Pages: 1 2 3

 

2006-05-23 12:09:50
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6856

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

howler_27 wrote:

Personally, I think that it shows just what is wrong with where this country's standards are heading with it's younger generations.
What irritates me is that older people will look at me (in my mid-twenties) and associate me with the young, rude Americans so favored by our media. Makes life a bit difficult.
The thing you need to remember is the "older" generations lived through the Vietnam era and were also associated with the young rude Americans.  You know the older I get the more I notice a cycle.  Better yet a pendulum swing.   When, or will we ever get to center and be happy.

Living in AZ and being a Democrat I would have and would vote for McCain.  My only problem with McCain is he let Bush steamroll him and flat out embarrass him in the last election to drop him from the Rep nomination, and then went to Bush's side when he won the nomination.  I guess he didn't understand the political clout he really does have.
2006-05-23 12:29:11
howler_27
Member
+90|6916
I need to clarify my statement regarding the "younger generations"  I myself just turned 33 today, and have basically been caught between two major conflicts that have both been shown as a negative result in world policy.  When I stated "younger generations" I didn't mean the entire group.  There are some good, hard working people out there.  What I should have said is that it's the generations that have everything given to them, have been babied, or coddled throughout thier developement from child to adolecent that show no respect twards anybody with varrying opinions.  Being part of the Gen-X crowd, I have seen the same said about fellow people in my age bracket.  Sorry for the confusion there.
2006-05-24 11:10:15
King_County_Downy
shitfaced
+2,791|6826|Seattle

MorbidFetus, you gonna neg me everyday now or what fag?

Today 10:58:37 -1 Senator McCain getting booed And you think this bothers me? -Fetus 
Yesterday 14:14:14 -1 Senator McCain getting booed Fuck off wanker. Read my post.
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
2006-05-24 11:19:33
sgt_mango333
Member
+31|6881

MorbidFetus wrote:

wanderlost wrote:

So the fact that this guy fought valiantly in a war that he served in makes him a bad guy?  You're right, he should have dishonored himself and his family by refusing to fight in Vietnam as an OFFICER comissioned by the PRESIDENT. 

I love that argument.  A person can't be a "hero" if they fought in a war.
He fought in an unjust war so no, he is not a hero. I'll give him some respect for what he went through as a POW but that's about it. His recent "patch up" session with Jerry Falwell just shows he's being molded into the "perfect" presidential candidate.
I've had about enough of this war hating BS.  Your right to speak such filth and obvious stupidity is granted you by those men you deem non-heroic.  How dare you speak out of your ignorance against someone who served his country in a manner deserving nothing but respect.  Free speech is your right and you can bash him all you want.  But it is also my right to deride your stupidity and let everyone else know it as well.

BTW that goes for all you flower loving hippie war haters.  How in the hell do you think you got your rights in the first place!!!  Why don't you all take your heads out of your asses and take a breath.  And while your at it do a little history research.

-1 for every one of you ignorants I come across in these posts.  Disagree with his politics but don't disrespect!!!
2006-05-24 11:23:13
sgt_mango333
Member
+31|6881

GATOR591957 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

howler_27 wrote:

Personally, I think that it shows just what is wrong with where this country's standards are heading with it's younger generations.
What irritates me is that older people will look at me (in my mid-twenties) and associate me with the young, rude Americans so favored by our media. Makes life a bit difficult.
The thing you need to remember is the "older" generations lived through the Vietnam era and were also associated with the young rude Americans.  You know the older I get the more I notice a cycle.  Better yet a pendulum swing.   When, or will we ever get to center and be happy.

Living in AZ and being a Democrat I would have and would vote for McCain.  My only problem with McCain is he let Bush steamroll him and flat out embarrass him in the last election to drop him from the Rep nomination, and then went to Bush's side when he won the nomination.  I guess he didn't understand the political clout he really does have.
...Or he did the best good he could with what the situation is.  Bush didn't do it by himself.  And McCain showed a lot of character by jumping on board in support instead of acting like a 12 year old BF2 player who just got a new patch.
2006-05-24 11:34:41
King_County_Downy
shitfaced
+2,791|6826|Seattle

sgt mango +1 for you. (as soon as I have some to give)
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
2006-05-24 15:22:51
MorbidFetus
Member
+76|6780|Ohio

sgt_mango333 wrote:

I've had about enough of this war hating BS.  Your right to speak such filth and obvious stupidity is granted you by those men you deem non-heroic.
Gosh. I'm dumbfounded. I don't even know where to begin. So... you're saying that the Vietnam War was a just war? Or are you saying it doesnt matter what one is fighting for, just as long as they fight?
2006-05-24 16:04:32
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6856

sgt_mango333 wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


What irritates me is that older people will look at me (in my mid-twenties) and associate me with the young, rude Americans so favored by our media. Makes life a bit difficult.
The thing you need to remember is the "older" generations lived through the Vietnam era and were also associated with the young rude Americans.  You know the older I get the more I notice a cycle.  Better yet a pendulum swing.   When, or will we ever get to center and be happy.

Living in AZ and being a Democrat I would have and would vote for McCain.  My only problem with McCain is he let Bush steamroll him and flat out embarrass him in the last election to drop him from the Rep nomination, and then went to Bush's side when he won the nomination.  I guess he didn't understand the political clout he really does have.
...Or he did the best good he could with what the situation is.  Bush didn't do it by himself.  And McCain showed a lot of character by jumping on board in support instead of acting like a 12 year old BF2 player who just got a new patch.
So let me get this straight I don't want to misunderstand.  Your saying it's OK to be humiliated,  let your "leader" ( your right Bush can't do it himself, however he did allow it. ) and his cronies question your war record which you are proud of?

Again, my only problem is he went to his side.  He"jumped onboard" with people he should have known he could not trust.  My opinion, he could have respectfully declined the "show" of allegiance.   Not upset he didn't kick and scream.  I could not respect that.
2006-05-25 07:55:16
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|7000|Atlanta, GA USA

MorbidFetus wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

I've had about enough of this war hating BS.  Your right to speak such filth and obvious stupidity is granted you by those men you deem non-heroic.
Gosh. I'm dumbfounded. I don't even know where to begin. So... you're saying that the Vietnam War was a just war? Or are you saying it doesnt matter what one is fighting for, just as long as they fight?
You are totally missing the point (or refusing to see it).  The men and women who join the military are putting their lives on the line to protect our country.  They don't choose when or if we go to war.  Whether you agree with the war they fight in is irrelevent.  If they fight admirably in whatever conflict they are sent into, they are war heros, whether you agree with the validity of the war or not.
2006-05-25 08:11:21
remo
Member
+20|6805
It doesn't matter if Vietnam was a "just" war or not ... when the POTUS decides to go to war, the soldiers either go, run away, or spend time in Levenworth.

I like what I have here in the States, and I'd gladly fight for it ... I'd be damned if I ran away, and I sure as hell won't go to jail for it.  Don't take what you have for granted ... you'll be hurting a lot when you lose it.
2006-05-25 09:44:36
MorbidFetus
Member
+76|6780|Ohio

atlvolunteer wrote:

If they fight admirably in whatever conflict they are sent into, they are war heros, whether you agree with the validity of the war or not.
No, I'd say they had balls. Discipline. What have you... Hero is a very positive word. The supreme role model. I wouldn't call them heros just as I wouldn't call a gang member a hero who was ordered to do a drive-by. I find it quite odd how you can dismiss what went on just because they lived up to their end of the bargain. Knowing what you know now about the Vietnam War, would you gladly send your kids/relatives off to do the exact same thing if the President asked? I guess so, because you see it as such a positive thing.
2006-05-25 09:50:42
MorbidFetus
Member
+76|6780|Ohio

remo wrote:

It doesn't matter if Vietnam was a "just" war or not ... when the POTUS decides to go to war, the soldiers either go, run away, or spend time in Levenworth.
In a very extreme comparision, the Nazis had their orders to. I hate to bring those shitbags into the discussion but they were humans who were just following orders to. Here's a softer one, the shitbags in Abu Ghraib. Now I'm sure the majority of troops didnt go on My Lai missions but you cannot justify the means by saying "orders are orders."
2006-05-25 10:01:18
sgt_mango333
Member
+31|6881

MorbidFetus wrote:

atlvolunteer wrote:

If they fight admirably in whatever conflict they are sent into, they are war heros, whether you agree with the validity of the war or not.
No, I'd say they had balls. Discipline. What have you... Hero is a very positive word. The supreme role model. I wouldn't call them heros just as I wouldn't call a gang member a hero who was ordered to do a drive-by. I find it quite odd how you can dismiss what went on just because they lived up to their end of the bargain. Knowing what you know now about the Vietnam War, would you gladly send your kids/relatives off to do the exact same thing if the President asked? I guess so, because you see it as such a positive thing.
I cannot believe you just compared the American military with a gang thug.  What is you major mental malfunction.  Were you born this stupid or do you really work hard at it everyday?

What is so odd about dismissing what you call evil?  I think we've proven the fact in this forum that it isn't that odd at all to rightly disagree with you.  And to answer your question, yes I'd support my son or daughter 100% in any war they were called upon to go fight by the commander in chief of this country.  The fact that you would even question that just represents how little you value, or at least how much you take for granted, the freedoms given you by others who did the same.

And for the record.  Viet Nam was not evil, our involvement was not evil, and the troops who did their duty were not evil.  Yes they were heroes, fighting and dying in conditions you can't even comprehend.  The American political system got in the way of winning that war; a war that attempted to thwart the continuing spread of communism.  Communism is evil, deprivation is evil, and siding with the enemy is evil.  And I'm going to put this very plainly for you...if you are not for America you are against it.  That doesn't mean you have to agree with everything, but learn some damned respect and do a little research.
2006-05-25 10:04:50
sgt_mango333
Member
+31|6881

GATOR591957 wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:


The thing you need to remember is the "older" generations lived through the Vietnam era and were also associated with the young rude Americans.  You know the older I get the more I notice a cycle.  Better yet a pendulum swing.   When, or will we ever get to center and be happy.

Living in AZ and being a Democrat I would have and would vote for McCain.  My only problem with McCain is he let Bush steamroll him and flat out embarrass him in the last election to drop him from the Rep nomination, and then went to Bush's side when he won the nomination.  I guess he didn't understand the political clout he really does have.
...Or he did the best good he could with what the situation is.  Bush didn't do it by himself.  And McCain showed a lot of character by jumping on board in support instead of acting like a 12 year old BF2 player who just got a new patch.
So let me get this straight I don't want to misunderstand.  Your saying it's OK to be humiliated,  let your "leader" ( your right Bush can't do it himself, however he did allow it. ) and his cronies question your war record which you are proud of?

Again, my only problem is he went to his side.  He"jumped onboard" with people he should have known he could not trust.  My opinion, he could have respectfully declined the "show" of allegiance.   Not upset he didn't kick and scream.  I could not respect that.
We're not arguing different points here.  I'm not condoning anything that happened, only pointing out that it wasn't evil Bush, but rather a skewed political system.

McCain is smart and is biding his time.  All I'm saying is he did the best thing he could do for his future bid for the presidency.  Sometimes you have to take a shot to the balls to win the game - it ain't fun, but it is the way it is.
2006-05-25 10:08:56
sgt_mango333
Member
+31|6881

MorbidFetus wrote:

remo wrote:

It doesn't matter if Vietnam was a "just" war or not ... when the POTUS decides to go to war, the soldiers either go, run away, or spend time in Levenworth.
In a very extreme comparision, the Nazis had their orders to. I hate to bring those shitbags into the discussion but they were humans who were just following orders to. Here's a softer one, the shitbags in Abu Ghraib. Now I'm sure the majority of troops didnt go on My Lai missions but you cannot justify the means by saying "orders are orders."
No one is justifying the means.  No one is saying that everything done had to be done.  And know one is saying that everything that happened was completely right.

The troops who went to Viet Nam did not go over and commit attrocities like the Nazi's did.  They did not commit, on the whole, human rights violations on the level of Abu Ghraib.  They went to stop communism because their president told them to.  And if you have a problem with that, you are seriously messed up in the head.

As for Abu Ghraib, let it die.  The culprits were caught and punished.  It isn't standard military practice and you can't judge the whole for the actions of the few.  Otherwise, I wouldn't be here because people would judge everyone on this forum by you insame remarks.

Last edited by sgt_mango333 (2006-05-25 10:09:38)

2006-05-25 10:15:50
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7000|PNW

sgt_mango333 wrote:

...yes I'd support my son or daughter 100% in any war they were called upon to go fight by the commander in chief of this country.
I can think of one possible exception to that: civil War. For a nightmarish scenario, if a President Hillary eagerly complied with IANSA's wishes of a ban on civilian firearms, and the military was called upon to forcibly and violently invade a state(s) or portions of such which almost uniformly reject the ban, certain loyalties would be a bit strained.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-25 10:22:55)

2006-05-25 10:21:32
sgt_mango333
Member
+31|6881

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

...yes I'd support my son or daughter 100% in any war they were called upon to go fight by the commander in chief of this country.
I can think of one possible exception to that. Civil War.
It was tragic to say the least, but you have to believe in something and sometimes that means fighting for what you believe.  Both sides did that.  You basically had two seperate governments supported by two peoples with varying beliefs on freedom.  One side won and conqured the other, imposing its ideals.

I'll admit it is very easy to say right now when my eldest child is 12, that I'd do this or that.  The crux of the matter won't be decided until it actually happens and my heart has to back up my mouth (or fingers in this case).  But I'd like to believe that my ideals are solid enough to be proven worthy in that day.
2006-05-25 10:28:17
remo
Member
+20|6805

MorbidFetus wrote:

remo wrote:

It doesn't matter if Vietnam was a "just" war or not ... when the POTUS decides to go to war, the soldiers either go, run away, or spend time in Levenworth.
In a very extreme comparision, the Nazis had their orders to. I hate to bring those shitbags into the discussion but they were humans who were just following orders to. Here's a softer one, the shitbags in Abu Ghraib. Now I'm sure the majority of troops didnt go on My Lai missions but you cannot justify the means by saying "orders are orders."
Actually, I can justify the means.  US soldiers are supposed to follow orders.  It's in the military code of justice.

The Nazis too, followed orders.  Many probably believed in the cause.  Many probably didn't but feared getting killed for not following orders.  This was a weak attempt at a comparison.

Despite what you think, Abu Ghraib's soldiers weren't ordered to do the things they did.  They did so on their own accord ... both against their superior officers' orders and the Geneva Convention.  If they were ordered to do so, their superiors would have been charged as well.

The My Lai massacre was an unfortunate situation of soldiers following orders.  They were ordered to destroy that village based on intelligence.  Intelligence that was later proven wrong.

Orders ARE orders, friend.  Question them if you want, but at the end of the day ... it's either follow them, go AWOL, or submit yourself to internment at Levenworth (my original comment).
2006-05-25 10:59:51
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6965|Salt Lake City

remo wrote:

MorbidFetus wrote:

remo wrote:

It doesn't matter if Vietnam was a "just" war or not ... when the POTUS decides to go to war, the soldiers either go, run away, or spend time in Levenworth.
In a very extreme comparision, the Nazis had their orders to. I hate to bring those shitbags into the discussion but they were humans who were just following orders to. Here's a softer one, the shitbags in Abu Ghraib. Now I'm sure the majority of troops didnt go on My Lai missions but you cannot justify the means by saying "orders are orders."
Actually, I can justify the means.  US soldiers are supposed to follow orders.  It's in the military code of justice.

The Nazis too, followed orders.  Many probably believed in the cause.  Many probably didn't but feared getting killed for not following orders.  This was a weak attempt at a comparison.

Despite what you think, Abu Ghraib's soldiers weren't ordered to do the things they did.  They did so on their own accord ... both against their superior officers' orders and the Geneva Convention.  If they were ordered to do so, their superiors would have been charged as well.

The My Lai massacre was an unfortunate situation of soldiers following orders.  They were ordered to destroy that village based on intelligence.  Intelligence that was later proven wrong.

Orders ARE orders, friend.  Question them if you want, but at the end of the day ... it's either follow them, go AWOL, or submit yourself to internment at Levenworth (my original comment).
There are limitations on following orders.  If, for example, you are interogating some one that you captured (we'll use Iraq for an example) in their home, and a superior officer orders the soldier to kill, say this person's wife and then threatens to do the same to the kids if they don't comply, the solder is duty bound to ignore that order.  Following it could get him put in prison as well.
2006-05-25 11:04:22
sgt_mango333
Member
+31|6881

remo wrote:

MorbidFetus wrote:

remo wrote:

It doesn't matter if Vietnam was a "just" war or not ... when the POTUS decides to go to war, the soldiers either go, run away, or spend time in Levenworth.
In a very extreme comparision, the Nazis had their orders to. I hate to bring those shitbags into the discussion but they were humans who were just following orders to. Here's a softer one, the shitbags in Abu Ghraib. Now I'm sure the majority of troops didnt go on My Lai missions but you cannot justify the means by saying "orders are orders."
Actually, I can justify the means.  US soldiers are supposed to follow orders.  It's in the military code of justice.

The Nazis too, followed orders.  Many probably believed in the cause.  Many probably didn't but feared getting killed for not following orders.  This was a weak attempt at a comparison.

Despite what you think, Abu Ghraib's soldiers weren't ordered to do the things they did.  They did so on their own accord ... both against their superior officers' orders and the Geneva Convention.  If they were ordered to do so, their superiors would have been charged as well.

The My Lai massacre was an unfortunate situation of soldiers following orders.  They were ordered to destroy that village based on intelligence.  Intelligence that was later proven wrong.

Orders ARE orders, friend.  Question them if you want, but at the end of the day ... it's either follow them, go AWOL, or submit yourself to internment at Levenworth (my original comment).
Sorry...orders aren't orders.  There are legal orders and illegal.  American soldiers are bound to follow lawful orders.  As Mr. Bomb above says, American soldiers are not duty bound to follow, obey, or otherwise respond to an unlawful order.
2006-05-25 11:07:55
King_County_Downy
shitfaced
+2,791|6826|Seattle

I love this post. I've got more negs from my earlier post than for any other topic. LMAO!!!

Morbid Fetus, if you live in America, please leave. kthx
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
2006-05-25 11:19:55
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|7000|Atlanta, GA USA

MorbidFetus wrote:

I wouldn't call them heros just as I wouldn't call a gang member a hero who was ordered to do a drive-by. I find it quite odd how you can dismiss what went on just because they lived up to their end of the bargain.
I know somebody else has already mentioned, this, but I cannot believe you just compared a member of our military to a gang member.  The first puts his life on the line so that we can maintain the freedom we enjoy, the second is a criminal who murders people.  There is no comparison.

MorbidFetus wrote:

Knowing what you know now about the Vietnam War, would you gladly send your kids/relatives off to do the exact same thing if the President asked? I guess so, because you see it as such a positive thing.
The only thing I know is that we lost Vietnam because it was run by politicians instead of generals.  If my daughter (or son if I have one) decides she wants to enter the military when she grows up, I will be very proud.
2006-05-25 18:13:25
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6891|USA
McCain is a very strong inspiring individual. He sat in that prison getting beatings from his captors and refused to go home in front of the men who were already there before him when it was offered. He chose to stay. He has my utmost respect. I do not agree with the current politics he is playing. That will not change my view of the man's character.

HIs own words FYI-

Later in life, McCain would quip, "Do not call me a 'war hero'...I am anything but! The fact that I was incompetent enough to get shot down twice in war should dissuade you from that fact."

-Mason-


a liberal
2006-05-25 18:35:20
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6880|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

wanderlost wrote:

war hero
Some would consider this an oxymoron.
yes like intelligent liberal
2006-05-25 18:37:35
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6918|Tampa Bay Florida
Nice, Iowing.  Resorting to personal attacks as usual.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard