...and I Return a Man

[Pale_Horse]

So, you're saying that my facts are bullshit because he's not in a direct relation with me? Also, you're a moron, I don't care what you say anymore.

Then explain why just about every man in my family has joined the military in one shape or another? No one ever said to me hey your third cousin, father, uncles are all in the service, you may not join. Why is that then? Please fill me with your wonderful wit ...

 

[Wing Zero]

What the **** is this, Arcane Sanctury?

if it makes ufeel any better ill split it if the original creator ask for it

 

[Pale_Horse]

if it makes ufeel any better ill split it if the original creator ask for it

Me is sorry ..... Hoorah PauseBreak Hoorah. Congrats, and good luck to you.

 

[Master.America]

For the record, the record has the second-easiest training program out of all of our country's military branches, bested in lack of effort required only by the training program found in America's great national guard. Or wait... no, maybe it was the navy. I don't know. In any case, the army is relatively weak sauce. Don't get me wrong, now, I have a good friend that served in the army during most of the Iraq campaign. Of course, however, he was a man before he went into the army.

If getting laid in the army is your true goal, though, then you will indeed become a man. My bet's that any chick in the military is gonna be hard to get.

 

[PauseBreak]

Yeah, me beans may start easy but it will get a lot harder. =\ Like, I know I'll loose my brains and shit when I get closer to my end goal.

@ iMike, Sorry for having an intelligent thread in the chit-chat. I didn't know the chit-chat was suppose to be full of crap all the time?

The coalition removed Saddam. Good.
The coalition is hunting down terrorists. Good.

If anyone of you realize, during WW2 the American media (are pretty much terrorists) made a lot of fun of Hitler and did not believe it was serious. Then things were really starting to move west. Then things needed to get done. If the media wouldn't be so liberal and telling people what to think than maybe a lot more innocent lives could have been saved.

 

[Tanas-EW]

That's another thing that I found "funny"... The war began cause Bush said we should get the terrorists (ok, fine, I agree we should get them), but then what happened? They couldnt find BinLaden (again) and all the suden they are inside Bagdad with the excuse that Sadam is a dictator and his governament should be stoped... Well, that was a big change of plans! (I can be wrong but this is the info I got)

 

[Гражданин СССР]

Yeah, me beans may start easy but it will get a lot harder. =\ Like, I know I'll loose my brains and shit when I get closer to my end goal.

@ iMike, Sorry for having an intelligent thread in the chit-chat. I didn't know the chit-chat was suppose to be full of crap all the time?

The coalition removed Saddam. Good.
The coalition is hunting down terrorists. Good.

If anyone of you realize, during WW2 the American media (are pretty much terrorists) made a lot of fun of Hitler and did not believe it was serious. Then things were really starting to move west. Then things needed to get done. If the media wouldn't be so liberal and telling people what to think than maybe a lot more innocent lives could have been saved.

I highly doubt that, Germany still sank that ship of yours, and yet still American companies were selling oil and steel and other materials to Germany through their partners till the end of war.

 

[Tipsy]

That's another thing that I found "funny"... The war began cause Bush said we should get the terrorists (ok, fine, I agree we should get them), but then what happened? They couldnt find BinLaden (again) and all the suden they are inside Bagdad with the excuse that Sadam is a dictator and his governament should be stoped... Well, that was a big change of plans! (I can be wrong but this is the info I got)

I don't mean to be demeaning by breaking this down, but I really do think Saddam Hussein falls under the definition of a terrorist. The war on terror is a war against terrorists. By definition, a terrorist is "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence (meets that requirement) by a person or an organized group (meets that requirement) against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments (meets that requirement)."


And as for the topic of World War II, it should by no means be stated as a high point for the United States (This may just be me misunderstanding or seeing something implied that was really not, but so be it). Sure, the war caused political, economic, and militarily gains such as turning us into a superpower, but the question is, at what price? You can look at casualties and losses of that sort, but we lost something more that deeply effects us today. America is gone. It's foundation began crumbling many year before World War II, but with that event it was toppled and that pillar of light was destroyed and replaced with this beast of a country we live in today.

 

[DB]

Then explain why just about every man in my family has joined the military in one shape or another? No one ever said to me hey your third cousin, father, uncles are all in the service, you may not join. Why is that then? Please fill me with your wonderful wit ...

...What? You completely missed my point.

 

[TrongaMonga]

I don't mean to be demeaning by breaking this down, but I really do think Saddam Hussein falls under the definition of a terrorist. The war on terror is a war against terrorists. By definition, a terrorist is "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence (meets that requirement) by a person or an organized group (meets that requirement) against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments (meets that requirement)."

Think about that. It means that any army is made of terrorists. After all, they're an organized group using force against a government or a society.

The true definition of terrorism is this: The use of terror (either violence or propaganda) to force a society into belief of your own ideals.

Either way, the question stands. With that definition, why hasn't Bush attack N. Korea, China (they do have propaganda) or even the Vatican? They did use violence four hundred years ago.

 

[Pale_Horse]

I don't mean to be demeaning by breaking this down, but I really do think Saddam Hussein falls under the definition of a terrorist. The war on terror is a war against terrorists. By definition, a terrorist is "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence (meets that requirement) by a person or an organized group (meets that requirement) against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments (meets that requirement)."


And as for the topic of World War II, it should by no means be stated as a high point for the United States (This may just be me misunderstanding or seeing something implied that was really not, but so be it). Sure, the war caused political, economic, and militarily gains such as turning us into a superpower, but the question is, at what price? You can look at casualties and losses of that sort, but we lost something more that deeply effects us today. America is gone. It's foundation began crumbling many year before World War II, but with that event it was toppled and that pillar of light was destroyed and replaced with this beast of a country we live in today.

I completely see your point, on him being a "Terrorist" but, what about priority. He did not attack the U.S., nor did he have W.M.D. Now if you look at Korea who is openly saying they left the U.N. to build nukes, that is a problem (but everyone knows a land war is insane), or Bin LAden who orgestrated 9/11. Priority falls on this in my oppinion not Saddam.

As for your other statement, that was just changes with the time IMO. We rebuilt the very way of life for us in America, to fit the times and better the whole.

...What? You completely missed my point.

Then explain.

 

[Samsara]

I would have shot for the Air Force.

 

[DB]

Then explain.

You said that if I was there then I would feel differently, however I said that my cousin who was there still doesn't feel that it's a war.

 

[Pale_Horse]

You said that if I was there then I would feel differently, however I said that my cousin who was there still doesn't feel that it's a war.

Is your cousin YOU? Do you share a mind? Can you not think for yourself?
If you are stating that since he says it is not a war, you will beieve him even though you have no clue what war is, and have never faced one first hand. Does this make sense to anyone else.
You have no right to say what is and what is not a war.

 

[Jason]

I don't see why not. Maybe some people believe in whatever causes the military's engaged in, Iraq, relief missions, etc? Because even if you don't like the military, we still need an active, standing army?

Because this country blows. I'd rather not serve it nor should anyone else.

Will you people just let this thread die? Arguing politics has the same outcome as arguing religion. Nobody wins. You all just think you're the only person to be right in the matter. So why bother?

 

[Tipsy]

Think about that. It means that any army is made of terrorists. After all, they're an organized group using force against a government or a society.

The true definition of terrorism is this: The use of terror (either violence or propaganda) to force a society into belief of your own ideals.

They're an organized group using force against a government or society, but the key word is illegally. Giving the international definition of terrorism (as in the one that goes is interpreted by what is 'legal' and 'illegal' by international laws), armies can legally use force against a government.

Either way, the question stands. With that definition, why hasn't Bush attack N. Korea, China (they do have propaganda) or even the Vatican? They did use violence four hundred years ago.

I can't tell you what Bush is thinking, I can simply state that the War in Iraq can be considered part of the War on Terror.

I completely see your point, on him being a "Terrorist" but, what about priority. He did not attack the U.S., nor did he have W.M.D. Now if you look at Korea who is openly saying they left the U.N. to build nukes, that is a problem (but everyone knows a land war is insane), or Bin LAden who orgestrated 9/11. Priority falls on this in my oppinion not Saddam.

I am by no means stating that the War on Iraq is a good idea or we should bet here or anything of the sort. I am simply saying that the war in Iraq can be considered part of the War on Terror.

As for your other statement, that was just changes with the time IMO. We rebuilt the very way of life for us in America, to fit the times and better the whole.

I simply can't see how creating a society that wants to control the world, impose its' standards on the world, and exploit other countries for our benefit is better for the whole. I guess I could say it is better for America, though that could be debated with wide scale hatred across the world causing us problems, but I won't get into that. I just can't see how what we have become is better than what we were - what we were meant to be.

 

[Arkillo]

Because this country blows. I'd rather not serve it nor should anyone else.

Will you people just let this thread die? Arguing politics has the same outcome as arguing religion. Nobody wins. You all just think you're the only person to be right in the matter. So why bother?

Such is the way of human nature my friend, such is the way.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

They're an organized group using force against a government or society, but the key word is illegally. Giving the international definition of terrorism (as in the one that goes is interpreted by what is 'legal' and 'illegal' by international laws), armies can legally use force against a government.

Which si odd, because I do remember the U.S. Never got permission to go to Iraq from the U.N., so basicly the American's are Terrorists as they faught an illegal war to push thier political ideas.

 

[Tanas-EW]

Jason I didn't know that a decent conversation had to have a winner!! I allways thought that forums were for people to express their opinions on diferent topics, intelligent ones or not, and that the interest of being in a forum was to learn more about others, other cultures, other ways of thinking and not a place to see who wins a conversation..... But that's just me!!!

Back on topic

They're an organized group using force against a government or society, but the key word is illegally. Giving the international definition of terrorism (as in the one that goes is interpreted by what is 'legal' and 'illegal' by international laws), armies can legally use force against a government.
They're an organized group using force against a government or society, but the key word is illegally. Giving the international definition of terrorism (as in the one that goes is interpreted by what is 'legal' and 'illegal' by international laws), armies can legally use force against a government.

And wasnt Sadam "legally" ruling is countrie? It was, in may opinion, a very bad way to rule a countrie.... But that doesnt make him a Terrorist a dictator ys but not a terrorist.... like XxSworn_EnemyxX said the priority was Bin Laden has he was the one that for so many years has terrorised the U.S and not Sadam.... I heard (this means I dont know for a fact) that Bush said something like Sadam was keeping the oil in Iraq and oil is for all of us not only for him... or something like that! In my way of seeing things Bin Laden was an escuse to enter Iraq and saying "now that we are here let us find that oil" and so they had to take Sadam out of the picture so a new governement more loyal to the US governement would step forward!

 

[PauseBreak]

Which si odd, because I do remember the U.S. Never got permission to go to Iraq from the U.N., so basicly the American's are Terrorists as they faught an illegal war to push thier political ideas.

Like the US needs permission from the U.N. No.

Last time I checked the US only asked for help against the terrorists. But the UN was too lazy and busy eating their cupcakes.

Political ideas? You make freedom sound like a bad thing.