Wait - they volunteered to serve but they did not select the conflict, which was what the quote said. As someone noted above, Iraq is not the only place in this world where U.S. Military are stationed.
I can only speak for the enlistee that I know the best.
He didn’t go over there to Free The Iraqi People.
He didn’t go to Find The WMD’s.
He didn’t go to Fight Al-Qaeda.
If he would have done any of those things, he would be a garden-variety pro-war moron with a little more steel in his spine. Noble motives with a stupid basis are stupid motives.
Nope.
In general, he enlisted for money. In the specific case, he volunteered to get posted to Iraq so that he could clear his juvie record and either serve on a boat, or get posted to Okinawa.
As far as I’m concerned, opportunism is not a good reason to place yourself in the position where you might have to kill people for no good reason.
Has anyone ever wished so? That’s a hell of a hypothetical. How about we cross that bridge when we get to it? If it hasn’t been blown up.
We don’t even tolerate posts that seem to suggest violations of U.S. law. I suspect an Iraqi insurgent would cross a bunch of lines right quick, starting with "giving aid and comfort …
If that were to happen, I would certainly be amenable to a debate on the subject.
While I may not think that our foolhardy moron der Trihs should be insta-banned, he should be warned for troll-like behavior.
Have we not had posters in the past who got banned for one-trick pony behavior of a simliar sort?
As our moderator Giraffe pointed out two posts before yours, the Forum Rules state explicitly:
No, but that doesn’t apply here. Der Trihs was clearly not arguing with any particular military-personnel poster in this thread, nor was he “directing” his statement at any such particular poster. We have all seen ample evidence in previous threads that this is the way Der Trihs really thinks; he’s not just using it as a backhanded way to slam some particular individual that he happens to be arguing with, which is what the rule prohibits.
You don’t help your case by insisting on your interpretation of the rules when it’s demonstrably wrong, and you only encourage Der Trihs to keep saying revolting things.
How would that apply to someone who was not a U.S. citizen?
No.
I’d rather the army not be manned by people who have nothing better to do than fight.
I’m actually not opposed aruvqan’s idea of universal service, though less for the reason of clearing lazy punks off the street. I like to think that if everybody’s sons and daughters ran the risk of one day having to fight a war for a stupid reason, we’d have less wars for stupid reasons.
Not me. I voted against the fucker twice, and protested against his ass and his bloodbath whenever I was able, at least in the run-up to it.
It the people who got snowed by his bullshit who bear responsibility for all the dead troops and all the dead Iraqis.
I think Contrapuntal meant to imply that allowing an Iraqi poster who was an acknowledged member of the insurgency to remain a member of the SDMB would constitute some kind of treasonable behavior on the part of the board.
Unpopular here, on an American dominated board. I suspect the Iraqis would consider my attitude toward American soldiers rather moderate.
I am not trolling; I’m expressing my honest opinion. As for “being a jerk”, should all pro war posters be banned ? They supported the mass murder of people who were no danger to us. How about the posters who tried to excuse torture by America; how is that not “jerk” behavior ?
Ah, I see. Hmm…
I think we’d have to call in the lawyers, at least those of them who weren’t first up against the wall.
Dammit, Frank, you beat me to it by six minutes.
Bullshit. Double bullshit. You can think better than that, I’ve seen it often. I am arguing for an interpretation of the rules. Is **Giraffe **the be all and end all? Once he speaks, no more contention is allowed? I also responded to Giraffe’s post, so your pointing it out was needless.
As for encouraging that asshole, that’s just stupid, and you know it. Or should. He needs my encouragement?
“Unpopular” is not my word. Try reading a bit slower.
Depends on how it unfolds. If IraqiJihad01 is trolling, he should get the flag. If he’s a reasonable person and people fuck with him, they get the penalty. It’s a judgment call, and not always easy. I favor the approach outlined above, where you hammer the person that started the fight.
I’d like to say - purely personally, and not as a moderator in any way, shape, or form - that to me the strongest argument for banning Der Trihs would be so that - as a moderator - I no longer would have to defend his vile, disgusting, and shit-headed opinions.
That is a blatant mischaracterization of people who join the military.
I should probably add that my heart goes out to families and friends of all service members, even the idiots. I realize it’s a pretty fine line I’m drawing, especially if you’ve got a loved one in harm’s way.
The fact that I don’t think they automatically have anything to be proud of doesn’t mean that I don’t want them outta there Right Fucking Now. They should have never been given the opportunity to get their stupid ass blowed up in the first place.
Given everything that I knew in, say, September of '02, which you’ve lately generally acknowledged to be true, how so?
As has been noted before, this board is run from a location in Chicago and adheres to US law, which is why threads that have the potential to violate our laws are shut down regularly. You need not apply the law to someone who is not a citizen, but the forum has some culpability for allowing him/her to air his views that may be in violation of our laws. As I understand it, that’s the administration’s justification for shutting down threads on such topics as P2P file-sharing. Why would it not apply equally in this case?
Sadly, no, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?
Well, the reasonable argument against this is that the best armies, generally, ARE made up of that kind of person.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but are you thinking that the army should be made up of some kind of citizen’s militia, that would be broadly representative of all stakeholders in US society?
While that might be effective in deterring misguided foreign adventures and encouraging Americans to take up an active interest in Geography, in a purely technical sense, it probably won’t be all that effective on a modern battlefield. A fighter pilot who’s sole purpose in life is to kill the other guy is going to do rather better at his job (which is, all niceties aside, killing the other guy) that a fighter pilot who’s an accountant during the day.