army, they were killing millions of people including Americans and the U.S. is trying to stop them

7th point

A. Who else is the U.S. protecting?- In the war on terror everyone who the terrorists were targeting such as Britain, France. Japan does not have an army and is under the U.S.'s protection.

B. Did they ask for protection?- On your link, most of them were other countries or groups inside countries causing problems that would negatively effect the U.S., some more extreme than others, such as nuclear threats. Sometimes, help is needed, like a more recent one in Libya where there is all that fighting and the government is killing innocent civilians.

8. There protecting no one.

Stop right now and imagine a world where the United States has no army and terrorists do what they want, countries are killing civilians, and no one is doing anything about it.

If the U.S. would go into a mode of only protecting ourselves and throwing everyone else under the bus than how can we expect help when we need it.

I am extremely thankful for all the troops that are currently fighting for my freedom and all the people that died fighting for my freedom. There are people in other countries who would give anything to live here with all the security that comes with it. There's a saying that goes something like "you don't really know what you have until it's gone" and one day you might just find yourself in that situation.

[Jakejjj]

The soldiers are who we should be thanking there the ones fighting for us

[Guillermo]

1st point you made- I had a whole post full of arguments

Well, "FUCK YOU" is hardly an argument.

2nd point you made-
A. When have they done this? Every single battle where a soldier died

So, was the Korean conflict in the early 1950s protecting liberties for Americans? Or was it just to stop Communism which the US thinks is "bad". Same with the Viet-nam one. Was it really for Americans liberties? No.

B. How did soldiers end slavery? The north fought to end it in the civil war. Had they lost, their would still be slavery.

No. The north fought to preserve the Union, actually. There would still be slavery had they lost? How do you know? I'm sure that natural human rights would have eventually taken over and the south would have eventually given it up. Look around today -- are there any developed countries that still practice slavery? No. And as I said before, the Civil War did not end slavery; an amendment did.


C. How did the military give us the rights? They fought for it from Britain, Germany, Terrorists who wanted to take it away. If it wasn't for the military, we would have none of those rights. You don't want me to say American Revolution because you know you are wrong. That army was the exact same army that we have today. They both want the same thing, freedom for them and others.

Really? I think not. The military - or one general and many farmers - fought for the US to break away from Britain. For independence of a country. And besides, most citizens in the colonies were Loyalists; after the war most of them were not. The government is the one who has given the US rights. There's a difference. And if you're going to say "well if it wasn't for the military, then there would be no government", well that's bullshit. Canada never had a military revolution with Great Britain and it was once a British colony. Yet, they have all the same rights that US citizens have if not more. They have legalized gay marriage and abortions all across the country. We've yet to do that. And, no, it's not the exact same army. The US army was only trying to secede from another country at that time. Now, the US military puts its nose into many other foreign affairs that should be left untouched.

3rd point you made- The U.S. didn't help to end the 3rd reich.

They fought WWII, beat Germany (along with the Allies), and won

I never said that they didn't. But when you said "they have stopped the third Reich" then you basically said that the military did it all by themself. Which they didn't. There were man resistance groups within the occupied countries that helped.

4th point- Please Explain? We helped end WWI and WWII which was on a path to destroy the world, we are trying to stop terrorist who want to destroy the world.

They were destroying the world? If I recall, they didn't really want to destroy it, but just take it over and use all the resources for themselves.

5th point- Does that really matter? Osama bin Ladin was responsible for thousands of deaths and was ready to carry out many more. While killing him didn't stop them, it really hurt them and they will find a new leader and we will stop him, like we did with Osama

Yet, the US military was responsible for thousands and thousands more deaths of civilans. You're right; killing him didn't stop the extremists. And when/if a new leader is found, then thousands more civilians will die at the hands of American military all to just find one leader.

6th point- It's not U.S. business.

When someone crashes two planes into the World Trade Center, a plane into the Pentagon, and planned to crash one into the White House, it is their business. Terrorist weren't picking flowers one day and got attacked by the U.S. army, they were killing millions of people including Americans and the U.S. is trying to stop them

Yet, they never would have even acted upon their intentions because they would have had no reason to -- if the US didn't excessively get involved in other countries.


7th point

A. Who else is the U.S. protecting?- In the war on terror everyone who the terrorists were targeting such as Britain, France. Japan does not have an army and is under the U.S.'s protection.

This "terrorists" term that you use is very general. Because, you do realize that terrorists exist outside of the Middle East, right? The US even has terrorists that exist within it. The Japanese terrorist attack that happened in 1995 was caused by an extremists group within its own country. And Japan does have an army but it's more like a self-defense group called Japan Self-Defense Forces.

B. Did they ask for protection?- On your link, most of them were other countries or groups inside countries causing problems that would negatively effect the U.S., some more extreme than others, such as nuclear threats. Sometimes, help is needed, like a more recent one in Libya where there is all that fighting and the government is killing innocent civilians.

How would they have negatively effected the US? The nuclear threats would have never even happened if there wasn't so much US involvement. And think about it, the nuclear threats wouldn't have even been in existence if it was not for the US military creating the nuclear bomb. And by the way, the US military basically gave weapons to Afghanistan so they could fight off the Soviet Union. Look at how much that has bitten the US military in the ass. You see, that's just another reason why excess US military involvement is horrible.

8. There protecting no one.

Stop right now and imagine a world where the United States has no army and terrorists do what they want, countries are killing civilians, and no one is doing anything about it.

Like I said, these terrorists organizations wouldn't even act upon the US if there wasn't so much excess US involvement.

If the U.S. would go into a mode of only protecting ourselves and throwing everyone else under the bus than how can we expect help when we need it.

But we're not even protecting ourselves really. There's nothing to be protected from.

I am extremely thankful for all the troops that are currently fighting for my freedom and all the people that died fighting for my freedom. There are people in other countries who would give anything to live here with all the security that comes with it. There's a saying that goes something like "you don't really know what you have until it's gone" and one day you might just find yourself in that situation.

Again, how are they fighting for your freedoms? Your freedoms haven't been tired, have they? I never said that the military should be gone, just that they should stop getting involved in other countries where they're not even wanted.

[Human]

No. Stop right there.

Imagine, your are in a hostile country, where you don't know whether or not the guy walking towards you is preparing to shake your hand or blowing you sky high with a suicide vest. Where just walking/driving from point A to point B could get you killed.

It's really easy to critize our troops while you are warm at home typing on a computer, while they are out there risking their lives. So just shut the hell up.

In that case anyone could be a terrorist. Are you saying they just go and shoot random villagers then? It's not like they are forced to risk their life.

[Stronk Serb]

Ok, soldiers fought for freedom, now they are killing innocents, do not say that they are bad, tell that to your government who sent them to do that. US troops fought for freedom in WWII and wars before, now they do the opposite thanks to your government, you can thank them for losing so many troops in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, they are not needed there. All troops in combat zones should be recalled, they are there in the Middle East because of one thing... Oil. They are dying there so that one asshole could fill his pockets by buying cheaper oil.

[Aajj333]

Well, "FUCK YOU" is hardly an argument.


So, was the Korean conflict in the early 1950s protecting liberties for Americans? Or was it just to stop Communism which the US thinks is "bad". Same with the Viet-nam one. Was it really for Americans liberties? No.

Communism is bad. It is not just the U.S. that thinks so

No. The north fought to preserve the Union, actually. There would still be slavery had they lost? How do you know? I'm sure that natural human rights would have eventually taken over and the south would have eventually given it up. Look around today -- are there any developed countries that still practice slavery? No. And as I said before, the Civil War did not end slavery; an amendment did.

An amendment that was only possible had the north won. Sure if they had lost slavery would only be illegal in the north


Really? I think not. The military - or one general and many farmers - fought for the US to break away from Britain. For independence of a country. And besides, most citizens in the colonies were Loyalists; after the war most of them were not. The government is the one who has given the US rights. There's a difference. And if you're going to say "well if it wasn't for the military, then there would be no government", well that's bullshit. Canada never had a military revolution with Great Britain and it was once a British colony. Yet, they have all the same rights that US citizens have if not more. They have legalized gay marriage and abortions all across the country. We've yet to do that. And, no, it's not the exact same army. The US army was only trying to secede from another country at that time. Now, the US military puts its nose into many other foreign affairs that should be left untouched.

It was the military fighting for freedom, which they won, and once they won we got those freedoms


I never said that they didn't. But when you said "they have stopped the third Reich" then you basically said that the military did it all by themself. Which they didn't. There were man resistance groups within the occupied countries that helped.

I also said with the help of others


They were destroying the world? If I recall, they didn't really want to destroy it, but just take it over and use all the resources for themselves.

The war was on a path to destroy the world

Yet, the US military was responsible for thousands and thousands more deaths of civilans. You're right; killing him didn't stop the extremists. And when/if a new leader is found, then thousands more civilians will die at the hands of American military all to just find one leader.

The U.S. military doesn't go around trying to see how many civilians will be killed. With every battle their ever was there was civilian casualties

Yet, they never would have even acted upon their intentions because they would have had no reason to -- if the US didn't excessively get involved in other countries.




This "terrorists" term that you use is very general. Because, you do realize that terrorists exist outside of the Middle East, right? The US even has terrorists that exist within it. The Japanese terrorist attack that happened in 1995 was caused by an extremists group within its own country. And Japan does have an army but it's more like a self-defense group called Japan Self-Defense Forces.



How would they have negatively effected the US? The nuclear threats would have never even happened if there wasn't so much US involvement. And think about it, the nuclear threats wouldn't have even been in existence if it was not for the US military creating the nuclear bomb. And by the way, the US military basically gave weapons to Afghanistan so they could fight off the Soviet Union. Look at how much that has bitten the US military in the ass. You see, that's just another reason why excess US military involvement is horrible.

A nuclear threat still is one of the most serious things that could result in the end of the world. Ect. one country sends nucs at the other and the other sends it back.


Like I said, these terrorists organizations wouldn't even act upon the US if there wasn't so much excess US involvement.

They are still out their and a threat not just to Americans but to the world. Like I said in previous posts, which you failed to comment on, if the U.S. we're to go into a mode of only protecting our selves than how can we expect help when we need it

But we're not even protecting ourselves really. There's nothing to be protected from.

Nuclear threats, terrorists

Again, how are they fighting for your freedoms? Your freedoms haven't been tired, have they? I never said that the military should be gone, just that they should stop getting involved in other countries where they're not even wanted.

1st comment
Fuck you is not the argument, the argument is everything else I posted

2nd comment
Communism is bad. It is not just the U.S. that thinks so

3rd comment
An amendment that was only possible had the north won. Sure if they had lost slavery would only be illegal in the north

4th comment
It was the military fighting for freedom, which they won, and once they won we got those freedoms

5th comment
I also said with the help of others

6th comment
The war was on a path to destroy the world

7th comment
The U.S. military doesn't go around trying to see how many civilians will be killed. With every battle their ever was there was civilian casualties

8th comment
I do realize that

9th comment
A nuclear threat still is one of the most serious things that could result in the end of the world. Ect. one country sends nucs at the other and the other sends it back.

10th comment
They are still out their and a threat not just to Americans but to the world. Like I said in previous posts, which you failed to comment on, if the U.S. we're to go into a mode of only protecting our selves than how can we expect help when we need it

11th comment
Nuclear threats, terrorists

12th comment
They are fighting people who want to take away our freedoms

[nick]

It was not the troops that caused 9/11 it was the terrorist.
...but do you ever stop to wonder why they made the USA their number one target?

[Aajj333]

...but do you ever stop to wonder why they made the USA their number one target?

They want what we have

[nick]

They want what we have
I don't think that's it to be honest.

[Sir Suomi]

I don't think that's it to be honest.

Many Middle Eastern nations, especially those with Islamic extremeism do not like the United States due to the fact that we allied ourselves with Israel.

[Aajj333]

I don't think that's it to be honest.

Than what is it

[Korashk]

Than what is it
Oppressing them in their countries?
Desecrating their land?
Overthrowing their governments and installing dictators (like Saddam Hussein)?
Using them to fight proxy wars?

All of these are valid reasons for them to hate us and it's likely a combination.

[Aajj333]

Oppressing them in their countries?
Desecrating their land?
Overthrowing their governments and installing dictators (like Saddam Hussein)?
Using them to fight proxy wars?

All of these are valid reasons for them to hate us and it's likely a combination.

Terrorists, as the name implies, want to cause terror. Not just to us, but other countries. It's not like the terrorists were minding their own business one day and the mean old Americans started shooting them. When someone crashes two planes into the World Trade Center, the pentagon, and tries to crash one into the White House you have a reason to fight them

[Korashk]

Terrorists, as the name implies, want to cause terror. Not just to us, but other countries. It's not like the terrorists were minding their own business one day and the mean old Americans started shooting them. When someone crashes two planes into the World Trade Center, the pentagon, and tries to crash one into the White House you have a reason to fight them
Well, in their defense they weren't terrorists at the time that the mean old Americans started shooting at them, blowing up their homes and killing their families. They became terrorists and flew planes into buildings after that. To put it in simple terms, America started it.

[Stronk Serb]

Thanks to the US government, my country got bombed (Serbia, bombed in 1999.) because things were starting to get violent at Kosovo province with the Albanian population (more of an uprising) and the US bombed us, and said the Albanians are martyrs, and those same Albanians that fought against Serbian troops were destroying Christian churches (Albanians are mostly Muslim), extracting organs from Serbian POW-s without their consent (exactly opposite of Geneva POW conventions). Now they almost got independence of Kosovo and are ruling it and they are controlling drug and weapon traffic in the Balkans.
Afghanistan: the Taliban (they had nothing to do with 9/11) punished drug production and selling with death, when the US invaded it, they started to rely on it for money, because it was about their own survival. All of those wars make no sense, they are there for securing the land, but it is just getting more and more violent, that is not the right reason. The US should have not started fucking around the Middle East, since Islam extremists do not forget that easily.
They should have learned in Korea and Vietnam that fucking around with other people's countries is bad, they did not. The US government needs to get it's head out of it's ass before something worse then 9/11 happens.

[dingo006]

Terrorists, as the name implies, want to cause terror. Not just to us, but other countries. It's not like the terrorists were minding their own business one day and the mean old Americans started shooting them. When someone crashes two planes into the World Trade Center, the pentagon, and tries to crash one into the White House you have a reason to fight them

Um. Yeah, it was. well not shooting them but the reason we were attacked on Sept. 11th was (in the minds of Osama and his cronies) the presence of U.S. military and its intervention in Saudi Arabia, its support of dictators like Asad and support of the single ethnicity nation state of israel and its ethnic cleansing of the Muslims, arab tribes, and other "undesireable" demographics that are removed by israel.

We did do all of these things. After the Gulf war, the US kept a presence of 5,000 troops stationed in Saudi Arabia to protect American interests in the oil, to enforce a no fly zone over southern Iraq and to keep the house of Saud in power.

We did support dictators like Assad and the secularist in egypt. We did provide his repressive regime with info on anti-government forces.

We do support Israel and stand by while Israel commits ethnic cleansing on areas of Jerusalem and the West Bank as the forced relocation of Bedouins in southern Israel which is equivalent to the UNCHR definition of ethnic cleansing.

While, i do not agree that what Osama Bin Laden did was justified. To pretend that it was completely out of the blue and without provocation is just not true.

Also, id be careful with the word Terrorist. that definition could be applied to a lot of heroes in American History.

[Aajj333]

Um. Yeah, it was. well not shooting them but the reason we were attacked on Sept. 11th was (in the minds of Osama and his cronies) the presence of U.S. military and its intervention in Saudi Arabia, its support of dictators like Asad and support of the single ethnicity nation state of israel and its ethnic cleansing of the Muslims, arab tribes, and other "undesireable" demographics that are removed by israel.

We did do all of these things. After the Gulf war, the US kept a presence of 5,000 troops stationed in Saudi Arabia to protect American interests in the oil, to enforce a no fly zone over southern Iraq and to keep the house of Saud in power.

We did support dictators like Assad and the secularist in egypt. We did provide his repressive regime with info on anti-government forces.

We do support Israel and stand by while Israel commits ethnic cleansing on areas of Jerusalem and the West Bank as the forced relocation of Bedouins in southern Israel which is equivalent to the UNCHR definition of ethnic cleansing.

While, i do not agree that what Osama Bin Laden did was justified. To pretend that it was completely out of the blue and without provocation is just not true.

Also, id be careful with the word Terrorist. that definition could be applied to a lot of heroes in American History.

I'm not saying it was out of the blue, I'm saying that terrorists want to take away U.S. freedoms, by causing terror

[Aajj333]

Well, in their defense they weren't terrorists at the time that the mean old Americans started shooting at them, blowing up their homes and killing their families. They became terrorists and flew planes into buildings after that. To put it in simple terms, America started it.

Americans didn't cause theorists to one day wake up and decide to blow things up

[Korashk]

I'm not saying it was out of the blue, I'm saying that terrorists want to take away U.S. freedoms, by causing terror
Umm, no. They pretty much just want our military to go away and stop killing them.

Americans didn't cause theorists to one day wake up and decide to blow things up
Americans in general, no. IT was the military that did that. And it wasn't just one day. It was decades of our military bombing their cities and killing their families made them wake up and decide to blow things up, and it's us bombing their cities and killing their people that continue to make it happen.

You are incredibly ignorant about this topic and it's a bit disgusting.

[Sir Suomi]

Umm, no. They pretty much just want our military to go away and stop killing them.


Americans in general, no. IT was the military that did that. And it wasn't just one day. It was decades of our military bombing their cities and killing their families made them wake up and decide to blow things up, and it's us bombing their cities and killing their people that continue to make it happen.

You are incredibly ignorant about this topic and it's a bit disgusting.

Here's the thing you also ignore:
Since America is basically the powerhouse of the world currently, we are expected to be the "Big Brother", and come to the rescue of many nations. If we don't, we're critized for "not doing enough." Example: Syria. There have been cries for military action against Syria. Yet we do nothing, and there's outrage. Now here's another example: Afganhistan. Al-Qaeda, who at the time was not girls to go to school, women to work, women to be constantly dressed in cloaks, and killing Christians, Jews, and others. Now, the United States(Also other countries, mind that) come in, topple their government, and attempt to put in a democrocy, which has been thwarted by extremist activities. Yet the United States are called murderers, while the Al-Qaeda have killed so many of their fellow Muslims in suicide bombing, which is against holy law in Islam.

So tell me, what do you expect the United States to do? Ignore the cries of help from innocents and keep to ourselves, or help out other countries, even when it means our own boys going over and sacrificing their lives.

[dingo006]

I'm not saying it was out of the blue, I'm saying that terrorists want to take away U.S. freedoms, by causing terror

No, Terrorists want to make to too expensive in blood and treasure for America to continue it's (by their point of view) interventionist, imperialist, and overtly controlling global actions through use of force.

What US freedoms did Al Qaeda take away on sept 11th?

Did Al Qaeda cause an economic impact with the attack? Well yeah

The terrorists dont hate us for our freedom, they hate us because we represent western dominance and we use that dominance in our own interests, often at the expense of common people.

We force free and fair elections in Egypt (after supporting a bloody dictator there) and then we threaten to cut off aid when the guy who wins isnt the one we wanted.

We supported the UK when they were supporting loyalist terror squads with their secret intelligence agencies (Pat Furricane, look it up) .


Look at what America did during the six day war

We supported Saddam ... where you think he got the nerve gas to gas the Kurds?

We backed the Turks in northern Iraq, we backed the Saudis and its repressive regime, and dont forget loads of CIA backs a military coups all over the region.

Seriously, take 10 minutes and look for America's aggressive actions in the Middle East from the1944 division of Middle Eastern Oil between the UK and America to the U.S. military troops in the Persian Gulf even before the war on terror.

you dont really think its because our women wear skirts and we drink Coca-Cola with our dirty movies and freedom of the press, do you?

We are the policeman of the world. We involve ourselves in the affairs of people and countries to benefit America first. America is not in isolation, America has more soldiers in more countries then any other country in the world. Terrorism is the risk we run.

[Aajj333]

Umm, no. They pretty much just want our military to go away and stop killing them.


Americans in general, no. IT was the military that did that. And it wasn't just one day. It was decades of our military bombing their cities and killing their families made them wake up and decide to blow things up, and it's us bombing their cities and killing their people that continue to make it happen.

You are incredibly ignorant about this topic and it's a bit disgusting.

You make it seem like the U.S. was trying to see how much they could piss them off before they did anything about it.

There were people that were potentionaly threatening American freedom and they went and did something about it. I don't think the U.S. ment to kill any families.

[Aajj333]

No, Terrorists want to make to too expensive in blood and treasure for America to continue it's (by their point of view) interventionist, imperialist, and overtly controlling global actions through use of force.

What US freedoms did Al Qaeda take away on sept 11th?

Did Al Qaeda cause an economic impact with the attack? Well yeah

The terrorists dont hate us for our freedom, they hate us because we represent western dominance and we use that dominance in our own interests, often at the expense of common people.

We force free and fair elections in Egypt (after supporting a bloody dictator there) and then we threaten to cut off aid when the guy who wins isnt the one we wanted.

We supported the UK when they were supporting loyalist terror squads with their secret intelligence agencies (Pat Furricane, look it up) .


Look at what America did during the six day war

We supported Saddam ... where you think he got the nerve gas to gas the Kurds?

We backed the Turks in northern Iraq, we backed the Saudis and its repressive regime, and dont forget loads of CIA backs a military coups all over the region.

Seriously, take 10 minutes and look for America's aggressive actions in the Middle East from the1944 division of Middle Eastern Oil between the UK and America to the U.S. military troops in the Persian Gulf even before the war on terror.

you dont really think its because our women wear skirts and we drink Coca-Cola with our dirty movies and freedom of the press, do you?

We are the policeman of the world. We involve ourselves in the affairs of people and countries to benefit America first. America is not in isolation, America has more soldiers in more countries then any other country in the world. Terrorism is the risk we run.

I said they were THREATENING and WANTED TO TAKE AWAY freedoms

[Guillermo]

1st comment
Fuck you is not the argument, the argument is everything else I posted

2nd comment
Communism is bad. It is not just the U.S. that thinks so

3rd comment
An amendment that was only possible had the north won. Sure if they had lost slavery would only be illegal in the north

4th comment
It was the military fighting for freedom, which they won, and once they won we got those freedoms

5th comment
I also said with the help of others

6th comment
The war was on a path to destroy the world

For all of these comments, I recommend that you go brush up on some history. And not just what your teachers have taught you. Actually research it yourself. It's really not specific when you say that the US thinks that communism is bad... Communism is actually really good in theory. It's just the fact that there hasn't been a country to execute communism effectively and without killing millions of people. That's all I'm going to say about these comments because it's straying from the actual main topic.

7th comment
The U.S. military doesn't go around trying to see how many civilians will be killed. With every battle their ever was there was civilian casualties

And don't you see something wrong with that? The US military is killing thousands of innocent people all under the justification to stop merely a thousand people with one leader. 100,000 =/= 1,000


8th comment
I do realize that

Bravo. Now stop using "terrorists" as a general term. What do you mean? Terrorists in Ireland? Japan? How about our own country? By people who aren't even ethically Arabian? Yeah, how about white Americans who are terrorists?

9th comment
A nuclear threat still is one of the most serious things that could result in the end of the world. Ect. one country sends nucs at the other and the other sends it back.

And whose fault is that? The US, Canada, and UK for making them, eh? You see, this is where the ethics of whether or not a nuclear weapon of mass destruction should have been made to kill thousands of people. It has repercussions. Soviet Intelligence gathered information from the US and started to make their own nuclear weapons. Then nuclear weapons spread to other countries.

10th comment
They are still out their and a threat not just to Americans but to the world. Like I said in previous posts, which you failed to comment on, if the U.S. we're to go into a mode of only protecting our selves than how can we expect help when we need it

Yet, we did at one time. Once upon a time, the US didn't want to be involved with any other country except for trading. Then in the 1890s, the government thought that it should intervene in other countries affairs. Which therefore started American imperialism. And look at other countries. Most other developed nations don't intervene in other countries unless they feel that it's absolutely necessary. For humanitarian reasons, specifically. If the US isn't even protecting itself, then the US doesn't need to protect other countries, unless for humanitarian reasons e.g. peacekeeping missions, relief from natural disasters, etc.

11th comment
Nuclear threats, terrorists

Nuclear threats wouldn't have been started if the nuclear bomb wasn't created. Al-Qaeda wouldn't have even be around if the US hadn't fucked in so many other countries affairs.

12th comment
They are fighting people who want to take away our freedoms

When have terrorists explicitly stated that they want to take away Americans freedoms? Never. They are just fundamentalist extremist groups who don't like a particular group and want to cause harm to them. But think about it, why do they want to harm the US? Hmmm, probably because the US is the one who feels like they need to intervene in other countries to "make everything right". This has nothing to do with freedoms. If anything, this has to do with the US taking away other countries freedoms. What gives the US the right to try to reform and fix other countries?

[Aajj333]

For all of these comments, I recommend that you go brush up on some history. And not just what your teachers have taught you. Actually research it yourself. It's really not specific when you say that the US thinks that communism is bad... Communism is actually really good in theory. It's just the fact that there hasn't been a country to execute communism effectively and without killing millions of people. That's all I'm going to say about these comments because it's straying from the actual main topic.



And don't you see something wrong with that? The US military is killing thousands of innocent people all under the justification to stop merely a thousand people with one leader. 100,000 =/= 1,000




Bravo. Now stop using "terrorists" as a general term. What do you mean? Terrorists in Ireland? Japan? How about our own country? By people who aren't even ethically Arabian? Yeah, how about white Americans who are terrorists?



And whose fault is that? The US, Canada, and UK for making them, eh? You see, this is where the ethics of whether or not a nuclear weapon of mass destruction should have been made to kill thousands of people. It has repercussions. Soviet Intelligence gathered information from the US and started to make their own nuclear weapons. Then nuclear weapons spread to other countries.



Yet, we did at one time. Once upon a time, the US didn't want to be involved with any other country except for trading. Then in the 1890s, the government thought that it should intervene in other countries affairs. Which therefore started American imperialism. And look at other countries. Most other developed nations don't intervene in other countries unless they feel that it's absolutely necessary. For humanitarian reasons, specifically. If the US isn't even protecting itself, then the US doesn't need to protect other countries, unless for humanitarian reasons e.g. peacekeeping missions, relief from natural disasters, etc.



Nuclear threats wouldn't have been started if the nuclear bomb wasn't created. Al-Qaeda wouldn't have even be around if the US hadn't fucked in so many other countries affairs.



When have terrorists explicitly stated that they want to take away Americans freedoms? Never. They are just fundamentalist extremist groups who don't like a particular group and want to cause harm to them. But think about it, why do they want to harm the US? Hmmm, probably because the US is the one who feels like they need to intervene in other countries to "make everything right". This has nothing to do with freedoms. If anything, this has to do with the US taking away other countries freedoms. What gives the US the right to try to reform and other countries?

I still haven't seen this quoted in ANY of my posts

If the U.S. goes into a mode of only protecting ourself, than how can we expect help when we need if?

You trie to make the U.S. seem like they are out to destroy the world. You are defending the terrorists. Do you know how many innocent lives they cost? Oh ya and if the nuclear bomb was never created we would have lost WWII and if we hadn't made it than some other country would have. Whil we are at it, if someone hadn't created guns we wouldn't have shootings

[Sir Suomi]

Oh ya and if the nuclear bomb was never created we would have lost WWII

Technically, we would have more than likely would have still beaten the Japanese. Soviet Russia was already making moves onto Japanese land, American warships were getting into position to prepare for the invasion of the mainland, and troops from the U.K were preparing to deploy over to help with the invasion. The majority of the Japanese population would have been killed, with citizens being armed with sharpened bamboo sticks, trained to take a invader down when they invaded. It would have been a major loss of life from the Allied forces, which led Truman to allow the atomic bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, forcing the Emperor to surrender to the Allied forces.

Just thought I'd correct that statement. I'm sort of a WWII history nerd :P

[Aajj333]

Technically, we would have more than likely would have still beaten the Japanese. Soviet Russia was already making moves onto Japanese land, American warships were getting into position to prepare for the invasion of the mainland, and troops from the U.K were preparing to deploy over to help with the invasion. The majority of the Japanese population would have been killed, with citizens being armed with sharpened bamboo sticks, trained to take a invader down when they invaded. It would have been a major loss of life from the Allied forces, which led Truman to allow the atomic bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, forcing the Emperor to surrender to the Allied forces.

Just thought I'd correct that statement. I'm sort of a WWII history nerd :P

Yes you are, thank you for clearing that up

[dingo006]

I said they were THREATENING and WANTED TO TAKE AWAY freedoms

Seriously ... you think the PRIMARY reason that a CIA trained Islamic fundamentalist and his organization attacked america was the cliche that they want to "get rid of freedoms"? simple jealousy of our lifestyle?

[Aajj333]

[QUOTE=dingo006;2059595]Seriously ... you think the PRIMARY reason that a CIA trained Islamic fundamentalist and his organization attacked america was the cliche that they want to "get rid of freedoms"? simple jealousy of our lifestyle?[/QUOTE

the PRIMARY reason that a CIA trained Islamic fundamentalist and his organization attacked america was a combination of hate, religion, jealousy, and evilness

[dingo006]

the PRIMARY reason that a CIA trained Islamic fundamentalist and his organization attacked america was a combination of hate, religion, jealousy, and evilness



You should read more about terrorism. Terrorists are not faceless dark boogymen who are fueled by hate and a death cult. They are soldiers and freedom fighters and revolutionaries in their own minds. they see themselves as heroes fighting for their way of life. They justify their actions and their violence just like the soldiers did in Vietnam who burned civilians out of their homes.

Good, bad, right or wrong, no one thinks they are evil.

[Aajj333]

You should read more about terrorism. Terrorists are not faceless dark boogymen who are fueled by hate and a death cult. They are soldiers and freedom fighters and revolutionaries in their own minds. they see themselves as heroes fighting for their way of life. They justify their actions and their violence just like the soldiers did in Vietnam who burned civilians out of their homes.

Good, bad, right or wrong, no one thinks they are evil.

It takes an evil person two crash 2 airplanes into the World Trade Center and crash an airplane into the pentagon and try to crash one into the White House

[Korashk]

If the U.S. goes into a mode of only protecting ourself, than how can we expect help when we need if?
If the US needs help militarily from another country then all is lost and it won't matter who can possibly help us. Our military is the largest one in the world by a ridiculously huge margin. You could cut it by 75% and it would still be the biggest in the world. IIRC it's bigger than the next 5 or 10 biggest militaries combined.

Plus, the actions America is taking and has taken since WWII haven't even been to help other countries. They've pretty much just been to protect the government's interest in other countries. You see, most people that the United States "helps" would have been better off had we not "helped" them. Our "help" is the exact thing that creates our enemies.

Do you know how many innocent lives they cost?
Like, not that many comparatively to the number of innocent lives taken by the US military. Seriously.

Technically, we would have more than likely would have still beaten the Japanese. Soviet Russia was already making moves onto Japanese land, American warships were getting into position to prepare for the invasion of the mainland, and troops from the U.K were preparing to deploy over to help with the invasion. The majority of the Japanese population would have been killed, with citizens being armed with sharpened bamboo sticks, trained to take a invader down when they invaded. It would have been a major loss of life from the Allied forces, which led Truman to allow the atomic bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, forcing the Emperor to surrender to the Allied forces.
This is actually just a load of crock that too many people believe. According to most contemporary military strategists the maximum expected loss of Allied life in the event of a land invasion was 40,000 soldiers and not much more than that on the side of the Japanese. You should check this out (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=133625).

It takes an evil person two crash 2 airplanes into the World Trade Center and crash an airplane into the pentagon and try to crash one into the White House
Which is worse, murdering 3000 people or murdering hundreds of thousands of people? I'm not saying that terrorists in the Middle East killing people is okay, but our military killing hundreds of thousands of them is WAY worse.

[Sir Suomi]

This is actually just a load of crock that too many people believe. According to most contemporary military strategists the maximum expected loss of Allied life in the event of a land invasion was 40,000 soldiers and not much more than that on the side of the Japanese.



So you think 40,000 lost lives are not a big number? Please, humor me on telling me how knowing the fact that 40,000 boys not returning home would have been a small amount of casualties. Sure, compared to other battles fought throughout history, it may seem "small", but that was 40,000 lives that were not wasted in that horrible event known as World War ll.

[Korashk]

So you think 40,000 lost lives are not a big number? Please, humor me on telling me how knowing the fact that 40,000 boys not returning home would have been a small amount of casualties. Sure, compared to other battles fought throughout history, it may seem "small", but that was 40,000 lives that were not wasted in that horrible event known as World War ll.
It's preferable to the 150,000+ lives that were wasted by dropping nukes on them. Seriously, do you people not have any perspective at all? The things we do to other countries in retaliation to the things they do to us, are WAY worse than the things they initially do to us and they're almost universally done to people that don't deserve it.

[Sir Suomi]

It's preferable to the 150,000+ lives that were wasted by dropping nukes on them. Seriously, do you people not have any perspective at all? The things we do to other countries in retaliation to the things they do to us, are WAY worse than the things they initially do to us and they're almost universally done to people that don't deserve it.

So you're telling me you're a little upset that we dropped the nukes, which basically ended the war, on Japan, killing 150,000 civilians? I don't see you being very upset that the Japanese military had killed 3.9 million Chinese civilians during 1937-1945. Once again, humor me on how the Americans were being inhumane by ending the war, even though it came at a price.

[Korashk]

I don't see you being very upset that the Japanese military had killed 3.9 million Chinese civilians during 1937-1945.
I don't see what that has to do with anything, but yeah. I am outraged when pretty much any military does pretty much anything. That bad doesn't make our bad, not bad.

Once again, humor me on how the Americans were being inhumane by ending the war, even though it came at a price.
They were being inhumane because they end the war by massacring civilians who hadn't done anything. Why do you seem to think that because the Japanese military did something wrong, it's okay for other people who happen to be Japanese to pay for it?

EDIT: There's also the fact that it was completely unnecessary.

[Sir Suomi]

I don't see what that has to do with anything, but yeah. I am outraged when pretty much any military does pretty much anything. That bad doesn't make our bad, not bad.


They were being inhumane because they end the war by massacring civilians who hadn't done anything. Why do you seem to think that because the Japanese military did something wrong, it's okay for other people who happen to be Japanese to pay for it?

EDIT: There's also the fact that it was completely unnecessary.

Unnecessary? This is what the Japanese were prepared to do if Allied forces were to invade:

In addition, the Japanese had organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps, which included all healthy men aged 15 to 60 and women 17 to 40 for a total of 28 million people, for combat support and, later, combat jobs. Weapons, training, and uniforms were generally lacking: some men were armed with nothing better than muzzle-loading muskets, longbows, or bamboo spears; nevertheless, they were expected to make do with what they had.[25]
One mobilized high school girl, Yukiko Kasai, found herself issued an awl and told, "Even killing one American soldier will do. ... You must aim for the abdomen."

If you don't believe me, check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

So tell me, would it have been better to invade Japan, lose millions of lives on both sides, have the Japanese come close to going extinct, or was it better to simply drop the nukes, and only killing only a few hundred thousand? Once again, try and convince me what we did was wrong.

[Korashk]

So tell me, would it have been better to invade Japan, lose millions of lives on both sides, have the Japanese come close to going extinct, or was it better to simply drop the nukes, and only killing only a few hundred thousand? Once again, try and convince me what we did was wrong.
All you have to do is go to the thread I linked to and I respond to this.

[Sir Suomi]

All you have to do is go to the thread I linked to and I respond to this.

Are you talking about the thread you lined me to? Yes, the Japanese did try to surrender, but what they were trying to achieve out of the peace treaty would have been unacceptable. No matter what you say, what we did was right in the end. We saved more lives by dropping the nukes.

[Korashk]

Are you talking about the thread you lined me to? Yes, the Japanese did try to surrender, but what they were trying to achieve out of the peace treaty would have been unacceptable. No matter what you say, what we did was right in the end. We saved more lives by dropping the nukes.
There's more in the post than just the FACT that the Japanese government tried to surrender. All you have to do is read it.

[dingo006]

It takes an evil person two crash 2 airplanes into the World Trade Center and crash an airplane into the pentagon and try to crash one into the White House

Are american servicemen evil when they attack bridges or bomb factories? Were the allies evil in the second world war when they firebombed Dresden? Is the American Armed Forces evil when drone attacks mostly kill civilians? Are soldiers evil when they attack towns in Pakistan because "terrorists" might be there? Were the American Military evil when it attacked Baghdad which was full of people?