BF2S Forums Why do the troops...umm...hate the troops?

Reciprocity wrote:

lowing wrote:

I never said they were not "real soldiers". You said it!!.  I am over here in the "sandbox" and I have a great respect for our troops. I am one of the few on this forum that has consistantly defended our troops. All you liberal fuckers do is spend your time calling them "brainwashed" and puppets and shit.

THe term weekend warrior comes from the fact that normal duty for these reservists is 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year. My point was and is that these people probably did not anticipate a war when they signed up as reservists. THey did not expect to go to war, to leave their kids and their wives and husbands, to have their jobs put on hold, to have their college put on hold to get fuckin shot at or wounded or killed!!!...So yeah it is no wonder they are against the war. Where exactly is the surprise there? Or the fuckin news flash?

BUD!!!!

as a 'liberal fucker' I dont criticize Soldiers and Marines for doing their job, they aren't brainwashed, they aren't shit, but they are puppets. Soldiers and Marines follow orders, that's what they do.  It doesn't make them bad or wrong or shit, it makes them Soldiers and Marines. 

I do criticize the conservative leaders and liberal pussies who have wasted our Soldiers and Marines.  they are the puppet masters, they are the ones who have chosen to dump our most valuable asset into a meat grinder.  Iraq is bullshit, we have unilaterally fucked that nation into oblivion and in the process, fucked Afghanistan as well.  what our military is doing in Iraq is not making America safer.  they are not serving their country.  they are at best serving a delusional executive, at worst being used for corporate gain.  and that is fucking terrible. 

no matter what you say, you are insulting our reserve military, you're either saying they're self-centered, greedy, whiney assholes or they are simply too stupid to conform to the conservative military ideology,  they aren't brainwashed. 

the army still advertises reserve service as one weekend a month, two weeks a year.  which we all know it bullshit.  why dont they just come out and say that if you join the national guard, you won't actually be guarding the Nation, you'll be in the desert, on the other side of the globe.  when a hurricane destroys a city, you'll be on the other side of the world.  when the nation needs you, you'll be on the other side of the world.

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pretty much off topic from the "weekend warrior" issue isn't? Or can you no longer defend your comments toward me regarding it?

But since you have switch gears onto a diffenr topic I will go along for the ride.

You do have the right to disapprove of everything our govt. does if you wish. I support your right to do so. I do not however support it at the expense of our troops engaged in combat because believe it or not, all of that strife does affect them. It affects them and their ROE and it affect them and their funding and it affects some of them personally ( morale).

I am well aware of what dissent is, and I do know its part in our history. However again, I believe the US and western society is in a fight for its very way of life, and weakening our govt. to open up rifts to be exploited by Islamic extremists is not something I approve of. Let us take care of our common enemy ( terrorism) before we engage in overthrowing our govt. Deal?? I promise you even after a democrat is elected in office, the war on terror will not end.

Bush and his cronies are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda/9/11/embassy bombings in Africa and they were not building nukes and WMDs to attack the US with and yet Bush sent young Americans there to die. They should be at home standing guard over their homeland and looking after their fellow Americans, not fighting another person's battle for them (especially given that no one asked them to fight it for them).

You are delusional if you think Islamic extremism will ever topple our Governments, we just need to be vigilant against acts of terrorism (you don't have to invade countries to do that). We've lived with terrorism in Europe for years, you guys are just a little panic-stricken because you've had a rather shocking attack on your own doorstep for a change.

Another opinion that I am tired of debating, I think this war on terror is just. You do not, we move on.


As for your second paragragh, I think Spain's govt. has pretty much cowered to terrorism. So for you to think that terrorism does not affect a countries election makes you the delussional one. Spain might as well have ASKED Bin Laden who he thinks should be in charge.

Just like here in the US, Bin Laden wants a democratic president, and low and behold, he probably will get one.

One more thing, is "delussional" the new liberal catch phrase or something, I have seen that word used an awful lot lately to describe people who do not agree with you. What is the deal?

Last edited by Braddock (2007-07-21 17:21:42)

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Bush and his cronies are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda/9/11/embassy bombings in Africa and they were not building nukes and WMDs to attack the US with and yet Bush sent young Americans there to die. They should be at home standing guard over their homeland and looking after their fellow Americans, not fighting another person's battle for them (especially given that no one asked them to fight it for them).

You are delusional if you think Islamic extremism will ever topple our Governments, we just need to be vigilant against acts of terrorism (you don't have to invade countries to do that). We've lived with terrorism in Europe for years, you guys are just a little panic-stricken because you've had a rather shocking attack on your own doorstep for a change.

Another opinion that I am tired of debating, I think this war on terror is just. You do not, we move on.


As for your second paragragh, I think Spain's govt. has pretty much cowered to terrorism. So for you to think that terrorism does not affect a countries election makes you the delussional one. Spain might as well have ASKED Bin Laden who he thinks should be in charge.

Just like here in the US, Bin Laden wants a democratic president, and low and behold, he probably will get one.

One more thing, is "delussional" the new liberal catch phrase or something, I have seen that word used an awful lot lately to describe people who do not agree with you. What is the deal?

But Lowing, why invade Iraq? What did it achieve? What effect has it had on the war on terror?

Positives:

Saddam Hussein (a brutal tyrant) was overthrown.

Negatives:

Country in ruins due to the conflict.
Billions of tax dollars spent on the campaign.
Thousands of US soldiers killed.
Thousands of Iraqi men, women and children killed.
Country is now awash with Al Qaeda.
Country is now riddled with Iranian interferers.
Country torn apart by sectarianism.

Secondly, the people of Spain democratically voted in a man who opposed the Iraq war and he pulled troops out. Is that too difficult for you to accept? It's called democracy. They haven't been attacked by extremists since then so who gives a shit whether or not it SEEMS as though they've cowered to terrorism or not?

Reciprocity wrote:

lowing wrote:

By the way, if you wanna get bitch slapped, go up to a soldier and a marine, tell them "they aren't shit" then  call him a puppet to a puppet master, then try and defend your position. Talk about insulting. get real

so a Soldier/Marine is an autonomous entity free to do what they choose when they choose?

I ask this in all seriousness;  are you a fucking retard?

and i didn't say "they aren't shit" as a derogatory phrase. you said:

lowing wrote:

All you liberal fuckers do is spend your time calling them "brainwashed" and puppets and shit.

as a liberal fucker, i said, they are not shit.  as you implied all liberal fuckers think soldiers are shit.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lol. Lowing - you make it sound like invading Iraq was aimed at combatting Islamic extremism when it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it!

Nope Cam you will never see anywhere where I said we went to Iraq to combat terrorism, we went to Iraq to removed Saddam from power after he refused to comply with the UN resolution that brought a cease fire. His non-complience for 10 years restarted the same war launched in 91.

Combating terrorism came after Saddam was removed. Also the removal of Saddam was the implication of the "Mission Accomplished" banner that you all make fun off. Of course you know that but the facts about it are less fun to pick on.

Non compliance with UN directives? Cool, so when do you invade Israel?

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lol. Lowing - you make it sound like invading Iraq was aimed at combatting Islamic extremism when it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it!

Nope Cam you will never see anywhere where I said we went to Iraq to combat terrorism, we went to Iraq to removed Saddam from power after he refused to comply with the UN resolution that brought a cease fire. His non-complience for 10 years restarted the same war launched in 91.

Combating terrorism came after Saddam was removed. Also the removal of Saddam was the implication of the "Mission Accomplished" banner that you all make fun off. Of course you know that but the facts about it are less fun to pick on.

When can we expect another "Mission Accomplished" banner for Iraq or Afghanistan?

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

When can we expect another "Mission Accomplished" banner for Iraq or Afghanistan?

As soon as the rest of the world grows some balls and denies terrorists safe harbor for their money and their operatives.

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

As soon as Israel can stop defending itself against the Arab nations that border it, and start attacking countries hell bent on their destruction because of religious differences.

So now your picking and choosing which UN resolutions should be enforced. Nice and principled....

Nope, I am suggesting the UN is biased against Israel and the resolutions if imposed would render Israel defensless against continued agression form its nieghbors.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

So now your picking and choosing which UN resolutions should be enforced. Nice and principled....

Nope, I am suggesting the UN is biased against Israel and the resolutions if imposed would render Israel defensless against continued agression form its nieghbors.

That particular resolution, UN Res. 242, was passed by the US.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

That particular resolution, UN Res. 242, was passed by the US.

Yeah, in 1967?? Other than Israel who else was supposed to live up to it? Or better yet, other than Israel, who else did YOU expect WOULD live up to it??

So you're saying that if someone contravenes a resolution long enough then it should just be forgotten about. I wonder why the same principle wasn't adopted with respect to the Iraq...

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yeah, in 1967?? Other than Israel who else was supposed to live up to it? Or better yet, other than Israel, who else did YOU expect WOULD live up to it??

So you're saying that if someone contravenes a resolution long enough then it should just be forgotten about. I wonder why the same principle wasn't adopted with respect to the Iraq...

No I am saying that resolution was not adopted FOR Israel, it was adopted for all parties involved, and since the Arab nations have already established their position in history as being untrustworthy and violent, there is simply no way Israel could let her guard down. In that point in history it shouldhave been the Arab nations to back off and stop with the constant threats toward Israel if Israel was expected to pull out of territories used to launch attacks against her.