Conquer Club

Snorri1234 wrote:
You're faced with the options of the government being stupid or the government being evil.

Yet you receive excellent healthcare.

Reduced to irrelevancies again.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:
You're faced with the options of the government being stupid or the government being evil.

Yet you receive excellent healthcare.

Not my government, you cuntflap.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:
You're faced with the options of the government being stupid or the government being evil.

Yet you receive excellent healthcare.

Not my government, you cuntflap.

Of course, because had we left Afghanistan to the Dutch, it'd all be A-fucking-OK.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:
You're faced with the options of the government being stupid or the government being evil.

Yet you receive excellent healthcare.

Not my government, you cuntflap.

Of course, because had we left Afghanistan to the Dutch, it'd all be A-fucking-OK.

?

oh I see, you don't respond to actual things but just make them up.

Wow this thread has gotten away.

Still just left wing ramblings of a disgruntled old man that is pissed off at everyone, and an overzealous Che Guerra wannabe who's take on any subject dealing with authority is that everybody that holds any position in the world is incompetent and corrupt. If you guys have all the answers why don't you run for President. If Bush can make it you guys have a fair shot. At least you guys can put together a sentence. You guys are actually more radical and extreme in your perceptions than the established governments that you are trying to mock.

Snorri, I actually respected your opinion while we were having our little debates. I guess I just brought the best points out of you because you have backslid in your arguments and just resorted to sounding like an angry little anarchist.

Mpjh, Just get over yourself man. Whats done is done and there isn't much that is going to change by voicing your old hippie ramblings. You must have been a draftee.

You should take your feeble flames to flame wars. Got any facts you want to discuss?

Yeah actually I have plenty of cool things to talk about. I'm just saying that you guys are getting pretty insulting and your methods of delivering your opinions are pretty demeaning.

Not that you aren't entitled to your opinions but you guys have pretty much hijacked the thread and almost turned it into a bashing of anyone who disagrees with you two.

Come on, your military, you can take it.

solace19k wrote:Still just left wing ramblings of a disgruntled old man that is pissed off at everyone, and an overzealous Che Guerra wannabe who's take on any subject dealing with authority is that everybody that holds any position in the world is incompetent and corrupt.

Welcome to Conquer Club. You can look forward to being inundated with crap like that. This was just the tip of the iceberg.

Why do I feel a cold chill at the top of my bald head?

mpjh wrote:Why do I feel a cold chill at the top of my bald head?

I suppose you're the bearable tip of the leftist iceberg since you can actually present coherent argument when you put your mind to it.

Snorri1234 wrote: Why on earth would anyone enlist when chances are that the ones who order them around have not the best interest in mind for either them or their country? To willingly go into a conflict without thinking for yourself if it's right just seems to me as foolish.

I've posted an article at the bottom of the post that addresses your supposition about the whole "without thinking" thing.

Snorri1234 wrote:You can lay all your patriotism and your "they are protecting you" arguments in front of me, but at the end of the day they do not make the slightest bit of sense. This retarded reverence for soldiers just guilt-trips people into enlisting because they think it is heroic and someone who doesn't enlist must not love his country enough. I have seen few wars which I would lable "just", and to enlist without any idea of what war you are going to partake in is just fucking stupid. No matter how you spin it.

I didn't question anyone's patriotism or love of their country. I do assert, however, that anyone willing to stand up to protect his/her country, family, way-of-life, etc. is worthy of respect (not reverence, mind you, but respect). Should the need arise there are people willing and able to go to war on my behalf. Given my knowledge of history and the behavior of conquerors throughout history, I'm greatful to those who would stop that from happening to my loved ones. If my government becomes the conqueror, then it is the duty of the citizens to put an end to it, not the military.

Snorri1234 wrote:People who refuse to go on a mission are usually said to be cowards because they are unwilling to go through with an unjust war, but I call them heroic. To have the balls to refuse to be sent to a conflict you do not judge as just is heroic. To think "hey, this is stupid, why would I go to that?" is ballsy. Anyone who takes orders unquestionly is being the mindless robot the government wants them to be, and I am sorry that I don't have any respect for that but it's just the way it is.

Standing up and saying that a war is unjust isn't really that heroic in a country that guarantees free speech. It's a right you can exercise, even if your wrong.

The government wants mindless robots? I don't know about your government, but mine does not. The following article states relevant information about times in which members of the U.S. military are not only permitted but REQUIRED to disobey orders.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/military ... orders.htm

guy , keep the flames out., or i will have to split this topic to flame wars.

You know we do this just to get you lips in a thread. There is an unofficial contest, and each lip post is worth 10 points. I am sadly way behind.

Just remember, the US had a policy of isolationism which was broken to join WW1 and WW2. I bet the rest of Europe (other than Germany, then) are glad our soldiers were idiots who joined up.

jbrettlip wrote:Just remember, the US had a policy of isolationism which was broken to join WW1 and WW2. I bet the rest of Europe (other than Germany, then) are glad our soldiers were idiots who joined up.

The US was neutral in both world wars in the early years due to selfish interests and joined the wars for selfish reasons. US joined WW1 because Germany was attempting to get Mexico involved in the war in return for SW US (Zimmerman telegram). US joined WW2 because they were attacked by the Japanese and looked to assist the few countries they hadn't already sacrificed through their earlier inaction.

Please let us cease these absurd claims that the US was doing anyone a favour except themselves.

sangfroid wrote:

jbrettlip wrote:Just remember, the US had a policy of isolationism which was broken to join WW1 and WW2. I bet the rest of Europe (other than Germany, then) are glad our soldiers were idiots who joined up.

The US was neutral in both world wars in the early years due to selfish interests and joined the wars for selfish reasons. US joined WW1 because Germany was attempting to get Mexico involved in the war in return for SW US (Zimmerman telegram). US joined WW2 because they were attacked by the Japanese and looked to assist the few countries they hadn't already sacrificed through their earlier inaction.

Please let us cease these absurd claims that the US was doing anyone a favour except themselves.

You have got to be kidding me... seriously... so let me get this straight... We remain neutral... selfish... we are provoked into a war... selfish... so tell me guy... when is it okay to action on any threat? This is just getting redundant...

I'm not entirely sure you can say that the position of the US was to only intervene when it's direct interest was involved, you have to remember that Roosevelt was a Democrat of an Interventionist WIlsonian tradition, and it's entirely plausible that both he and indeed to a lesser degree Wilson intervened because they were genuinely concerned about the fate of oppressed peoples.

Napoleon Ier wrote:I'm not entirely sure you can say that the position of the US was to only intervene when it's direct interest was involved, you have to remember that Roosevelt was a Democrat of an Interventionist WIlsonian tradition, and it's entirely plausible that both he and indeed to a lesser degree Wilson intervened because they were genuinely concerned about the fate of oppressed peoples.

Kind sir, please no history or facts. Just make random statements. If you need help, read back through this thread for other examples.

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:You can lay all your patriotism and your "they are protecting you" arguments in front of me, but at the end of the day they do not make the slightest bit of sense. This retarded reverence for soldiers just guilt-trips people into enlisting because they think it is heroic and someone who doesn't enlist must not love his country enough. I have seen few wars which I would lable "just", and to enlist without any idea of what war you are going to partake in is just fucking stupid. No matter how you spin it.

I didn't question anyone's patriotism or love of their country. I do assert, however, that anyone willing to stand up to protect his/her country, family, way-of-life, etc. is worthy of respect (not reverence, mind you, but respect). Should the need arise there are people willing and able to go to war on my behalf. Given my knowledge of history and the behavior of conquerors throughout history, I'm greatful to those who would stop that from happening to my loved ones. If my government becomes the conqueror, then it is the duty of the citizens to put an end to it, not the military.

But joining the military is not always the same as just standing up to protect your country. You can join to protect your country, but that doesn't mean that what you are going to do will protect your country. If there was an invading force coming into your country, than anyone who joins the fight against them gets my respect. But being send to kill Iraqis is not protecting me or you, so I do not see the point of it deserving respect. Anyone who thinks that by joining the military they will only protect their country and nothing else is being foolish.

The problem is that when you join the military, the need doesn't have to arise for you to be send into war. Your last sentence implies that the military is a tool of the government, and whether they use it for good or evil doesn't matter in regards to following orders.

Snorri1234 wrote:People who refuse to go on a mission are usually said to be cowards because they are unwilling to go through with an unjust war, but I call them heroic. To have the balls to refuse to be sent to a conflict you do not judge as just is heroic. To think "hey, this is stupid, why would I go to that?" is ballsy. Anyone who takes orders unquestionly is being the mindless robot the government wants them to be, and I am sorry that I don't have any respect for that but it's just the way it is.

Standing up and saying that a war is unjust isn't really that heroic in a country that guarantees free speech. It's a right you can exercise, even if your wrong.

Uhm...if you refuse to go to war because you think it is unjust you can be send to jail. You can say you think the war is unjust, but you can't refuse to go along with it.

The government wants mindless robots? I don't know about your government, but mine does not. The following article states relevant information about times in which members of the U.S. military are not only permitted but REQUIRED to disobey orders.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/military ... orders.htm

It also lists information about times in which soldiers are required to follow orders even when they are suicidal. It shows the problem of disobeying orders because even though the soldier thinks they are unlawful, the deciders are his superiors and the courts. Recruits are told from early on to obey, it is no surprise they obey orders when they might be crimes because how are they supposed to know that their orders are unlawful? If the president himself tells you to humiliate prisoners, what are you supposed to do?

For example: in WW1 there were a bunch of big pushes. These big pushes, as I'm sure you are aware, involved you getting over the top of the trench and run at the enemy who were waiting there for you with their machineguns and safety of cover. Any idiot can see that such a thing is the most retarded tactic one can think off.
But when you refused to go over the top on account of not being an idiot, you would get courtmartialed and likely shot.

How is that right and why do people who sign up to do that get respect? How is following orders which are suicidal not being a mindless robot?

Napoleon Ier wrote:I'm not entirely sure you can say that the position of the US was to only intervene when it's direct interest was involved, you have to remember that Roosevelt was a Democrat of an Interventionist WIlsonian tradition, and it's entirely plausible that both he and indeed to a lesser degree Wilson intervened because they were genuinely concerned about the fate of oppressed peoples.

Then why did they take so much time?

I mean, sure I think they were concerned about it, but they only joined when they had a direct interest. Just because one is concerned does not mean one intervenes. Hell, plenty of people are concerned about Mugabe and his oppression of his people, but so far noone has intervened.

Subject: We're not #1!

solace19k wrote:

sangfroid wrote:

jbrettlip wrote:Just remember, the US had a policy of isolationism which was broken to join WW1 and WW2. I bet the rest of Europe (other than Germany, then) are glad our soldiers were idiots who joined up.

The US was neutral in both world wars in the early years due to selfish interests and joined the wars for selfish reasons. US joined WW1 because Germany was attempting to get Mexico involved in the war in return for SW US (Zimmerman telegram). US joined WW2 because they were attacked by the Japanese and looked to assist the few countries they hadn't already sacrificed through their earlier inaction.

Please let us cease these absurd claims that the US was doing anyone a favour except themselves.

You have got to be kidding me... seriously... so let me get this straight... We remain neutral... selfish... we are provoked into a war... selfish... so tell me guy... when is it okay to action on any threat? This is just getting redundant...

No matter what USA does, people are gonna criticize.

My understanding is that USA financially supported the Allies in WWII before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

But really, this is over 60 years ago. The logistics of fighting a war so far away were a lot more difficult in those days than now, I would have to think.

But this just goes to show that no matter what USA decides to do, or not do, there are gonna be people who are gonna criticize.

I learned a long time ago that some people are always negative. There is no pleasing them. Not saying that any of those type are here though...

1) Regardless of whether or not a person agrees with the war in Iraq (and a lot of folks in the military don't), the simple fact of the matter is that without a military the United States would fall. You could join the Navy, get stationed on a ship, and never fire a weapon and you would still be "defending America" because you are part of that force which prevents attacks just by existing. On the flip side, you could join the Marines, get stationed in Iraq, and never fire a round in anger on American soil and you will still be defending America for the very same reason. Whether or not you agree with the various foreign wars America is currently in, the basic fact of the matter is that without the military America would fall, and for those who don't want to see America fall, joining is a noble pursuit.

2) All officers are required to take courses in "leadership and ethics" and read quite a bit of literature on the matter. Your cynicism about those in power is duly noted, but given that officers are required to essentially take philosophy courses leads me to believe that what can be done is being done. The battlefield is a very mentally stressful environment so atrocities happen, but precautions are taken. Even if you're a cynic you'd have to concede that the government doesn't want atrocities to happen, it's very bad PR and tactically disadvantageous in a war for hearts and minds as this one is.

3) You seem to be assuming that soldiers and Marines who follow "suicidal orders" are mindless robots. I can guarantee that they are not, because hundreds have proven to be willing to do suicidal things in combat without being ordered to. Men who jump on grenades to save their buddies, medics & corpsmen who run out into the open to grab a wounded comrade... there are hundreds of cases like this and many more which go unaccounted for. I'm a little peeved at your portrayal of soldiers and Marines as brainless souless idiots who have no regard for their own lives or anyone else's. It's not the case. Any Marine ordered to do something dangerous is scared, nervous, and excited. Those are the same emotions you would feel in the same situation. What motivates them to get it done isn't some brainwashing conditioning, it's a feeling of obligation to his friends who are counting on him to do his job so they don't get hurt or killed.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:I'm not entirely sure you can say that the position of the US was to only intervene when it's direct interest was involved, you have to remember that Roosevelt was a Democrat of an Interventionist WIlsonian tradition, and it's entirely plausible that both he and indeed to a lesser degree Wilson intervened because they were genuinely concerned about the fate of oppressed peoples.

Then why did they take so much time?

.

Why did anyone? Where was the rest of the free world during the Abyssinian War, Anschluss, and Czechoslovakia?