- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I have always hated that question.
While I support the troops, I cannot help but to feel that there are murderers and down-right absolute evil people in the U.S. Armed forces.
I treat the armed forces as if it were the American people... are Americans murderers? Well, no, but there are some who all.
I also find a slight bit of frustration towards those who can kill on command. I have a gung-ho buddy, who was all about killing hadjis and arabs and terrorists, and whatever else he could find to call them. After a few days of playing in the sand, he is not so sure...
I think war is more unimaginable than I can conceive
You obviously did not read the article, hardly surprising. If you want to comprehend what was written, educate yourself.Basic English:
If you could care less, that means you care at least a little, as the amount that you care can decrease.
If you could NOT care less, then the amount you care is at its minimum.
Your assuming that my opinion is based only on what you have deemed a non sequitur.However much the truth may hurt, you should admit, to yourself at least, that it is the truth. Yours is a non-sequitur as there is no necessary relationship between the two tenets you presented.
...instead choosing to whine about non-sequiturs. You choose terrible debates to start. :2wave:Yes. And I have explained how -my- opinion of your opinion isnt the issue.
Those who have extinguished a life are killers. I cannot even fathom the amount of stress killing another human being puts on the human psyche. Murderers implies that they have broken some law to kill a person.I just want to check before we continue.
Those who have extinguished a life are killers. I cannot even fathom the amount of stress killing another human being puts on the human psyche. Murderers implies that they have broken some law to kill a person.
Which is why I wanted to ask before I continued with him. He clearly thinks troops are murderers.
If anyone does not believe in a trooper killing but pays taxes is a hypocritical enabler anyways. I bet he pays tax. But Rev. what is your honest opinion of the video besides labeling it as propaganda? Did it appear a little bit like a group of soldiers shooting at civilians that where just driving by? That's what it looked like to me.
Let me guess "You can't judge enough by the video. Who knows the whole story? Maybe the guy driving down the road was lobbing mortars off camera at the soldiers as he drove to his destination."
When I think most people would watch that one video and see it for what it is. A group of young guys blasting a random car as it drives through a residential area. The people running out of their cars for their life don't even have weapons they are fleeing with. If they where combatants they would have weapons.
When I think most people would watch that one video and see it for what it is. A group of young guys blasting a random car as it drives through a residential area. The people running out of their cars for their life don't even have weapons they are fleeing with. If they where combatants they would have weapons.
So you assume guilt based on a short video clip? Have you ever been in combat?
I think its pretty clear that the WoT is an effort against terrorism and a fight against terrorists. No one is really confused by the title.The "War on Terror" was an idiotic name from the very beginning. The name was used as a further play on post-9/11 nationalism to ensure that funding for the military operations against terror groups would continue...which I have no problem with. But the name is ridiculous because it denotes a war against an intangible enemy. You can't "kill" terrorism, you can shoot it, you can't bomb it.
He SHOULD have just adjusted it a little, calling it the "war against terrorism".This is just an attempt to discredit Obama as weak or pandering to the liberals because nobody in this thread has articulated any level of change in operational capability or scope. The difference here is recognizes how moronic the term was and he's changing it.
Iraqi.....innocent civilians.....killed by.....American troops and private contractors.
You hadn't heard?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FD1jHueZZc&feature=PlayList&p=2DF4BC5FA39ECBD3&index=0&playnext=1
The "War on Terror" was an idiotic name from the very beginning. The name was used as a further play on post-9/11 nationalism to ensure that funding for the military operations against terror groups would continue...which I have no problem with. But the name is ridiculous because it denotes a war against an intangible enemy. You can't "kill" terrorism, you can shoot it, you can't bomb it. But...who is going to argue to cut funding against something as ominous as a "war on terror?" As has already been pointed out, it's as stupid as "the war on drugs." Intellectually it's a dishonest marketing ploy. There is plenty of merit in combating terrorist groups, you don't need a philosophically inaccurate title to describe it. There have been numerous discussions on calling our operations a "war on terror."
This is just an attempt to discredit Obama as weak or pandering to the liberals because nobody in this thread has articulated any level of change in operational capability or scope. The difference here is recognizes how moronic the term was and he's changing it.
The day he actually actually suspends our operations against our enemies in a way that jeopardizes this nations security I'll take some of your opinions on this topic seriously. Until then, I'll continue looking at the fact that he's enhancing our combat capabilities in Afghanistan, actively trying to with Pakistan to combat Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and increasing security at our southern border.
I think its pretty clear that the WoT is an effort against terrorism and a fight against terrorists. No one is really confused by the title.
He SHOULD have just adjusted it a little, calling it the "war against terrorism".
Don't forget the War on Poverty. That one is dumb too.
Like I said:It's a ridiculous title that was thrown down right after 9/11 in order to galvanize popular support for our operations against various terror organizations. But it's intellectually misleading because you can't actually wage a war against a religious or political strategy or idealism.
It is called a "War on Terror". You can never win a war on terror until all terror is eliminated in the world. All of it. That is why it is not only confusing, but laughable.Like I said:
I think its pretty clear that the WoT is an effort against terrorism and a fight against terrorists. No one is really confused by the title.
OK, again:It is called a "War on Terror". You can never win a war on terror until all terror is eliminated in the world. All of it. That is why it is not only confusing, but laughable.
Is it called the "War on Terrorism and Terrorists"? Even so, it's a highly unattainable goal. There will always be terrorists performing acts of terrorism.OK, again:
I think its pretty clear that the WoT is an effort against terrorism and a fight against terrorists. No one is really confused by the title.
I'm really not sure why there is so much difficulty understanding this.
You are being obtuse. I hope it is deliberate.Is it called the "War on Terrorism and Terrorists"?
Does that invalidate the effort?Even so, it's a highly unattainable goal.
The point I am making is that the "War on Terror" is a terrible name. It sounds endless and futile.You are being obtuse. I hope it is deliberate.
Does that invalidate the effort?
Clearly, the name of the effort is the most important component of same.The point I am making is that the "War on Terror" is a terrible name. It sounds endless and futile.
I do not recall making that claim. Try again.Clearly, the name of the effort is the most important component of same.
:roll:
Well at least the War on Terror is over. :2razz:
Does this change the name of my GWOT Expeditionary Medal?
It seems your focus here is on the retardedness of the name.I do not recall making that claim. Try again.
So calling out stupidity when I see it is stupid? Flawless logic. :lol:It seems your focus here is on the retardedness of the name.
We all understand what it means. Focusing on the retardedness of the name is, well, retarded.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?