Yeah, FreeRepublic is just overflowing with morons with too much time on their hands these days.
Why are some of you confusing defending the soldiers (and asking that they not be depicted as trigger-happy pschopaths) with being pro-war? Or pro-bush? Or pro check-point? Well is carefully NOT defending Bush, the war, the checkpoint system, the neglect for civilian lives, or anything else *except * the soldiers. I don’t know what his politics are but his points have been perfectly valid throughout this thread.
What **Well’s ** saying (and I couldn’t agree more) is that the soldiers over there are victims of this stupid carnage as much as anyone. Let me repeat: they’ve had 11,000 wounded and 1,500 dead out of only 180,000 soldiers total over there. DO the MATH. And read about the stupid-ass way the checkpoint system works and ask yourself if you really think the soldiers are trigger happy or just stuck with having to make really shitty choices all the time.
So I don’t think it’s too much to ask not to piss all over them. And please tell me we’re not planning to be screaming “baby-killer” at the soldiers they return home this time around.
Now I understand that later on **Rashak ** tried to tone down his contemptuous comments in the original post, and I don’t think he’s a thoughtless guy. But I wish he’d have had the grace to say (at least) that maybe it was a dumb way to put it. Not to just pretend that it wasn’t really a nasty comment about the soldiers. It obviously was.
Welcome, Well.
No, why are you confusing saying that the checkpoint system that is implemented by the US military is flawed and that US soldiers seem to display some trigger-happiness with attacking the soldiers. No-one, to my knowledge, has used the word psychopath, you seem to have just made that up.
Wait, having said that they’re not trigger-happy, now you (as have others in this thread) start setting out the reasons why they would be a little trigger-happy. Except, you don’t want to call it that, so you settle for ‘having to make really shitty choices’. Though I expect that you would acknowledge that, on the ground, this frequently means them shooting at innocent people. Well, duh, we know the reasons why they’re trigger-happy, that is the whole reason that I am not attacking the soldiers, I am attacking the people responsible for the horrible mess that they are caught up in. And, I believe, that was exactly the tone of Rashak’s original post. That was how I read it originally and was quite surprised when anyone found anything offensive in it.
Christ do I have to draw your dumb ass a map or sumfin?
I said *"So don’t tell me not to question our rules of engagement if you yourself acknowledge that they can be improved. *
you replied…
The posts before I asked…
So you think refining any of the procedures wouldn’t possibly help these situations in the future?
To which you replied…
Sure it would.
Looks like your memory is worse then my imagination asshat.
next…
Funny, looking at post #83 I seem to be addressing your asinine assertions, I don’t seem to be defending anyone.
Try a fish oil supplement, perhaps that will help your faulty memory.
See the top of this post momento boy.
Yeah but at least they add something to this board in one way or another. You’re just wasting memory on a server in Chicago.
These posts are referring to the responsibility of the troops. Not the procedure, or Bush, or the war.
I agree with your earlier assertion that the bottom line is that all of the facts are not in. I also contend that it is possible that one, or a few US soldiers ignored orders and decided to shoot on impulse because they were either scared shitless or just evil people. But to automatically assume that is the case in this situation or any of the others quoted and cited in this or the other thread is fucking insulting.
How likely is it that an experienced seargent specifically ordered those troops to fire on a threatening vehicle because procedure and training told him to and for them to follow his orders? Perhaps other similar situations and their duty made them determined to fire on that vehicle and possibly injure of kill someone in there to protect themselves and those around them. It is not their job to question Bush, or the war, or their procedures when they are on the job like that as we seem to be trying to correlate here.
And them doing their duty does not make them triggerhappy. You see, triggerhappy does not mean “shooting at innocent people”. Triggerhappy means the irresponsible use of firearms or to shoot impulsivley at the slightest provocation. We train those troops not to be triggerhappy.
And what really makes me sick is propensity for those that dissagree with Bush, et al, we ignore the fact that even with them following orders and doing exactly what they were supposed to in the most responsible manner they we could expect of them then the same result would likely have happened anyway, others would rather call them “tiggerhappy kiddies who may miss dessert if they fuck up”.
If that doesn’t seem bias and insulting to you then your political leanings have allot more to do with how you see the troops than you care to admit.
Wrong again. “Holding people accountable for things is something we know little about” was said by me, and has everything to do with Bush and “the procedure”.
It seems you confuse easily. Let me make it simple for you. All you have to do is answer this and I’ss concede my memory is faulty. If you can’t then lets assume your the asshat.
-
When did I ever tell you not to question our rules of engagement.
-
You said:“Unlike you, I’m mature enough to seperate my disapproval of the war from the need for our soldiers to defend themselves”
I replied:"Unlike most of you I never brought up wether I approve ir dissaprove of the war WRT troop actions now did I? "
You:"I don’t give a shit if you did or not, it doesn’t change the facts. "
Me:"The only fact I see is the one where you accused me of something you have no fucking basis but your demented imagination. "
You:“See the top of this post momento boy”
So the second question is what am I supposed to see at the top of your post that won’t make you look like some demented jackass?
That’s funny. The only person who brought up accountability at that point was yojimbo who was referring to the troops. No one had brought up Bush or the procedure at this point. Yet you make an unqualified statement that leads people to think you were actually trying to contribute to the discussion. My only conclusion is that you are the one wasting memory by not contributing a damn thing to the discussion, or that you are lying post hoc about who you were referring to. I still havn’t decided yet, but your character in this thread makes me lean towards the latter.
All right memento boy it all pretty much stems from post 76 (IIRC)
How about here…
Notice how your above statement implies that we’re irrational because we don’t support Bush and his “procedures” we’re calling the troops babykillers.
That was in response to the same post above, lumping all those things together, to which I merely replied that I see them as separate. Whether you stated if you felt that way or not is irrelevant, and point which I make out below.
You:"I don’t give a shit if you did or not, it doesn’t change the facts. "
[/quote]
Yes the facts whether you support / don’t support Bush, one can acknowledge a lot of “accidents” are occurring in Iraq.
You’re referring to the accusation regarding who said what on the troop engagement thing. The first line in the post (the top of the post) addresses that.
Already fucking answered this. I don’t have all day to address each little niggling point you are unable to comprehend.
Oh the horror, I look bad in your eyes! I’ve suddenly lost all will to live!
Do you get it yet, or am I going to have to waste more time schooling your pathetic ass?
Any idiot still spinning his or her wheels on this argument, when there’s not enough information to judge one way or the other, deserves to be shot through the window of a speeding car.
Umm… No, it implies what it fucking says. I will say that your response does make you irrational.
Try again dumbass. What you quoted from me above was post 96. You "response was in post 83. How in the fuck can you respond to, or even infer from something I havn’t even said yet.
i don’t even know what this garbled bullshit is. Are you asserting for a fact that wether or not you support Bush you can discern what an “accident” is? If so, this is beaneth contempt and will not even acknowledge it besides I would advies you to quit digging yourself in deeper.
What the fuck are you gibbering about now? The first line in the post is “Christ do I have to draw your dumb ass a map or sumfin?”
No, I think you tried to answer it in your delusional way, and since your tried to answer that specific question, and then quote it again, and then get pissed about it, only proves my point that you are irrational.
No, no, I get how fucked up you are. Of course if you want to respond to this post and give everyone more entertainment…err I mean “schooling” then knock yourself out. :wally
To be honest there’s nothing to discuss because frankly you’re no longer making any sense. You’re not even nudging the goalline, you’re drop kicking it all over the place. You’ll find this is frowned upon around here, but I could care less, your sorry ass will cease befouling this place soon enough.
Oh, i’ll be here 
I just wonder if it’s redundant to pit someone from a pit thread.
Nope, happens all the time. I say to hold your breath though, as you’d only be wasting more memory. Now I realize how important it is to have the last snipe in order to end these things, so by all means knock yourself out here. I have more important things to sink to your level.
Ta ta bitch!
Hello all, my name is RedFury with that ‘latin’ temper of mine. :rolleyes:
I’m an pathetic asshole who loves to critizise the US and its policies, the US eats children, the US supports reloving door prisons, the US even let Sideshow bob, a convicted felon of attempted murder, out of prison.
The US is facist Germany incarnate, Bush, ooops sorry Hitler (who shouldn’t be seen in a bad light, he did ban smoking) wants all Iraq for himself so he and his frat boys can get drunk and piss in the Eurphrates, they want all oil to erect a momument in dedication to christ out of plastic, and stick it right in the centre of Baghdad.
Bush is Hitler ad nauseum, and I’m a patriot, its my duty to critizise the US in everything and any dictatorship or theocracy is miles better than the US, which should be more understanding of their ‘plight’
Anyways
Rashak Mani has been a devout anti-American ever since he came onto these boards, anything to do with the US being a superpower or GWB or the fact the West is the global leader, is something of an antithesis to him. Maybe he’d rather have Hugo Chavez as leader of the free world, since he does such a great job. :rolleyes:
Now, now, Rashak is from Brazil so he is a Westerner too. They got cowboys and rodeos and barbeque. Don’t get much more Western.
I dunno. He seems to blow hot or cool. I’ve seen him give very good arguments from a (sorta) outsider perspective and then another day sound like the rebels in ‘Bananas’. “The coup began with the sacking of the American Embassy, a tradition as old as the nation itself!”
Quick, someone call the children!, a parade of strawmen!
Thanks for acknowledging we’re westerners too 
I saw someone in another thread implying that Latin/South America wasn’t western and that scared me ! For god’s sake after Europe we’re the biggest number of democracies ! We mostly developed just like the US… former colonies of europeans. (As for me… fuck cowboys… I don’t like rednecks… ours or american I do like Gaucho barbecue though.)
As for criticism… I always have the impression that americans aren’t used to much criticism… either external or internal. For us its quite common to bicker and bitch about our own country as probably is with the europeans… whilst Americans before Bush seemed quite enthralled by their mythos of superpower… liberty and land of the brave, etc… Naturally no one thinks they live in Utopia… but few seemed critical enough. Some of the best authors about Brazilian History for example are in fact americans. They are called “brazilianists”. They have an outsider perspective that makes for some good insights and fresh perspectives. There books are well respected here… and have added much to our understanding.
I continue to hold the theory that certain political affiliations in the US are simply too emotionally insecure to deal with any sort of criticism against the nation. Anything that dares to be critical – whether it’s a flag-burning demonstration, or a nation that refuses to join our “coalition” – is instantly made into an enemy and must be destroyed.
It’s somewhat amusing when the subjects are less than ten years old, but you start to get the heebie-jeebies when you realize these folks are allowed to vote…
Daniel’s comments bear reading - as posters in this and the GD thread have made blithe comments about how the soldiers chose their job or, alternately, that if self-defense was so important to them they should just leave Iraq.
Joining the military is a choice. Once you’re sent to do a job, it’s no longer a choice.
Most people pick jobs on the basis of money, opportunity for advancement, educational opportunity, other benefits etc. Members of the armed forces have similar motives with probably a minority motivated solely by patriotism. Even if they had only the crassest of personal motives like the rest of us, however, they’re on the firing line and serving their country as a result.
I have yet to see any board members pull a Pat Tillman and go enlist, in order to show the “trigger-happy kiddie soldiers” how it should be done.
Criticize individual actions, supervisory policies, insufficient training and higher-ups all you want. Issuing sneering blanket condemnations of the U.S. military is not only pig-headed and wrong - but it plays right into the hands of right-wingers who use it as evidence of anti-Americanism.
Some folks here need to take a refresher course in Political Strategy 101.