(snorts) Well, aren’t we ALL? 
Oh, and to piss Brutus off some more, 
The early motorcycle gangs are said to have been founded by returning bomber crews unable to adjust to boring civilian life. (And lemme tell ya, the Eighth Air Force’s Hell’s Angels, 303rd Bombardment Group, ain’t pleased with those stories!)
Yup.
I hear that a contract for a major new pipeline was just awarded to Valdez Oil, inc.
I’m afraid that I can’t do that.
When a man is taught to be a soldier, he is taught to abandon a lifetime of social conditioning, & kill his fellow man.
I concede, most veterans make the adjustment back to a normal life. Some, however, do not. They never regain the restraints of society. Most do, but not all.
But these are mercenaries.
If they had been motivated by patriotism, they’d have joined the military. The real military.Instead, they are motivated by money, and in some cases, a love of violence, and they don’t find any problem with killing people for the big bucks. These are the men who have abandoned social restraints.
It is a reasonable conclusion, from the context of this article, that anybody who can handle a gun, & is willing to kill for money, can join Custer. The kind of men who would…are nobody I want for a neighbor.
The above could be the company motto.
lieu --I never said the Kurds were coming.
<ASIDE>THE KURDS ARE COMING! THE KURDS ARE COMING! WARN EVERY MIDDLESEX VILLAGE & FARM!</ASIDE> 
Captain Amazing --yea verily! May thoust get thine knickers filled with locusts! 
What about people who join the military because they want a career, or because they want an education? Are they mercenaries, because their motivations aren’t necessarily patriotism?
Pay attention, please. The article is about a “private security company”–i.e. mercenaries.
They have been soldiers, most of 'em. Could be again, barring any who might have been court-martialed. But chose money, instead.
The young people you mentioned chose to join the actual military. Although, given a certain prison, & what went on there, perhaps I’m drawing too much of a distinction.
You’re not just talking about mercenaries, though, Bosda, unless you want to back away from this statement:
If you’re talking about mercenaries, say so, If you’re talking about soldiers, that’s another thing entirely.
So I ask again, please clarify or retract your statements, for as they stand now they are an indecent slander against military members and veterans.
Okay, then how about the soldiers referred to here. Yes, I know it’s the Socialist Worker but Doctor Salam Ismael seems like a pretty credable source. Would you like to live next door to the people that are capable of this stuff when they return from Iraq?
I cannot retract the truth.
Mr. Moto, you are a Nationalist, rather than a Patriot.
What you believe to be the truth just isn’t so, Bosda.
Fffft!
Like I haven’t been Pitted before.
By better than you, too.
Pardon whilst I sneer.
No, we shall be punished by being forced to sit through Bosda’s most recent movie rentals :eek:
I never rent; I buy. (used).
Sure sounds like they were talkin’ about us being Good (ie having God on our side) and the other people being Evil (thus, not having God on their side)
Yep, see the comments about Good n’ Evil above.
I think that, if there was an invisible Monster God who saw everything and judged, Bush would be in real trouble. But the smilies were lame.
I fail to see the point. You specifically said that the ‘Bush Regime talks about God being on our side’, I called you on it, and now you are flopping around, posting a rather random GW quote. What gives?
A random Bush quote? Mmm hmmm. It certainly had nothing to do with metaphysical good and evil and how we were on the side of good. Nopers, naw awww, I’m trying to shift the goalposts, I reckon.
But here’s another ariticle to prove what the rest of the non-partisan country already knows. Bush plays very fast and loose, often crossing over the line, although his handlers reign it in sometimes.
(yes, the ‘not neutral’ is a paraphrase and somewhat out of context, but the semantic value is unchanged. )
and another cite
" Bush says God chose him to lead his nation "
Still wanna argue that Bush has never made any claims that God is, somehow, on our side? Or, rather, sometimes, that we’re on God’s side?
Or, as quoted in the Lancaster papers, can’t link it, as they require me to pay for registration, but here’s a cite (one of may) for the quote.
Or how about this one, where he talks about, how the work America is doing is really God’s work?
Naw, you’re right Brutus, how silly I’ve been. Bush has never suggested that America, in any way, has a special relationship with God. How silly of me.
When he talks about God being on the side of justice, and, lo and behold, America being on the same side, it’s just one o’ them thar coincidences. When he talks about doing God’s work, that’s just happenstance. In fact, you can forget it even happened.
How’s the cool aid?
Very true. It’s sad watching you post all sorts of quotes that have nothing to do with your initial comment. Rather than keep digging a deeper hole for yourself, you should just admit that your initial comment was just a snide liittle remark.
My original (and current) contention was that Bush says God is on our side. If the quotes I’ve furnished you haven’t proven that… ~shrugs~
The quotes you provided have not proven your original claim. I hope you didn’t waste a lot of time digging up the rest of that unrelated stuff!
I bet he would do better as the chair of the DNC. Very popular among the Democrats around here, he is…
~blink~
~blink blink~
You are, honestly, with your bare face hanging out, going to claim that quotes about how God selected him to be president, or speaks through him, or how we’re on the side of God and God supports our goals… those don’t speak towards Bush claiming that God is on our side? They’re “unrelated”?
Chug that jonestown juice. Chug it.
Odd.
Brutus begins this thread by mocking my religious/spiritual views, & starts offering Bush’s/his own views as rationalization/justification.
Hmmm…maybe I was correct, in my earlier, unspoken thought. Because, reading your earlier remarks, I rather thought they resembled hate speech against my Deist views.
No, I’m not BSing, to make a point.
I’m actually suggesting that that is Brutus’s point in ridiculing my post.
And I’m unhappy. :mad:
