Solidarity and Hate.

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 04:07
VIEWED: 9139
PAGE 1 of 1

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:08 PM

Yanno, all too often I seem to wind up backing or supporting folks I downright despise, often in the face of folks who've wound themselves up into a lynch mob despite espoused beliefs in the rule of law and civil rights, like they'll make an exception for this, and it wouldn't then transgress almost immediately into "rights for ME and none for THEE", as it always does...

I mean, I flat out hated the FLDS just so you know, not only are they (gag, hack, spit) Christians, but a bizarre subsect of them with creepyass and immoral (to ME, not necessarily you, remember I have my own belief system and morality which has little to do with yours) practices, but there were a bunch of religious jerks having their rights stomped on, and no one else seemed willing to stand up for them.

Not to mention just how MUCH it disgusts me to stand up for the Free Speech rights of that absolute motherfucker Fred Phelps and his punkass bitches from Westboro, but you let that shit slide when they go after the low-hanging fruit, sooner or later that chicken comes home to roost on YOU.

Which brings us to my point of this - The Hutaree Militia.

To say that I dislike them would be a pretty damn solid understatement, there's at least one of them I firmly believe OUGHT to be at least mentally evaluated if not locked up as he is a danger to himself and others, but until he actually DOES something to justify that action I will not support it.
And the rest of them are kooks, bigoted, intolerant, various stripes of offensive to me, without a doubt - oh, and their weapon safety and handling practices are IMHO, appalling.

That said - what the Gov pulled on them was complete and utter bullshit, a setup from the get-go, and everyone involved knew it.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=51475

There was also some other creepy goings on related to it as we suspect but cannot prove some of them dickheads training for civilian pacification up at Grayling were on site, at the very least observing/spying on the Hutaree.

Anyhows, now that the whole case has been rightly pitched and the dust has settled, the financial damage done unto the people the Feds fucked over has come calling - whether or not they seem inclined to sue, I will surely be encouraging it, because that is what lawsuits of these type are FOR, to rectify the financial damage DONE by malicious prosecution, jobs lost, income lost, possessions repossessed, relationships destroyed, yadda yadda.

And so here's me, in the wonderful position of having dinner with a pack of bastards I'd just as soon see dead, as I am obligated for not only reason of solidarity, but certain personal obligations (damn you Pratt!), to attend and support a fundraising event out in freakin Manchester, which thankfully ain't all that far from here - and I can't even drag Gus along with me to piss them off cause he's down in Mississippi stomping some ass of his own regarding the situation in Meridian.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/11/1119201/-Now-They-Are-Jailing
-Our-Children-For-Dress-Code-Violations

But imma screw with em too, gonna wear me an Obama 2012 button and will be pointing out that the asshats they support politically (other than Ron Paul) are in fact the shitheels who enabled crap like what happened to them in the first place - exercising MY right to Free Speech, and on grounds they dare not bitch about, since I took such a hard line protecting theirs.

Doesn't make me hate the bastards any less, though.

-Frem

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Sunday, August 26, 2012 3:16 PM

Try to piss 'em off, that's the best you can do. Maybe you'll get on the "Do not invite this guy" list for next time.

M52NICKERSON

Sunday, August 26, 2012 3:24 PM

All I can say is...

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NIKI2

Sunday, August 26, 2012 3:28 PM

You go Frem...once again I say, I wish we could clone you!

NIKI2

Sunday, August 26, 2012 3:40 PM

Damned computer...

1KIKI

Monday, August 27, 2012 1:40 AM

Yanno only a few of us know the others IRL. For the most part we either believe each others posts or we don’t. But the same applies to you. For all >> I << know YOU'RE the mama's boy typing away in the basement.

It makes your post rather humorous, in a way I'm sure was completely unintended.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, August 27, 2012 3:58 AM

You do know know that the very selection of your postname here gives you away there "indrid", more than a little bit, whether or not you were intentionally mocking my family, yes ?

Yes imma be at your stupid hog roast with your lameass band, and I am bloody well aware the whole scheme was bullshit from the start, helpfully pushed and padded by the goddamn SPLC - which really ought to bring into question why y'all would have any affection for Dees, since he's one of em.
Not to mention you played right into it by not properly vetting your people, one of whom sold you totally down the river and yet you welcomed his ass back with open arms, which quite frankly makes you too stupid to be any kind of real dangerous.

Just cause I support your right to free speech doesn't mean I support YOU, dickhead, but you knew than when you tapped outsiders for legal research, and you know damn well most of the southern faction of the wolverines doesn't care for you either - or are you just butthurt cause someone called into question your piss poor firearms behavior, hmm ?
Most people don't care for being arbitrarily muzzle sweeped, and that's a fact.

I find it terribly amusing you, if you're who I think, wasted the time and trouble to whinge at me, to say you do not care, when it's obvious you do, since you're here, yes ?
Which makes the real question - which one of us is trolling which ?

One you're welcome to ask in person in September, jackass.

-Frem

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, August 27, 2012 4:57 AM

Oh, and by the way there, Nick ?
Just as an aside, you might not wanna recycle the same schtick over and over, cause it really does make it too easy to troll you right back, just so ya know.

-F

M52NICKERSON

Monday, August 27, 2012 2:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Oh, and by the way there, Nick ?
Just as an aside, you might not wanna recycle the same schtick over and over, cause it really does make it too easy to troll you right back, just so ya know.

-F

How are you going to troll me back? Post pics and it proves you are telling the truth. Don't and I say your full of shit.

Just because I'm newer to this site does not mean I'm new to the internet.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 27, 2012 2:56 PM

Quote:
So you can apologise and move forward, or not and further exemplify your ignorance and lack of respect for a person who has done more for free speech in the last 2 years than you could ever dream of doing in a lifetime.

Demanding an apology is the surest way of getting none. Or at most an insincere one.

Did you research this board and the people on it before you started posting? It's very unlikely that your argument that we owe you anything is going to fly here, whether you have military service or not. All that shows is that someone tricked you out of two or more years of your life and fed you amphetamines and testosterone in a dirt hole somewhere. My sympathies. Unfortunately, despite your efforts, it appears the constant erosion of freedom of speech is still very much a reality.

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 27, 2012 3:13 PM

I never even heard of you until now, let alone the case. But you're invading this board I go to, and it's enough that it brought me out of lurking.

If you believe this man has no idea what he's talking about or knows anything about what you're going through, why have you tracked down these posts to defend yourself? This is the internet. Nothing that is said on the internet matters whatsoever. You don't have to prove anything.

However, this is all rather self-defeating anyway, as this isn't a good first impression for the group you're trying to represent. I'm especially baffled that you feel the need to defend yourself and insult everyone here when the original poster agrees that the case against you was trumped up garbage.

M52NICKERSON

Monday, August 27, 2012 3:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:whether you have military service or not. All that shows is that someone tricked you out of two or more years of your life and fed you amphetamines and testosterone in a dirt hole somewhere. My sympathies.

Wow, there is the most ignorant statement regarding military service I've heard in awhile.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 27, 2012 3:29 PM

Quote:
And it IS our right to do so. No matter how unpopular it may be. So touche, I realise now we all want our opinions to be the right ones and everybody else's should be illegal. We were just caught in our own symbolic snares.

I'm still not sure you realize where you are, what the people here believe, or even what the original poster was saying.

It's an impressive misunderstanding for a first time poster, to be sure.

Let me explain something. This board has no moderators. You will not be kicked off here for saying anything. You can argue at the original poster all you want to, and defend yourself all you want to, and no matter what people think about you here, you will continue to be able to say it. There's this guy who's always like "Nazi Jew Queen of England with bloody pictures and gore" everywhere, and he's been here for YEARS.

The question I'm getting at is more along the lines of WHY are you arguing with the original poster? You both seem to think that the courts were correct to let you go and drop the charges. And you aren't with the Hutaree anymore, therefore this display of loyalty to them seems unnecessary.

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 27, 2012 3:33 PM

Quote:
Wow, there is the most ignorant statement regarding military service I've heard in awhile.

You'll have to show me what's incorrect about it. In this context, it appears to be dead on accurate. Nothing about this thread has disabused me of this notion.

NIKI2

Monday, August 27, 2012 3:44 PM

Wow, what an asshole (pardon my French). I didn't get past his/her first post--why bother? The fact that he/she REGISTERED yesterday and POSTED yesterday also kind of gives things away, so beyond that it's not worth anyone's effort, certainly not mine.

Not to mention the fact that the ONLY posts he/she has made are in this thread...of course the response will be "I've been away for a long time, so started a new membership" or somesuch idiocy. I don't buy it.

ETA: Hey Byte, long time no see! Missed 'ya.

M52NICKERSON

Monday, August 27, 2012 3:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
Wow, there is the most ignorant statement regarding military service I've heard in awhile.

You'll have to show me what's incorrect about it.

How, lets start with the fact that military service is not getting fed amphetamines and testosterone in some dirt hole. Nor is it a waste of time, unless a person makes it that way. Every single person I know that has been in the military has gotten vast experience and opportunities from that service.

It is also hard for someone to get tricked into military service. With all the information out there on what service entails someone would have to willingly go into a recruiting office without looking into anything. Than they would have to not listen to a thing said to them. If that person could even get in. There is not a branch in the US military right now that is going to take an uneducated slubb off the street.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NIKI2

Monday, August 27, 2012 3:53 PM

I think we have to take into account people's prejudices, Nick. We ALL have them; my feelings about the military aren't particularly positive, either, tho' I don't go as far as Byte. It's all in one's perspective.

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 27, 2012 3:55 PM

Nick, please.

http://www.enotes.com/amphetamine-epidemics-reference/amphetamine-epid
emics

Quote:
During World War II, methamphetamine and amphetamine were widely used by the American, British, German, and Japanese military as insomniacs and as stimulants to increase alertness during battle and night watches; they were used as well by war-related industries to enhance worker productivity. Perhaps as many as 200 million tablets and pills were supplied to American troops during the war. The U.S. armed services authorized the issue of amphetamines on a regular basis beginning with the Korean conflict, escalating to well over 225 million standard-dose tablets dispensed between 1966 and 1969.

They haven't stopped. Recently there's been major problems cropping up with pilots on amphetamine "go-pills" hitting the wrong targets. In one instance a couple Canadian soldiers were killed.

So when I see amphetamine behaviour, I call amphetamine behaviour.

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 27, 2012 4:07 PM

Quote:
Sure he supports our right to free speech while at the same time bashing us and degrading us.

Yes, that's the curious thing about free speech. It goes both ways. And someone might disagree with someone's speech, and yet still support their right to make such speech.

Quote:
He has yet to point out a valid reason for "hating" the lot of us, that he eludes to personally know.

I do not presume to speak for him. I also don't really care. All I can base my opinions on is how you behave. And so far, you're defending yourself against allegations that, according to you, haven't even been made. Or rather, defending a group, that you are no longer even part of.

This is the equivalent of walking up to a group of strangers, and, given the slightest incentive, you start yelling at them for twenty minutes. Your approach needs work.

Quote:
Pause "Guildwars 2" and begin.

Yeah, now you aren't even trying to get to know us. You're not here to talk, you're not even here to defend anything, why are you here?

KWICKO

Monday, August 27, 2012 5:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by INDRIDCOLD:
I simply suggested an apology would be a more gentleman like way of resolving this quarrel of wits. I'm not asking for anything whatsoever. Respect is earned. And I don't have time to read 800 posts to figure out who's who and where they pretend to come from. All I know is somebody had something to say about a situation that's a big part of my life. I'm as reasonable as the next guy.

Well, only if "the next guy" makes a habit of referring to people thusly in his very first post ever on this site:

Quote:

Blah blah blah says the douche bag with a "firefly fan" forum account. Firstly you've been posting on this shitty moms basement forum since 2003 so anything you say is redundant and utterly useless. You can't even be called a keyboard commando, you're lower than that.

Quote:
I just don't enjoy being a long distance punching bag for any yokel in the interwebs. I'm just speaking my mind, the same as you guys. And it IS our right to do so. No matter how unpopular it may be. So touche, I realise now we all want our opinions to be the right ones and everybody else's should be illegal. We were just caught in our own symbolic snares.

So your way of defending free speech is to come in here and start calling names and demanding apologies, all while telling everyone how great a guy you are? Haven't you basically just become what you claim to be fighting against, wanting your own opinions to be the only right ones and everyone else's to be illegal?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

KWICKO

Monday, August 27, 2012 5:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:whether you have military service or not. All that shows is that someone tricked you out of two or more years of your life and fed you amphetamines and testosterone in a dirt hole somewhere. My sympathies.

Wow, there is the most ignorant statement regarding military service I've heard in awhile.

Actually, that's a pretty good summation of it. I say that as someone who grew up on military bases around military families.

And when you get right down to it, that's what so many of these "militias" really are, too.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

KWICKO

Monday, August 27, 2012 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
And it IS our right to do so. No matter how unpopular it may be. So touche, I realise now we all want our opinions to be the right ones and everybody else's should be illegal. We were just caught in our own symbolic snares.

I'm still not sure you realize where you are, what the people here believe, or even what the original poster was saying.

It's an impressive misunderstanding for a first time poster, to be sure.

Let me explain something. This board has no moderators. You will not be kicked off here for saying anything. You can argue at the original poster all you want to, and defend yourself all you want to, and no matter what people think about you here, you will continue to be able to say it. There's this guy who's always like "Nazi Jew Queen of England with bloody pictures and gore" everywhere, and he's been here for YEARS.

The question I'm getting at is more along the lines of WHY are you arguing with the original poster? You both seem to think that the courts were correct to let you go and drop the charges. And you aren't with the Hutaree anymore, therefore this display of loyalty to them seems unnecessary.

Byte nailed it. This is one of the few boards forums (fora?) where we really DO believe in free speech, unfettered for all, with no moderators shutting down "undesirable" opinions. But you have to be able to take a stand and defend it. The water's deep, and there may be sharks.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

KWICKO

Monday, August 27, 2012 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
Wow, there is the most ignorant statement regarding military service I've heard in awhile.

You'll have to show me what's incorrect about it.

How, lets start with the fact that military service is not getting fed amphetamines and testosterone in some dirt hole. Nor is it a waste of time, unless a person makes it that way. Every single person I know that has been in the military has gotten vast experience and opportunities from that service.

Odd that the suicide rate and homelessness rates are so high for those sought-after veterans, eh?

So is that "vast experience and opportunities" limited to suicide and homelessness, or do you count PTSD, traumatic brain injuries, and loss of limbs as part of that whole "vast experience", too?

Quote:

It is also hard for someone to get tricked into military service. With all the information out there on what service entails someone would have to willingly go into a recruiting office without looking into anything. Than they would have to not listen to a thing said to them. If that person could even get in. There is not a branch in the US military right now that is going to take an uneducated slubb off the street.

In which case, you have nothing to worry about, since you'll not be taken.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

M52NICKERSON

Monday, August 27, 2012 6:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Nick, please.

http://www.enotes.com/amphetamine-epidemics-reference/amphetamine-epid
emics

Quote:
During World War II, methamphetamine and amphetamine were widely used by the American, British, German, and Japanese military as insomniacs and as stimulants to increase alertness during battle and night watches; they were used as well by war-related industries to enhance worker productivity. Perhaps as many as 200 million tablets and pills were supplied to American troops during the war. The U.S. armed services authorized the issue of amphetamines on a regular basis beginning with the Korean conflict, escalating to well over 225 million standard-dose tablets dispensed between 1966 and 1969.

They haven't stopped. Recently there's been major problems cropping up with pilots on amphetamine "go-pills" hitting the wrong targets. In one instance a couple Canadian soldiers were killed.

So when I see amphetamine behaviour, I call amphetamine behaviour.

The article you linked to does mention WWII use, but does not talk about use today. Yes, some pilots have decided to tale them instead of getting pulled from missions. As far as amphetamines being the cause of those, maybe. Or is it just pilot error. Mistakes are few and far between for the number of missions run.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

M52NICKERSON

Monday, August 27, 2012 6:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Odd that the suicide rate and homelessness rates are so high for those sought-after veterans, eh?

So is that "vast experience and opportunities" limited to suicide and homelessness, or do you count PTSD, traumatic brain injuries, and loss of limbs as part of that whole "vast experience", too?

...and what are those rates? Homeless around 4%. Suicide rate less than 1%.

Now compare that to the number of veterans and other military personal that lead successful lives.

Sorry the number do not bare out your claims.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:In which case, you have nothing to worry about, since you'll not be taken.

You're quickly becoming the leftist version of Rappy. Might want to look into that.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, August 27, 2012 6:51 PM

Indrid, whether my reasons for not liking you and yours are "valid" or not is immaterial, and why not argue it over a couple brews at the time instead of message board flaming, since my primary bitch is being dragged into this further than I ever wanted to be out of personal obligation to a third party, and that ain't really got nothin to do with you.

Since yer here though...

Yanno, you really ought to watch Firefly, I rather think you and yours would enjoy it.

-F

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 27, 2012 7:16 PM

Quote:
The article you linked to does mention WWII use, but does not talk about use today.

It also mentions use in Korea and Vietnam and doesn't say that it stopped, and it's pretty bloody obvious it's still going on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071789/ns/us_news-only/t/go-pills-war-dru
gs/

Go pills are widely acknowledged in the air force today, and a half-second of thought will demonstrate that groundtroops would also require pick me ups like this to operate in the conditions they do. Whether or not they realize they're taking them is another story.

Quote:
Mistakes are few and far between for the number of missions run.

Say, what's the noncombatant death toll for Iraq and Afghanistan, any takers? I'm not asking about Pakistan because according to the CIA there hasn't been any civilian deaths in Pakistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/world/asia/12drones.html?pagewanted=
all

1KIKI

Monday, August 27, 2012 7:35 PM

"Go pills are widely acknowledged in the air force today ..."

They also mention amphetamines. But amphetamines are known to cause medical and psychiatric problems leading to acute crises, I was under the impression they were using Provigil instead.

STORYMARK

Monday, August 27, 2012 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

...and what are those rates? ...... Suicide rate less than 1%.

Well, yes, if you're looking only at that limited group. Another way to look at it is that servicemembers account for a fifth of American suicides, and that a service member or vet kills themselves every 80 minutes.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 27, 2012 8:18 PM

1kiki: Go-pills currently are Dextroamphetamine. Modafinil/Provigil are still considered under testing and only given out occasionally. Assuming wikipedia is still up to date on that.

Though there's still neurological effects with provigil so I'm not sure it's necessarily safer.

M52NICKERSON

Monday, August 27, 2012 8:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

...and what are those rates? ...... Suicide rate less than 1%.

Well, yes, if you're looking only at that limited group. Another way to look at it is that servicemembers account for a fifth of American suicides, and that a service member or vet kills themselves every 80 minutes.

Which is higher than is should be, yes. There is no doubt that the military can do better for vets returning home from war.

That does not mean a vast majority of those who serve do not benefit from there service.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

M52NICKERSON

Monday, August 27, 2012 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
The article you linked to does mention WWII use, but does not talk about use today.

It also mentions use in Korea and Vietnam and doesn't say that it stopped, and it's pretty bloody obvious it's still going on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071789/ns/us_news-only/t/go-pills-war-dru
gs/

Go pills are widely acknowledged in the air force today, and a half-second of thought will demonstrate that groundtroops would also require pick me ups like this to operate in the conditions they do. Whether or not they realize they're taking them is another story.

Quote:
Mistakes are few and far between for the number of missions run.

Say, what's the noncombatant death toll for Iraq and Afghanistan, any takers? I'm not asking about Pakistan because according to the CIA there hasn't been any civilian deaths in Pakistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/world/asia/12drones.html?pagewanted=
all

Yes, it is still going on. I think I said that some pilots are using. I agree that some ground troops may also use. That does not mean the military is pumping every member with them as you suggested.

As for the civilian casualties the numbers are high, but they are not all from US forces. They are not all mistakes. War is messy, sometimes you attack knowing civilians will get killed.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 27, 2012 9:12 PM

Quote:
That does not mean the military is pumping every member with them as you suggested.

Didn't say that, did I? Perhaps read the thread more carefully. I'm done being nice and diplomatic here.

Quote:
They are not all mistakes. War is messy, sometimes you attack knowing civilians will get killed.

What a lovely bit of justification for killing innocents. Perhaps I should declare war, then this would be totally okay.

1KIKI

Monday, August 27, 2012 9:26 PM

"Though there's still neurological effects with provigil so I'm not sure it's necessarily safer."

I volunteered as a test group for the maximum dose. One of my efforts to the advancement of science and medicine. It gave me a weird headache that I've never had before or since, and strange dreams.

M52NICKERSON

Monday, August 27, 2012 9:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Didn't say that, did I? Perhaps read the thread more carefully. I'm done being nice and diplomatic here.

Please spare me the "done being nice" crap.

You certainly intimated it.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:What a lovely bit of justification for killing innocents. Perhaps I should declare war, then this would be totally okay.

Not saying that it is okay, just that it is a reality of war. It will always be a reality of war.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

1KIKI

Monday, August 27, 2012 9:46 PM

Byte ahem THIS is what you posted about the experience of being in the Army:

"All that shows is that someone tricked you out of two or more years of your life and fed you amphetamines and testosterone in a dirt hole somewhere."

Well, you really can't be tricked into it. You've since not repeated or defended your claim about being "fed ... testosterone", which really isn't true anyway. And on top of that you implied that EVERYONE’S experience will be one where you are "fed ... amphetamines", since you made no exception or qualification. You really did overstate your case. Not to say that drug use isn't rampant in certain areas, though it's probably mostly self-prescribed and administered. But I happen to know people who were in Iraq and are in Afghanistan, and they're not the drug-crazed military-created idiots you claim that they are. That really demeans them.

And, being a child of WWII, a young adult during Vietnam, and having seen various other wars come ... and go ... it is a sad fact that wars are fought on civilian turf and civilians die. US policy even guarantees it with carpet bombing, lacing areas with explosives, bombing 'military' targets in civilian areas, destroying infrastructure, 'cleansing' areas like Fallujah, drone attacks etc.

If war was about young men with an itch to fight voluntarily duking it out in an isolated field somewhere, it wouldn't be so terrible.

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 27, 2012 9:46 PM

Quote:
You certainly intimated it.

I *intimated* that Indrid is a little excitable. You're the one assuming that I meant everyone in the armed forces.

What's a body gotta do to be subtle around here?

Quote:
Not saying that it is okay, just that it is a reality of war. It will always be a reality of war.

The way I figure it, if you're accidentally or intentionally killing civilians, you've forgotten why you're fighting.

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 27, 2012 9:49 PM

Quote:
fed ... testosterone"

Right, because they don't ever sneak steroids and because the culture isn't about proving masculinity.

I've been pretty careful, Kiki, about what exactly I've been referring to. Even qualified myself a number of times. I have overstated nothing.

1KIKI

Monday, August 27, 2012 9:56 PM

"... because they don't ever sneak steroids ..."

It's kinda' hard to 'sneak' injections to large numbers of young people without someone being alert enough to notice it. Also, it's not a 'one and done' as any bodybuilder will attest.

It doesn't happen.

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 27, 2012 10:06 PM

You said you think amphetamines use happens on an individual basis? You don't think there aren't drug tests for that as well? The official policy is against drug use and steroids, but there's exceptions, and the reality is there's go pills and there's probably steroids, and all of that is unofficially sanctioned, it's just a matter of not drawing attention to it if someone is using it.

You really think that people wouldn't try to get every advantage they can when they're going into combat and they might possibly die?

M52NICKERSON

Monday, August 27, 2012 10:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I *intimated* that Indrid is somewhat excitable. You're the one assuming that I meant everyone in the armed forces.

What's a body gotta do to be subtle around here?

Broad statements like you made are not subtle.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:The way I figure it, if you're accidentally or intentionally killing civilians, you've forgotten why you're fighting.

You still know why you are fighting, it is the acceptance of unwanted affects of fighting. That is the reason war should never be taken lightly and only when those civilian casualties are a lesser evil than what will happen if not fighting.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

M52NICKERSON

Monday, August 27, 2012 10:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
You said you think amphetamines use happens on an individual basis? You don't think there aren't drug tests for that as well? The official policy is against drug use and steroids, but there's exceptions, and the reality is there's go pills and there's probably steroids, and all of that is unofficially sanctioned, it's just a matter of not drawing attention to it if someone is using it.

You really think that people wouldn't try to get every advantage they can when they're going into combat and they might possibly die?

One of your stories stated that military personal can use amphetamines under doctors care. Steroids would be the same, such as testosterone replacement therapy. All of which are on individual basis.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 27, 2012 10:21 PM

Quote:
One of your stories stated that military personal can use amphetamines under doctors care. Steroids would be the same, such as testosterone replacement therapy. All of which are on individual basis.

There you go then.

Quote:

You still know why you are fighting, it is the acceptance of unwanted affects of fighting. That is the reason war should never be taken lightly and only when those civilian casualties are a lesser evil than what will happen if not fighting.

Lesser Evil?

People. Dying. It's all the same evil.

1KIKI

Monday, August 27, 2012 10:30 PM

But they aren't being 'fed' amphetamines by the military except on rare occasion (pilots), and they aren't being 'fed' testosterone by the military either.

Many in the military use supplements. But they are the exact same supplements you find in your local health food store - creatine, yohimbe, milk thistle, amino acids and the like. Some drink very large amounts of caffeine and/ or alcohol, and/ or smoke. Some use drugs they get either locally or over the internet. But the military has a zero tolerance policy and administers random urine and blood tests. "Urine tests, which are conducted either randomly or when a person is suspected of using drugs, are a major tool for the detection and deterrence of illicit drug use (DoD, 1997)." I'm sure the screening is less than 100%. I'm sure some people get through who are using. On the whole though, the idea that troops are routinely being fed large amounts of amphetamines and steroids doesn't hold up.

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 27, 2012 10:40 PM

Then perhaps, as I *intimated,* one of these individualized programs was the result of the behaviour we've seen.

M52NICKERSON

Monday, August 27, 2012 10:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
There you go then.

Problem is that is not what you stated by a long shot.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Lesser Evil?

People. Dying. It's all the same evil.

A few thousand is a lesser evil when compared to a few million.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 27, 2012 11:00 PM

Quote:

Problem is that is not what you stated by a long shot.

Yeah, it was. I said to Indrid that his military service apparently amounted to someone feeding him amphetamines and steroids for two years or so in a dirt hole somewhere. Which based on Indrid's introduction, appears to be a not unreasonable conclusion.

I'm not sure why we're having so much heartburn about this. Nick? Any particular reason?

Quote:
A few thousand is a lesser evil when compared to a few million.

A fat guy stands on a bridge above a train track, and a train is barreling towards five workers. WHAT DO YOU DOOOOOO???

M52NICKERSON

Monday, August 27, 2012 11:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Yeah, it was. I said to Indrid that his military service apparently amounted to someone feeding him amphetamines and steroids for two years or so in a dirt hole somewhere. Which based on Indrid's introduction, appears to be a not unreasonable conclusion.

I'm not sure why we're having so much heartburn about this. Nick? Any particular reason?

You did not say apparently, nor did you phrase it just towards Indrids military experience. You made a blanket statement...

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Did you research this board and the people on it before you started posting? It's very unlikely that your argument that we owe you anything is going to fly here, whether you have military service or not. All that shows is that someone tricked you out of two or more years of your life and fed you amphetamines and testosterone in a dirt hole somewhere. My sympathies. Unfortunately, despite your efforts, it appears the constant erosion of freedom of speech is still very much a reality.

If you meant it another way you simply phrased is poorly.

I challenged you on the blanket statement about military service because they where simply wrong. I don't know if Indrids really served or not. Those who did do deserve respect for there service.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:A fat guy stands on a bridge above a train track, and a train is barreling towards five workers. WHAT DO YOU DOOOOOO???

What are you asking which I would save? If so it would be the five. Five is greater than one.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:19 AM

Goodnight everybody! You've been swell!

RIONAEIRE

Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:41 AM

This is an area that Byte and I diverge, there are actually a lot of those areas really. I tend to immediately and inherantly respect veterans by nature unless they give me a reason not to, most of them are brave people who are willing to take great risks and face scary things, so I give them respect unless they do stupid stuff to start out with. What I can agree with Byte on here is that this guy started out acting stupid, though it was quite interesting, the turn of events.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:53 AM

I'll be the first to admit I'm a huge jackass, and I don't believe in feeling beholden to anyone no matter what they've done for the country. I don't like the government, so service to the government doesn't really have any meaning for me. But you've redeemed yourself, Indrid, by taking our negative reactions in stride and not responding to my horseshit. I take back what I said about you, and I apologize.

I also hope that you stick around.

KWICKO

Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

...and what are those rates? ...... Suicide rate less than 1%.

Well, yes, if you're looking only at that limited group. Another way to look at it is that servicemembers account for a fifth of American suicides, and that a service member or vet kills themselves every 80 minutes.

Which is higher than is should be, yes. There is no doubt that the military can do better for vets returning home from war.

That does not mean a vast majority of those who serve do not benefit from there service.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

And a vast number of those who serve suffer from their service, and quite a few die. The military tends to call them "collateral damage".

As to accusations of me being the left-wing Rappy, I think you fit that bill better. You never seem to be able to make a valid point, you rarely cite your "sources" or provide much if anything in the way of facts to support your claims, and you totally and completely suck at communicating in English.

You might want to look to that yourself.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And a vast number of those who serve suffer from their service, and quite a few die. The military tends to call them "collateral damage".

As to accusations of me being the left-wing Rappy, I think you fit that bill better. You never seem to be able to make a valid point, you rarely cite your "sources" or provide much if anything in the way of facts to support your claims, and you totally and completely suck at communicating in English.

You might want to look to that yourself.

Hardly anyone here cites sources with any regularity.

Now, do you have any sources which support your claim that "a vast number of those who serve suffer from their service"? What you considered a vast number? Does that number constitute a majority, or even close?

Here a citation for you...

"Even so, 96% of the vets say they are proud of their service and 74% say their military experience has helped them get ahead in life. Ninety-three percent say the military has helped them mature and more than eight of 10 say they would advise a young person close to them to join the military."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2011-10-04/survey-military
-civilian/50661474/1

The story talks about the struggles of vets returning from combat, but even with those a vast majority still say they benefited.

You also have some 300,000 who are talking advantage of the G.I. bill and going to school.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/1110/Veterans-Day-survey-30
0-000-use-revamped-GI-Bill

So, I showed you mind. Now you show me yours!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:40 PM

Regardless of how they feel about their service, some of the past few wars have been largely a sham. They are not fighting for the reasons they think they are - or, as has already been illustrated, they have forgotten why they are fighting. And others are fighting for a chance at college, at a future, which shouldn't have war as a prerequisite. It is a waste of life and limb.

That such a majority feels warm fuzzies about being so used indicates just how much they've been deceived. Let alone that many of them seem to think these wars have made us safer, and more free.

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Regardless of how they feel about their service, some of the past few wars have been largely a sham. They are not fighting for the reasons they think they are - or, as has already been illustrated, they have forgotten why they are fighting. And others are fighting for a chance at college, at a future, which shouldn't have war as a prerequisite. It is a waste of life and limb.

That such a majority feels warm fuzzies about being so used indicates just how much they've been deceived. Let alone that many of them seem to think these wars have made us safer, and more free.

If you look at the one article I posted many do feel that the current wars have been a waste. That is the war, and not their overall experience in the military. As for the ones that feel the wars have not been a waste, I'm sure they could make arguments as to why.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:52 PM

You are Kwicko are the ones who made it about their overall experience in the military. Your interpretation of what I said does not in fact equal what I intended to say.

The wars have destabilized the region, made life harder for the civilians we intended to help, and have not made our country freer or safer. One of the wars we were given obviously false information that convinced everyone else we should go. But in either case, the wars are a sham, therefore they are a waste.

To me, this seems like an inherent truth, self-evident and empirical by every measure. The confirmation of the statement exists without dependence upon anyone's feelings about the wars. To call the wars a success, to say that we have improved the situation in the middle east, or for ourselves, would require a level of self-deception I don't particularly want to indulge in.

And if someone fights two or so years for a lie, then I happen to think they have wasted those two years, and I also happen to think they must have been tricked. You may try to counter me with as many veteran success stories as you wish. It does not change the basic facts of the matter.

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
You are Kwicko are the ones who made it about their overall experience in the military. Your interpretation of what I said does not in fact equal what I intended to say.

Well, I can only respond to what you said, not what you intended.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The wars have destabilized the region, made life harder for the civilians we intended to help, and have not made our country freer or safer. One of the wars we were given obviously false information that convinced everyone else we should go. But in either case, the wars are a sham, therefore they are a waste.

Toppling a government that allowed Al-Qaeda to have a base of operations has made this country and others safer. The question is if the cost of the extra safety was worth it? You can make the argument that the war has made things worse for people in Iraq. I think that is far harder in Afghanistan.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
To me, this seems like an inherent truth, self-evident and empirical by every measure. The confirmation of the statement exists without dependence upon anyone's feelings about the wars. To call the wars a success, to say that we have improved the situation in the middle east, or for ourselves, would require a level of self-deception I don't particularly want to indulge in.

I'm sure there are a lot of people in both countries that have it worse now. I'm also sure that a lot of people have it better. Seeing as we have not been to those places and seen first hand what is going on, nor spoken to the people we are speaking from second hand knowledge.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
And if someone fights two or so years for a lie, then I happen to think they have wasted those two years, and I also happen to think they must have been tricked. You may try to counter me with as many veteran success stories as you wish. It does not change the basic facts of the matter.

It's hard to say that anyone who fought in Afghanistan was tricked. It is equally hard to say that anyone who fought in Iraq after it had become apparent that we had toppled Saddam for the wrong reasons where tricked. I think the vast majority of soldiers understood the situations just fine.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, August 28, 2012 5:13 PM

Quote:

Toppling a government that allowed Al-Qaeda to have a base of operations has made this country and others safer.

Pretty sure most of the Al-Qaeda leadership already moved by the time we invaded. Kicking over the Taliban made no real difference because the Taliban WEREN'T Al-Qaeda, though now we've inspired a lot of new terrorists and insurgents to join up.

So no, it hasn't. What we have is security theater that makes us feel safer when we're not. Antagonism against us is kind of at an all time high, and even our allies don't like us nowadays.

Quote:
I think that is far harder in Afghanistan.

The people we trained as security forces for the new Afghanistan government are now shooting at us. That says volumes. We installed a corrupt leader who rigs the votes, so it's not democracy. Girls are going to schools now, but opponents to women in schools poison their water and a lot of the progress made there is being neglected and may be lost. Warlords control the outlying regions, a human slave trade and protection racket have dropped up, and people are still dying in droves.

Quote:
It's hard to say that anyone who fought in Afghanistan was tricked. It is equally hard to say that anyone who fought in Iraq after it had become apparent that we had toppled Saddam for the wrong reasons where tricked. I think the vast majority of soldiers understood the situations just fine.

They thought they were making everything better, when really, it's just made things completely chaotic. And I suspect once we leave the warlords and theocrats will take over, so that's definitely not better. It'd be about the same really if we hadn't killed so many people, so that pushes it into "worse" territory.

KWICKO

Tuesday, August 28, 2012 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Regardless of how they feel about their service, some of the past few wars have been largely a sham. They are not fighting for the reasons they think they are - or, as has already been illustrated, they have forgotten why they are fighting. And others are fighting for a chance at college, at a future, which shouldn't have war as a prerequisite. It is a waste of life and limb.

That such a majority feels warm fuzzies about being so used indicates just how much they've been deceived. Let alone that many of them seem to think these wars have made us safer, and more free.

If you look at the one article I posted many do feel that the current wars have been a waste. That is the war, and not their overall experience in the military.

And besides that one little thing, JFK really loved his Dallas trip...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Pretty sure most of the Al-Qaeda leadership already moved by the time we invaded. Kicking over the Taliban made no real difference because the Taliban WEREN'T Al-Qaeda, though now we've inspired a lot of new terrorists and insurgents to join up.

So no, it hasn't. What we have is security theater that makes us feel safer when we're not. Antagonism against us is kind of at an all time high, and even our allies don't like us nowadays.

The Taliban offered massive support to Al-Qaeda. Getting them out of power was the first step. Some of Al-Qaeda's leaders fled, but not all of them. We killed a fair number of them in Afghanistan. The invasion may have inspired more to join, but they as time has gone on Al-Qaeda has gotten weaker and weaker.

Our allies still like us. Did you forget about our supporting role in NATO's operations in Lybia?

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The people we trained as security forces for the new Afghanistan government are now shooting at us. That says volumes. We installed a corrupt leader who rigs the votes, so it's not democracy. Girls are going to schools now, but opponents to women in schools poison their water and a lot of the progress made there is being neglected and may be lost. Warlords control the outlying regions, a human slave trade and protection racket have dropped up, and people are still dying in droves.

A few incidences out of a very large number of security forces. It does not say that much other than there are a few people who got in that should not have.

Yes there are still problems, but no more than under Taliban control. Should girls not go to school at all because of threats? Do you think that human trafficking did not happen in the region before hand?

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
They thought they were making everything better, when really; it's just made things completely chaotic. And I suspect once we leave the warlords and theocrats will take over, so that's definitely not better. It'd be about the same really if we hadn't killed so many people, so that pushes it into "worse" territory.

That is why we should not leave until those things will not happen. Yes the war made things chaotic. Wars normally do that. The place was not a center of tranquility before we got there. You still had different factions fighting the Taliban in some areas. Remember how we looked to them for help early on.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And besides that one little thing, JFK really loved his Dallas trip...

Don't you have some citations to look up?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:32 PM

Quote:
Our allies still like us. Did you forget about our supporting role in NATO's operations in Lybia?

Oh yes, where we supported a military coup of a torture-happy tyrant by a faction of genocidal nutcases. Yippee. Look, it doesn't really matter what political faction we ever support over there, the violent factions that are useful to us tend to be screwed up beyond measure. It's why we back totalitarian dictators and vote-riggers and all these types then turn on them a few years later to install someone else when they get too full of themselves. The only reason we get involved is because of politics and economic maneuvering. It's why we don't get involved in places like Sudan - although if we did, we'd probably screw that up to. No one in power here really cares about the people over there, and it shows.

Girls were going to school in Afghanistan before we invaded, but the teachers had to operate secretively. I think we should have continued to support that quietly - I'm pretty much going to say that whenever we want to help the middle east, it's probably better to send humanitarian aid instead of guys with guns. In any case, social change wasn't really our priority, and doesn't appear to have been even possible at this time anyway.

Wherever we've gotten involved, things are pretty much the same level of screwed up as the rest of the Middle East, and not even that different from before we got involved, except we killed a lot of people going in. And that means our own people have died for nothing. Things aren't going to change in Afghanistan in TWO YEARS, when we pull out in 2014, I'm not even sure it would change in the next century with or without our help. So yeah, I'm a little pissed off about all this. Accomplished nothing, pointless, a waste, a lie.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

And besides that one little thing, JFK really loved his Dallas trip...

Or, as the theatre critic asked, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I'm pretty much going to say that whenever we want to help the middle east, it's probably better to send humanitarian aid instead of guys with guns.

Pro'lly cheaper, too.

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 5:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

And besides that one little thing, JFK really loved his Dallas trip...

Or, as the theatre critic asked, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Or a reporter asking, "Other than that, how was your cruise, Miss Jessop?"

Probably a bit too obscure. If you don't know the story of Violet Jessop, I strongly suggest you look it up; I promise you'll be amazed. Let's just say that surviving the sinking of the Titanic was only one chapter in her extraordinary life.

James Cameron should make a movie about her, but I don't think anyone would believe it if he did.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

M52NICKERSON

Thursday, August 30, 2012 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
Our allies still like us. Did you forget about our supporting role in NATO's operations in Lybia?

Oh yes, where we supported a military coup of a torture-happy tyrant by a faction of genocidal nutcases. Yippee. Look, it doesn't really matter what political faction we ever support over there, the violent factions that are useful to us tend to be screwed up beyond measure. It's why we back totalitarian dictators and vote-riggers and all these types then turn on them a few years later to install someone else when they get too full of themselves. The only reason we get involved is because of politics and economic maneuvering. It's why we don't get involved in places like Sudan - although if we did, we'd probably screw that up to. No one in power here really cares about the people over there, and it shows.

Girls were going to school in Afghanistan before we invaded, but the teachers had to operate secretively. I think we should have continued to support that quietly - I'm pretty much going to say that whenever we want to help the middle east, it's probably better to send humanitarian aid instead of guys with guns. In any case, social change wasn't really our priority, and doesn't appear to have been even possible at this time anyway.

Wherever we've gotten involved, things are pretty much the same level of screwed up as the rest of the Middle East, and not even that different from before we got involved, except we killed a lot of people going in. And that means our own people have died for nothing. Things aren't going to change in Afghanistan in TWO YEARS, when we pull out in 2014, I'm not even sure it would change in the next century with or without our help. So yeah, I'm a little pissed off about all this. Accomplished nothing, pointless, a waste, a lie.

I'm not going to make the argument that we went into Afghanistan to make things better. We went because the people who attacked us on 911 were there. Yes we killed a whole lot of people. The vast majority of those we killed were people who wanted to kill us, or supported the people who wanted to kill us. I will not shed any tears for them. In the end those people being dead, the groups they were a part of being marginalized has made us safer. That is an accomplishment regardless of if you want to see it.

Yes sometimes we support governments that are down right evil. Normally that is to counter some other evil government. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It would be nice not to do those kinds of things, but the hill of moral righteousness is often the hill you die on.

I think some people in power do care. I also think that they understand that sometimes you can't help. Libya was a situation where we could. Should we not have gotten involved as people were being killed by there own government? Sending aid can only do so much.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:16 PM

Quote:
The vast majority of those we killed were people who wanted to kill us, or supported the people who wanted to kill us.

With the forced conscriptions that happen and the way villages swing from side to side in order to survive, the situation is much, much more complicated than that.

By your own logic it's perfectly okay for terrorists to attack us civilians in America, because we pay taxes and therefore support the people that want to kill them. And it's okay for us to attack civilians in Afghanistan, because those civilians give support or are forced to give support to the terrorists we're pursuing.

You don't see kind of a bit of a PROBLEM here? Where exactly does this grudge match end?

Quote:
Should we not have gotten involved as people were being killed by there own government? Sending aid can only do so much.

I'm all for freedom fighters, when they're actually, you know, not evil and for freedom. The problem is, in the middle east it's kind of impossible to tell the two apart going in. That's why I suggest humanitarian aid - it's hard to know who to support when both sides in a conflict seem like they might be bad choices.

And even humanitarian aid is better than nothing for places like Sudan and Syria.

I actually hope the situation in Libya won't turn out so terrible - I suppose the one thing they have going for them is that we didn't occupy them and haven't installed a puppet dictator, which is how we usually get into this stupid cycle of violence everywhere else. But it's probably still going to be a mess.

Quote:
Normally that is to counter some other evil government. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It would be nice not to do those kinds of things, but the hill of moral righteousness is often the hill you die on.

Sometimes the enemy of your enemy isn't your friend, sometimes they're also your enemy, sometimes supporting them means undermining your own goals, which is pretty much exactly what has happened in these last few wars.

So now you're arguing that we should do this, and to hell if it's moral. Countering evil governments with evil governments. What exactly do you intend to accomplish? Why are we even NATION BUILDING if this is the attitude by which we have to approach it?

I mean, damn, this has gone from "ends justify the means" moral relativity into straight on amorality right here. No, I demand a better reason for all this beyond that "necessary evil" is our standard operating procedure because they'll kill us if we don't crush them.

KWICKO

Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

I'm not going to make the argument that we went into Afghanistan to make things better. We went because the people who attacked us on 911 were there. Yes we killed a whole lot of people. The vast majority of those we killed were people who wanted to kill us, or supported the people who wanted to kill us. I will not shed any tears for them. In the end those people being dead, the groups they were a part of being marginalized has made us safer. That is an accomplishment regardless of if you want to see it.

1) You have shown no evidence to support the claim that "the vast majority of those we killed were people who wanted to kill us, or supported the people who wanted to kill us."

2) That said, I can make that exact same claim against the U.S. troops, from the Afghan viewpoint. Yes, they killed a whole lot of American soldiers, but the vast majority of those killed were trying to kill Afghans, and supported those who were doing the killing. From their viewpoint, every American soldier killed makes their country a safer place, and brings them one step closer to driving the occupying oppressors of Imperial America from their land.

Whether you like that or not, you have to admit it's an accomplishment. So was 9/11, when you get right down to it. For a few thousand dollars and the "WMD" which consisted of four box-cutters, al-Qaeda brought the greatest superpower in history to its knees and crippled it economically.

That's not a popular point of view, but it's every bit as valid as yours, and at least as supportable with facts and figures.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

M52NICKERSON

Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
With the forced conscriptions that happen and the way villages swing from side to side in order to survive, the situation is much, much more complicated than that.

How much of that goes on? Any citations?

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:By your own logic it's perfectly okay for terrorists to attack us civilians in America, because we pay taxes and therefore support the people that want to kill them. And it's okay for us to attack civilians in Afghanistan, because those civilians give support or are forced to give support to the terrorists we're pursuing.

You don't see kind of a bit of a PROBLEM here? Where exactly does this grudge match end?

No, because we are not purposely targeting civilians. That is the difference.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:I'm all for freedom fighters, when they're actually, you know, not evil and for freedom. The problem is, in the middle east it's kind of impossible to tell the two apart going in. That's why I suggest humanitarian aid - it's hard to know who to support when both sides in a conflict seem like they might be bad choices. And even humanitarian aid is better than nothing for places like Sudan and Syria.

Thing is even sending aid helps one side of the other. That is a huge problem with just sending aid. Much of the time it goes to the fighters and the people it was intended for.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:I actually hope the situation in Libya won't turn out so terrible - I suppose the one thing they have going for them is that we didn't occupy them and haven't installed a puppet dictator, which is how we usually get into this stupid cycle of violence everywhere else. But it's probably still going to be a mess.

Uprising of any kind are usually messy.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Sometimes the enemy of your enemy isn't your friend, sometimes they're also your enemy, sometimes supporting them means undermining your own goals, which is pretty much exactly what has happened in these last few wars.

So now you're arguing that we should do this, and to hell if it's moral. Countering evil governments with evil governments. What exactly do you intend to accomplish? Why are we even NATION BUILDING if this is the attitude by which we have to approach it?

Sometimes you’re right. It all depends on who they hate more. In the end using other countries like this can save us time, money and our own people. It helps in keeping those that want to do us harm too weak to really harm us.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:I mean, damn, this has gone from "ends justify the means" moral relativity into straight on amorality right here. No, I demand a better reason for all this beyond that "necessary evil" is our standard operating procedure because they'll kill us if we don't crush them.

Sorry, there is none. Sometimes you just have to shoot them before they shoot you.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

M52NICKERSON

Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
1) You have shown no evidence to support the claim that "the vast majority of those we killed were people who wanted to kill us, or supported the people who wanted to kill us."

You're right. The reason for that is there is no good count of the number of insurgence killed. That being said there is also no evidence to say that the number of civilians is higher that the number of civilians killed. Logicly speaking unless one thinks that military is purposly tageting civilians the number of insurgence killing is going to be higher.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
2) That said, I can make that exact same claim against the U.S. troops, from the Afghan viewpoint. Yes, they killed a whole lot of American soldiers, but the vast majority of those killed were trying to kill Afghans, and supported those who were doing the killing. From their viewpoint, every American soldier killed makes their country a safer place, and brings them one step closer to driving the occupying oppressors of Imperial America from their land.

Yes you can. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. One difference is that accept for the first few years the majority of civilian casualties have been cause by the insurgance.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Whether you like that or not, you have to admit it's an accomplishment. So was 9/11, when you get right down to it. For a few thousand dollars and the "WMD" which consisted of four box-cutters, al-Qaeda brought the greatest superpower in history to its knees and crippled it economically.

That's not a popular point of view, but it's every bit as valid as yours, and at least as supportable with facts and figures.

Of course. Any thinking person has to reallise that from al-Qaeda's point of view 911 was a huge success. It's the singel biggest thing they ever did.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

KWICKO

Friday, August 31, 2012 1:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
1) You have shown no evidence to support the claim that "the vast majority of those we killed were people who wanted to kill us, or supported the people who wanted to kill us."

You're right. The reason for that is there is no good count of the number of insurgence killed. That being said there is also no evidence to say that the number of civilians is higher that the number of civilians killed. Logicly speaking unless one thinks that military is purposly tageting civilians the number of insurgence killing is going to be higher.

So you think the number of insurgents killed is going to be higher than the number of civilians killed? Any kind of cites to backstop that assertion? I've heard several instances where we did indeed "target" civilians - wedding parties in at least a few of them. As one reporter put it regarding drone strikes, "If you have 20 civilians at an event, and one suspected insurgent, then 21 people are going to die in that strike."

And there is no evidence to say that civilians are not being purposely targeted.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

BYTEMITE

Friday, August 31, 2012 3:43 AM

Quote:
How much of that goes on? Any citations?

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/a-blood-stained-rifle-and-qu
estions-of-the-taliban/

It's pretty common. In any case, as I said, this is all very complicated.

Quote:
No, because we are not purposely targeting civilians. That is the difference.

Believe as you wish. Eventually according to this methodology everyone becomes a combatant.

Quote:
Sorry, there is none. Sometimes you just have to shoot them before they shoot you.

Not acceptable. This is a vicious cycle, self-perpetuating violence and hatred, and the logic and morality of this option is not justifiable - the situation will not improve taken to the logical conclusion. Time to try a third option.

KWICKO

Friday, August 31, 2012 4:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
No, because we are not purposely targeting civilians. That is the difference.

Believe as you wish. Eventually according to this methodology everyone becomes a combatant.

"Eventually" just got a whole lot closer, too. The Pentagon has now decided that any male of military age who is killed by our forces is an "enemy combatant" by dint of being in the area. See, it's not killing civilians if you stop calling them civilians!

Of course, the flip side of that is that every American working on - or even NEAR - every base or in or around every embassy is now an "enemy combatant" and a fair target for anyone who has a beef against us.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

M52NICKERSON

Friday, August 31, 2012 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you think the number of insurgents killed is going to be higher than the number of civilians killed? Any kind of cites to backstop that assertion? I've heard several instances where we did indeed "target" civilians - wedding parties in at least a few of them. As one reporter put it regarding drone strikes, "If you have 20 civilians at an event, and one suspected insurgent, then 21 people are going to die in that strike."

And there is no evidence to say that civilians are not being purposely targeted.

The total number of civilians killed, no. I think the number of civilians directly killed by US forces is not high as the number of insurgence killed.

Estimates from the War in Iraq bear this out. Around 11,000 civilians directly killed by US forces while upwards of 55,000 insurgences were killed.

http://thevelvetrocket.com/2009/11/06/how-many-insurgents-killed-in-ir
aq/

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/15/us-coalition-directly-killed-over-1
1000-civilians-in-iraq-in-five-years/

As far as the US not targeting civilians that is the militaries position. Heck it would be simpler for them if they were waging a total war, but they are not.

http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/18227/targeting_civili
ans_in_war.html

"In Targeting Civilians in War, Downes explores several major recent conflicts, including the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Civilian casualties occurred in each campaign, but they were not the aim of military action. In these cases, Downes maintains, the achievement of quick and decisive victories against overmatched foes allowed democracies to win without abandoning their normative beliefs by intentionally targeting civilians. Whether such “restraint” can be guaranteed in future conflicts against more powerful adversaries is, however, uncertain."

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

M52NICKERSON

Friday, August 31, 2012 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/a-blood-stained-rifle-and-qu
estions-of-the-taliban/

It's pretty common. In any case, as I said, this is all very complicated.

There is no doubt it is complicated. As the article states it is hard to fault the soliders who killed the boy because of the circumstances.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Believe as you wish. Eventually according to this methodology everyone becomes a combatant.

If they pick up a gun they become a combatant.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Not acceptable. This is a vicious cycle, self-perpetuating violence and hatred, and the logic and morality of this option is not justifiable - the situation will not improve taken to the logical conclusion. Time to try a third option.

What is the third option? The only way this stops is when both side decide they have had enough and want peace. That's the thing it takes both sides unless one simple decided to give in and let the other side do as it pleases. As unacceptable as you may find it when someone takes aim at you with a gun there are only really two options. Kill them, or get killed.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Friday, August 31, 2012 5:59 PM

I think we need to stop before our purging the middle east of threats gets more out of control than it is. We killed Osama - should have done that earlier. But all of these proxy fights and unrelated issues, I don't know why we're even involved in them.

Actually, I think we've possibly dug our own grave, I don't think the people of these nations will ever stop coming now. This is a situation where I wish cooler heads had prevailed. They're not going to be won over by bread baskets. But I have to believe there's a better option than killing them to every child - so I still have to try the alternative.

Quote:
As unacceptable as you may find it when someone takes aim at you with a gun there are only really two options. Kill them, or get killed.

May you never find yourself in such a situation.

NIKI2

Friday, August 31, 2012 6:38 PM

Quote:
What we have is security theater that makes us feel safer when we're not. Antagonism against us is kind of at an all time high, and even our allies don't like us nowadays.

.....

They thought they were making everything better, when really, it's just made things completely chaotic. And I suspect once we leave the warlords and theocrats will take over, so that's definitely not better. It'd be about the same really if we hadn't killed so many people, so that pushes it into "worse" territory

.....

the violent factions that are useful to us tend to be screwed up beyond measure. It's why we back totalitarian dictators and vote-riggers and all these types then turn on them a few years later to install someone else when they get too full of themselves. The only reason we get involved is because of politics and economic maneuvering. It's why we don't get involved in places like Sudan - although if we did, we'd probably screw that up to. No one in power here really cares about the people over there, and it shows.

I agree with all of that.

Quote:
From their viewpoint, every American soldier killed makes their country a safer place, and brings them one step closer to driving the occupying oppressors of Imperial America from their land.

From THEIR viewpoint, yes, but their viewpoint doesn't reflect the majority of Afghans. The majority of Afghans looked to us for help and, while many of them have been disappointed, many are also fearful of when we leave and wish we wouldn't as we are the only thing standing between them and yet another "conqueror" (Taliban).

As to the "two years" thing, absolutely right. The problem is, the Afghans are a flexible people, and while bringing them forward two thousand years in a short amount of time is difficult, they were ON that road and making good progress until the Russians invaded and killed the Shah. Then they had to go back to fighting yet another conqueror, which they did and, as usual, pushed them out. Then came the repressive rule of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which took them BACK hundreds of years. Then we came along and did do a BIT toward bringing them forward again, but as mentioned, nation building hasn't been our focus, so we've made a mess of it (again), and will leave them to go backward again under the Taliban. In that respect,

Quote:
With the forced conscriptions that happen and the way villages swing from side to side in order to survive, the situation is much, much more complicated than that.

is absolutely accurate.

IF we had stayed initially and ignored Iraq, which actually had nothing to do with it and was a made-up war, we might have brought them forward yet again, I have no doubt. Mostly, the Afghans just want to be left alone to live their lives, but they've virtually never had the chance, since they've been invaded so often. MANY would like to move forward, but at a more reasonable pace...but that's not going to happen either, unfortunately.

Quote:
we are not purposely targeting civilians.

No, we're not, but we don't care how many of them die along the way, either.

Quote:
In the end using other countries like this can save us time, money and our own people. It helps in keeping those that want to do us harm too weak to really harm us.

I'm really surprised to see Nick arguing the side he is. I disagree on this point in particular; as someone said, Al Qaeda's intent was never to "win" over us militarily, it was to do exactly what it has done: instill fear, engage us in so many places we spread ourselves very thin and have to spend a ton of money keeping up. They HAVE already won that "war" and have diminished us without ever declaring war or winning against us militarily. They've been smart from the first and have had an excellent insight into how to defeat us.

We cannot know the actual figures on civilia

1KIKI

Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:07 AM

Hey Frem

I couldn't find the thread where this was topical, but since you like anime/ manga, I thought you might get a kick out of this:

http://www.redquillbooks.com/Capital_Manga.html