Conquer Club

joe cool 360 wrote:I'd call a struggle against numerous guerilla fighters who often employ cowardly tactics in an effort to curb Islamic extremism and terrorism pretty heroic.

And I call it stupid. Mostly because it is not working in the slightest and anyone with a brain would see that. The fight against extremism and terrorism is not won by military conflict, it only makes the problem bigger.

But your mind is made up judging from your choice of words. I wouldn't call their tactics "cowardly", I would call them sensible. You can't stop them from doing what they do by engaging them in war, because war is the main source of new recruits for them. An ideological war is not fought on the battlefield but in legislation. A war on terrorism is silly because it bypasses the entire idea behind their view of the world. They don't care if you kill them, they don't care if you take over the country, those things only give them more reason to hate you and to get more recruits to hate you.

I'm going to be honest, I'm not in the military, nor do I plan to join; no one in my family is in the military (except for a cousin I haven't seen for 7 years and a grandfather I've never seen). I'm not going to pretend like I know why people sign up for the military and fight in this war, I can guess, but that's it. But one thing I know for certain is if someone voluntarily signs up to get shot at by people who are trying to kill him/her, they get my respect.

And they get my contempt. If you voluntarily sign up to get shot at, that makes you an idiot. I know people who signed up for the military, one of my friends is going to join the military (if he hasn't found something else by now) and I have no initial respect for what they do.

Sure, I can bring up respect when they do something good like build a school or defend a town, but that has nothing to do with their military role.

My opinion on the people who refuse to go on missions depends on the situation. If it seems to be an unethical mission, then I wait, if it seems to be something caused out of simple unwillingness, then I would label them a coward. I know that if you're gonna sign up for this kind of work, you have to be willing to accept that you could be called upon to fight, which is part of the reason I don't think I could sign up for the military. Typically, I wait to hear what other soldiers say about the person before I make a judgment on that person.

Well that's okay. I have the same view, except that I think that the missions in Iraq and so are unethical. Maybe people are unwilling to be blown up to pieces there, but that is still a more sensible position than just going there and being blown up.

And it's your retarded irreverence for soldiers that would result in a welcoming party like when they returned from Vietnam.

????

I don't think I would have the guts to enlist in the military unless the country got invaded, but I have no doubt that anyone would question my patriotism. It's not joining the military or running for a political office that makes you a patriot, it is doing what you can to make this country a better place to live in.

Well wooohooo!

And if that patriotism involves you going to a country half-way accros the globe I have trouble seeing how that makes your own country a better place to live in.

The spitting on returning soldiers is an urban myth. Not true.

Snorri1234 wrote:Yeah whatever, f*ck the taliban and f*ck everyone. f*ck all those "brave troopers" signing into the military without the slightest clue about how the government doesn't care about them.


I always wondered why soldiers get respect for being soldiers. To me they just sound like idiots for enlisting into a brach which does not give a f*ck about them or justice. I can respect that they're doing good when they can, but I can't respect the initial decision to join. Anyone who joins the military clearly has not the slightest clue about what it actually does. I have more sympathy for the ones who object to being send on a mission than the ones who follow orders without question.



f*ck the military and f*ck the government. f*ck any government, the ones who are in power are always the ones who are the least fit to be in power. A brilliant guy once asked why all the loving, caring and decent people never ended up in politics, and said it was probably for the same reason that vegitarians never took a job at a butcher. Any politician who worked his way up through the party immediately gets a red flag from me. The world sucks and nothing the US or any other country does will ever change that.

Look, endlessly re-iterating how you hate and would like to f*ck various branches of the establishment in a desperate attempt to make the ladies think you're some tragically Romantic, Byronic revolutionary figure of the Che Guevara variety, it makes everyone think you're some cretin dope-smoking teenager with outgrown facial hair, half-baked political views, and serious daddy issues. Wait...

Says the kettle to the pot.

All or most of these countries are of lower populations than the USA, so their results are irrelevant.

mpjh wrote:Says the kettle to the pot.

See, this would have been a nice comeback. If only I tried to position myself as a Byron-cum-Che, smoked dope, didn't shave, suffered from some deep seated Freudian mechanism that made me lose all virile drive, and didn't have consistent political views...

Better luck next time mate.

Nope, it worked just fine where it was.

Holy &^&%.

This thread blew up in the few days in which I didn't really check on it. Now it's probably too late to make the post I was intending to on Thursday...

Well, I'm going to read through the 14 pages or so created since Thursday, and if what I was going to post isn't already there, then maybe I'll throw down some of my own thoughts (as if they even matter).

Ok, we will wait.

That's a relief. I know you've been waiting with bated breath.

mpjh wrote:Nope, it worked just fine where it was.

Well, I just explained to you why it didn't. So, not only do you get bitch-slapped by Ambrose on the facts, you can't even troll a thread properly. That really takes some incompetence.

It worked just fine.

I'm sure those stats are 100% correct, with no source at all!

kerntheconkerer wrote:I'm sure those stats are 100% correct, with no source at all!

read the thread imo, the sources that came up with those are fairly legitamate. Its a shortsighted person who would not realize how the US would rank in a variety of things.

kerntheconkerer wrote:I'm sure those stats are 100% correct, with no source at all!

Which stats? You mean the ones Ambrose cited as having been confirmed independently by the UN, ex-Taleban leaders, and senior Pentagon officials, yet to be discredited as recently as last month?

Get a clue, or get out.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

kerntheconkerer wrote:I'm sure those stats are 100% correct, with no source at all!

Which stats? You mean the ones Ambrose cited as having been confirmed independently by the UN, ex-Taleban leaders, and senior Pentagon officials, yet to be discredited as recently as last month?

Get a clue, or get out.

im pretty sure he was just reading the OP. Id take a bet he didnt even get to the part about the poppy stuff.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

kerntheconkerer wrote:I'm sure those stats are 100% correct, with no source at all!

Which stats? You mean the ones Ambrose cited as having been confirmed independently by the UN, ex-Taleban leaders, and senior Pentagon officials, yet to be discredited as recently as last month?

Get a clue, or get out.

He was referring to the stats in the first post.

Apologies. Carry on...

You are funny kettle.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Look, endlessly re-iterating how you hate and would like to f*ck various branches of the establishment in a desperate attempt to make the ladies think you're some tragically Romantic, Byronic revolutionary figure of the Che Guevara variety, it makes everyone think you're some cretin dope-smoking teenager with outgrown facial hair, half-baked political views, and serious daddy issues. Wait...

I'm not a revolutionary, I am saying that anyone who joins the military trusting the government to send you on justified missions is an idiot. I don't care about overthrowing the government because it wouldn't help anyway, you will get politicians again.

And unless you have something to contribute to the discussion instead of spouting off flames, go away.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Look, endlessly re-iterating how you hate and would like to f*ck various branches of the establishment in a desperate attempt to make the ladies think you're some tragically Romantic, Byronic revolutionary figure of the Che Guevara variety, it makes everyone think you're some cretin dope-smoking teenager with outgrown facial hair, half-baked political views, and serious daddy issues. Wait...

I'm not a revolutionary, I am saying that anyone who joins the military trusting the government to send you on justified missions is an idiot. I don't care about overthrowing the government because it wouldn't help anyway, you will get politicians again.

And unless you have something to contribute to the discussion instead of spouting off flames, go away.

Snorri, the idea that I should "contribute to the discussion" presupposes that there already existed a debate of two or more perspectives held by individuals presenting arguments through connected series of coherent and rational sentences aiming to establish a definite proposition.

What I saw was you and your little Internationale of friends floundering helplessly in a torrent of factual and synthetic rational argument, with you responding with nonsensical and base clutching at straws to frustrate your opposition, culminating in this bizarre tangential rant about the US armed forces.

So now, either just drop this whole charade of pre-existing 'discussion', and try to sensibly build an actual one, or bow out gracefully, and stop raising all our blood pressures with your garbage.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Snorri, the idea that I should "contribute to the discussion" presupposes that there already existed a debate of two or more perspectives held by individuals presenting arguments through connected series of coherent and rational sentences aiming to establish a definite proposition.

What I saw was you and your little Internationale of friends floundering helplessly in a torrent of factual and synthetic rational argument, with you responding with nonsensical and base clutching at straws to frustrate your opposition, culminating in this bizarre tangential rant about the US armed forces.

So now, either just drop this whole charade of pre-existing 'discussion', and try to sensibly build an actual one, or bow out gracefully, and stop raising all our blood pressures with your garbage.

Well I don't deny that my rant had nothing to do with the discussion. I wasn't all that interested in discussing what the taliban did or did not do. I just hate all that stupid shit about soldiers earning respect for going somewhere and being blown to bits.

Just saying that the other side is irriational like you always do doesn't give your position any credibility. You always go on about us being "communists" even though I can't find a single position of mine which supports communism, and you never offer any rational argument for your position. You never bother to respond to people with somethign vaguely related to their point, but just go on spouting about "communism" and "pot-smoker" and "liberals" like a very bad impression of Hannity.

That's usually after they respond to my blow-by-blow dissection of a Keynesian multiplier analysis by proving the theoretical conditions under which it operates are during an almost unreproducible liquidity trapping or an equally rare inelasticity of the marginal schedule of investment with regard to real interest by saying:

"Who's Milton Friedman?"

Then I abandon hope, and start flaming, 'cos you know, what's the point?

mpjh wrote::D You are funny kettle.

It's actually the pot that calls the kettle black in the little anecdote. At least try to get it right...

Unless Snorri got to it first...

Napoleon Ier wrote:That's usually after they respond to my blow-by-blow dissection of a Keynesian multiplier analysis by proving the theoretical conditions under which it operates are during an almost unreproducible liquidity trapping or an equally rare inelasticity of the marginal schedule of investment with regard to real interest by saying:

I must have missed the part in this thread where you said all that. Did it happen somewhere between TheProwler being suprised that there were also a lot of immigrants coming to Europe and solace claiming that keeping the reasons for the war in Iraq secret was a good thing?