See other History Articles
Title: There Are Too Many Veterans
Source:
Lew Rockwell
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance126.html
Published: Nov 12, 2007
Author: Laurence Vance
Post Date: 2007-11-12 06:41:23 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 3757
Comments: 251
We have too many veterans. We have too many living veterans. We have too many dead veterans. We have too many wounded veterans. We have too many disabled veterans. We have too many veterans who have fought in wars. We have too many veterans who have never fired a shot. Any way you look at it, we have too many veterans. Veterans Day began as Armistice Day – a day to commemorate the signing of the armistice on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month that ended fighting on the Western Front in World War I, "the war to end all wars." A few years after World War II, the holiday was changed to Veterans Day as a tribute to all soldiers who fought for their country. Veterans Day has now become a day to honor, not just those who have served in the military during wartime, but those who have served during peacetime or are serving now. It has also become a day – even though we have Armed Forces Day – to recognize all things military. Why? Why do most Americans hold veterans and current members of the U.S. military in such high esteem? Why is there such a military mindset in the United States? One reason people feel this way is because they falsely believe that those who serve in the military are somehow defending our freedoms. They are convinced that it is the military that stands between a free society and subjugation by some foreign power. They think that it is because of the military that we still have our First Amendment rights. It is inevitable that whenever I write about the military I receive an e-mail or two from a current or former member of the military who closes his rebuke (which usually argues that I have the freedom to write the "trash" that I write because of the U.S. military) with this simplistic cliché: "If you can read this e-mail, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a Marine." Has anyone ever thought this through? Are we are supposed to believe that the German army that couldn’t cross the English Channel to invade Great Britain and make its population speak German was going to cross the Atlantic Ocean to invade the United States and make us all speak German if it wasn’t for the Marines? Or was it Japanese that the Marines kept us from speaking? Or perhaps it was Spanish because of the tremendous threat we faced from Spain during the Spanish-American War? Were we in danger of having to speak Russian during the Cold War? Looking at the history of U.S. military interventions, there is one thing we can thank the Marines for: We can thank the Marines for helping to carry out an evil, interventionist U.S. foreign policy. Thanks a lot, jarheads. Semper Fi and all that jazz. Our freedoms, our liberties, and our Constitution that all Marines swear to uphold are under attack by our government. The state is a greater enemy than any foreign country or ruler. If the Marines are to really defend our freedoms, then they should be deployed to Washington D.C. After they oversee the closure of most federal agencies and expel the bureaucrats from the city, they can protect the Constitution (with fixed bayonets) from its daily assault by the members of Congress. In that case I would even say with you: "The few, the proud, the Marines." Another reason the military is held in such high esteem is that most Americans wrongfully assume that the military is actually engaged in defending the country. They don’t know about the hundreds of U.S. military bases on foreign soil. They don’t realize that there are thousands of U.S. troops stationed abroad to defend other countries. They have no idea that the United States has troops in 150 different regions of the world. Instead, they think that it is because of the military fighting terrorists "over there" that we don’t have to fight them "over here." The threat of a conquest of America by foreign invasion is nonexistent. And if we were attacked with nuclear weapons, even the Marines would be helpless to defend us. Although the purpose of the U.S. military should only be to defend the United States from genuine attacks and credible enemies, it has primarily been used to intervene in the affairs of other countries. When all of the troops come home and start guarding our borders and patrolling our coasts then, and only then, can we say that the military is defending the country. Even the Coast Guard, which actually patrols our coasts, is tainted – thanks to another unconstitutional, unwinnable war that the government is engaged in that is more destructive than the "enemy" we are fighting: the war on drugs. Still another reason for the military mindset is that members of the military are viewed as "public servants." Members of Congress like to brag about how they have been in public service their whole life. Some policemen and firemen have jumped on the "public service" bandwagon as well. But if you want to be a policeman or a fireman, fine, just don’t expect us get excited about the fact that you have a job. And plenty of jobs are just as dangerous. Veterans are looked upon as special because they "served" in the military. It didn’t take any special education, experience, or accomplishments to land a job in the military – they just signed on the dotted line. We don’t bestow any special honors on bricklayers, mechanics, and accountants; yet, we see plenty of bumper stickers that say things like: "My son is in the Air Force." We never see "My son is a plumber" or "My son is a garbage collector" or "My son is a waiter"? And why not? The people in those occupations don’t drop bombs on anyone. They "serve" some important needs of society. Shouldn’t we honor them as least as much as soldiers? It is unfortunate that some of the most vocal defenders of today’s military are Christians. It is even worse that churches fawn over current and former members of the military on Veterans Day. In response to my recent article "Should Anyone Join the Military," I was chastised by two detractors. The first asked if I could read the Old Testament and still say that no one should serve in the military. I was also told that God instructed the Jews and others to destroy people. It is not hard for me to read the Old Testament and still say that no one should serve in the military. America is not Israel, and the U.S. military is not God’s army. And telling me that God instructed the Jews and others to destroy people is like telling George Bush that he is the decider. There is no denying that God instructed the Jews and others to destroy people. But George Bush is not God, America is not the nation of Israel, and God didn’t command the U.S. military to kill anyone. My other detractor appealed to Alphonsus Liguori and maintained that as the sword maker has no control over the product, so "the soldier does not commit an actual sin unless he chooses to break a moral law while in the military." It is "the leaders or military officers who sin when they issue immoral orders." Military service is "morally neutral." But what kind of morality is this? It certainly isn’t Christian. What kind of morality says that it would be okay to kill someone in an unjust war in his own country who was no threat to you or your country because you are wearing a military uniform? Oh, I forgot: Just don’t break a moral law while you are killing him. It is high time that Americans stop elevating members of the military to a position of honor. It is long past the time when veterans have done anything honorable. We should abolish Veterans Day. And because of our shameful foreign policy and militarism during the twentieth century, we should abolish any Armistice Day celebration as well.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Honestly, if they marched on DC and arrested all politicians, then I would thank them. Otherwise, having a base in Portugal is not my idea of defending America. Damn those Portugese, trying to make us speak their language!!
Fortune favors the prepared mind. A zombie, however, prefers it raw.
I'll second that. Nothing is more revolting than the legions of American "Veterans"- most of whom never heard a shot fired in anger- and did little more than jack off for 2 to 4 years on the American tax payer dime - demand that we kiss their ass and "thank them." For what? Eating, drinking? Going to titty bars? Taking drugs? Supporting child prostitute pimps in the Phillipines and a dozen other places aroudn the world? Not a living "veteran" has ever defended this country from a real threat. Not one. The veteran scam is a drain on this country. They are even more parasitical than the welfare recipients I am sure many of them bitch about. Oh- you sat on your fat ass on Diego Garcia drinking Mai Tai's for two years while you spent 4 hours a day moving shit around and another 4 hours hiding from your CO to avoid another duty? And I am suppossed to pay for you to go to college and pay for your health care the rest of your life? I have support your below market home owner's mortgage rates? Get lost. My dad is a "Veteran". You know what he did for the 4 years he spent in the great noble US Army? Sat on his ass smoking cigarettes, playing cards and burying excess gasoline and paint and other supplies so it would look like they were doing what they were suppossed to be doing. Not that anyone would have cared one way or the other. Standing militaries for most countries are a necessary evil. There is NO REASON for this country to have one- at all. There is no peer enemy that could hurt the US in this HEMISPHERE! There is no reason the US should be spending 100 billion on its military much less 1 trillion! Give me a break. SO sick of this shit. And if I see another banner on an overpass "thanking" some dipshit for his "service" in Iraq I am going to puke. Thanks for what/ Killing some innocnent raghead who just doesn't want you there? For being an idiot and thinking that war has anything to do with "defending" America? Ughhh.
I served in the military at a time when many like Bush and Cheney and their ilk did not. Contrary to the marketing by the military, having a military background during Vietnam did not translate to acceptance by business. Whether in college, law school, or the world, I found that most of the Bushes and Cheneys did not want real vets around to remind them of their shallow patriotism during that war. That held throughout the 1980s, too, as downtown types were increasingly bellicose about what the US should do in the world, but increasingly nervous around real veterans. I used to have no problem telling young people to join the military. I thought it could be a good experience. The Bush admin has changed all that, however. Their blatant misuse of American troops for domestic politics is a violation of the duty the government owes its soldiers. The way the Bushies actually treat the soldiers is appalling. These recurring tours with short times back home are devastating to the families. Being a soldier or former soldier does not give one a better opinion, unless that opinion is about the functioning of the military. It certainly does not invest the vet with superior knowledge in the field of US foreign policy. Ultimately, we are what we do, and it took me 25 years to come to terms with that. Once you realize you really were doing a great deal of evil to innocent people, you realize why we are so thoroughly hated in so many countries.
Your hate for everything American is appalling.
Odd that you would be here where so many people support Ron Paul. We must assume you include him in you diatribe as he is a veteran, "AGAINST HIS WISHES" as are the majority. Dr. Paul spent 5 long years against his wishes working for peanuts. Perhaps to use your vulgar gutter language you would care to call Dr. Paul a"jack off" in an open letter to him. Surely 4um would not censor it. His campaign HQ address is readily available.
Based on your comment....I take you have never beem in a war or understand anything about history
May I assume you also would consider Ron Paul a "jack off"???
While Burk's rhetoric is over the top, I see no reason to "thank" anybody for "defending my freedoms," at least not for anything done since the end of the Cold War. How have Serbia, Iraq, or any other hapless third world country that we invaded and destroyed threatened my freedoms in any way? Why then should I "thank" anybody for waging war on them?
War has become a spectator sport (shades of Rome) to be enjoyed between shopping trips.
REPUBLICANS ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Like I said you understanding of history is lacking and your comment on Ron Paul proves that point
Guilt over the way vets were treated after Nam.
Certainly not, he was a draftee. Now we have "volunteers" .... called on in '03, and then again, and again, and again, and again ................
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
How's the current "volunteer" Army and the farces in the Balkans and the ME workin' for yuh? The American people squashed the draft and they'll do the same for the "Perpetual War" mongers.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Many of these were forced to go, and they had every right to government services after being used and abused by the govt' in a war that by McNamara's own admission was basically a cynical PR ploy. In contrast, those who "protect our freedoms" (gag) in Iraq volunteered to go, in many cases because they were conned by Bush administration propaganda and now want to "go and kick some ass." I don't know about you, but I never asked for their "protection" from any Iraqi.
rob... Possibly you may be correct about my lack of a sense of history. I admit my grasp of history may be shallow for my nearly 80 years of life. Having lived thru the depression, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and assorted other affairs, perhaps I was not paying attention. I, like Ron Paul and many millions of others had no choice, the government demanded we serve and we did. Having lost a brother and many friends to the evil deeds of war, I reject any blanket denigration of those that served. Burka most likely will indeed compose an open letter that all may read. addressed to all veterans, describing them with his vulgar gutter language, there may be room for others to sign their names as being in agreement. I look forward to the same.
Especially dead and horribly mutilated ones.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Remember all the press conferences during Gulf War I with generals showing us video of how we could drop a bomb down an air shaft of fly a cruise missile in a window? You could almost hear the home viewing audience cheer the death and destruction.
Hear, hear! I think that many -- maybe most -- who did time in the government's murder gang are mostly not to be blamed. After all, Uncle tends to grab people from their late teens to their early twenties, which are not most people's "prime time" for critical thinking. So, a fair number of present and former uniform-wearers should be regarded more as victims than as criminals. That said: it's crazy to honor victims for being victims. The illiterately- named "Veterans Day" is just another day on which all of us are pressured to avoid calling things by their real names. Being honest is going to hurt many victims' feelings, and that really is unfortunate ... but continued dishonesty perpetuates the crime, which is intolerable. It also makes us all even crazier, which is nothing that we can afford.
- - - - - - - - - - - Based on the above you should know better about wars and those that serve.... Armistice Day was to remember those that died in the "War to end all wars" WW! and to vow never to repeat it .....my farther was from your generation he never spoke to me about what happened in North Africa his kind like many others just sucked it up and moved on....but the demons of that experience never left him till the day he died...I never knew why he never spoke until it was my time to serve....wars are a barbaric way to settle a difference in this so called enlightened age...and those that support wars have by and large never been there.
What should I know about those that "served". Having lived it, I am perplexed as to why I and untold millions should be labeled "jack offs". Somehow I do not believe it is warranted. We were not as ignorant as some may like to advance. We knew in the 1930s that war was coming and Americans were being lied to. War came, Japan invaded us and we invaded North Africa. Americans were not so stupid that they could see the duplicity. Veterans are "jack offs". I assume that would also have pertained to the veterans of the Revolutionary War. How could they have been so blind, so ignorant, that they bled and died to found a country. Just common riff raff. My Great great great great Grandfather was one of those "jack offs" that volunteered, froze his feet and was a cripple for life. A grateful populace in 1823 finally gave him a $13 dollar a month pension. He died a year later. Damned riff raff "jack off" veterans anyway, why should we even recognize tham.
Rob, this is the best lesson in history I've seen Total Onslaught - Revolutions Tyrants and Wars.avi Walter Veith 1 hr 35 min 55 sec "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
well said, Enderby
I assume this would also include veterans of the Revolutionary War? The Civil War?
Alex Jones just said this to a VN veteran who called into his show and who now gets it. "Your service is not lessened by the fraud." I think that's meaningful.
One difference between then and now is TV. Americans just aren't willing to have this go on for year after year anymore, even if it were for a just cause. TV has caused generalized ADD among the entire population. I think the veterans are paying the price for Americans' general war-weariness. A clear majority of the public turned off this war years ago, to put it in TV terms. From 9/11 to now is a longer period of time than from August 1939 to August 1945, which is the generally-recognized span of WW II. All this is doing is transforming the U.S. into a Third World country right before our eyes.
“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston
I did not instigate WW2 or anything after that. I will guarantee that those here denigrating veterans with a wide brush have parents or grandparents that voted "FOR" the government that took me and my brother off to bleed and die. Do these people share any blame??? Of course not, they ride on the high moral plane. If I am a "jack off" for surviving, what ungodly name would they have for my brother who did not?
Sorry Cynicom, I meant that for Burkeman.
I couldn't agree more. Deciding to join the US military today is akin to joining the biggest mafia hit squad in the world. I know most are brainwashed into military service by lies in public schools and from recruiting agents so I can't fully blame them for being so naive at such a young age, but nevertheless unless they are retarded they are partly responsible for their decision to fight and possibly die fighting for no more than a measly paycheck.
God is always good!
Like I said before your understanding of history is all screwed up....you cannot compare the Revolutionary War with WW1/2 Korea Nam or Iraq for that matter you are comparing apples and oranges....I suggest you do a little book learning start with the "Just War Theory" by Saint Thomas Aquinas.
You are wrong. There are many that have defended this country from real threats, regardless of what you think. The very fact that we have (or had) a strong military is what kept other nations from bullying this country around. There is something to be said about "Peace through Strength". Just as a school yard bully targets the weaker kids, and leaves the "tough" kids alone, this country has been able to discourage those nations that would have liked to bully us around. It is those that you disparage as "jack offs" that gave this Nation her strength, and kept the bullies at bay. In this day and age where China is building up her military by leaps and bounds, has a blue water navy and subs capable of sinking US carrier fleets, has anti-satellite technology that can disable our ICBM's, and ICBM's of their own with sophisticated guidance systems, we should really be concerned about our military strength, and support those that ARE there as a deterent against outright Chinese aggression. Then again, China could win a war against us without even firing a shot simply by dumping the US dollar and bankrupting this country. We can thank the treasonous dealings of the corporate elite and their puppets in Washington for that.
Its 80 million gun owners in America that has stopped "other nations from bullying this country around".....
I doubt many of those gun owners would have the balls and the know-how to repel a real invasion, especially when facing nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Even in a conventional conflict, not many would be ready to stand up against well trained troops armed with automatic weapons, artillery, and air support.
OK, in which war? WW1 - No threat to America. WW2 - Again, no threat to America. (The bombing of Pearl Harbor was provoked by the blockade, and of course was set up to get us in that war by Roosevelt. Korea - Still no threat to America. Vietnam - No threat. Grenada- No threat. Panama - No threat. (Jimmy Carter even gave the Panama Canal away, which is now creating a real threat with China taking it over) Afghanistan - No threat. Iraq - No threat. Iran - Of course, no threat. Bosnia/Serbia - No threat. The real threats have only been dealt with by non-military members: the border patrol, the coast guard, and occasionally local police departments and the FBI.
God is always good!
You need to stop watching 24 and come back to the real world
You are right, professional murderers are always going to have an edge over novices. But the sheer volume of novices would overwhelm the professionals easily.
God is always good!
It's the wars that DIDN'T happen that I was referring to. In other words, I was speaking of the DETERRENCE against wars, rather than actual recent conflicts. And I would disagree with your assessment of WWII, where Hitler DID want to spread the Third Reich across the entire globe. He may very well have pulled it off if we didn't join the war when we did. If he had been able to take over all of Europe, Africa, and Russia, and if Japan had been able to take over China and the rest of Asia, building up reinforcements on both fronts, the Axis powers could have launched invasions of South America. From there, they could have pushed northwards up through Mexico, and carried out an invasion of the US from both coasts and from the south.
How many elderly gentlemen could successfully stand up to jet fighter/bombers, or nuclear tipped missiles?
LOL! Would you care to give me a run down about how your imagined military takeover of the United States would supposedly happen? This ought to be entertaining. we should really be concerned about our military strength, and support those that ARE there as a deterent against outright Chinese aggression. Never mind. You were writing a parody. I get it now. A parody about how China spends 1/30th on their military and have 0 aircraft carriers and fly spy planes right up to US airspace (oh wait that was the US doing that to China, never mind) and have 30,000 soldiers in a nation bordering the US ( oh wait, that's Uncle Scam in Korea, never mind), and yet the goobers still wet the bed in fear of the "Red Chineeee". Shwoo, I thought you were serious for a second there.
Do you make your own cool-aid or do the send it FedX?
The best one could hope for would be a strong insurgancy against an occupation force. However, I'm not sure many in this country could wage such an insurgancy, EXCEPT for the VETERANS.
Hitler couldn't even scrape up enough boats to launch an invasion across the damn English Channel. The RAF put down the Luftwaffe all by their little selves. The History Channel has warped your brain.
Are you trying to say that Hitler would have left us alone if we had just stayed out of WWII? I'm not the one drinking "cool-aid" pal.
If we hadn't joined Britain in her fight against Germany, Britain would have exhausted her resources and would have been unable to repel an invasion. It was BECAUSE of our help Britain was not invaded. The war was not going well for Britain until we came to their assistance. I don't watch the History Channel.
Thats a fairy tale I deal in the real world
In the real world, the US fought against the Axis powers in WWII. In your world, we shouldn't have. Looking at the possibilities and probabilities of your world takes more than just a glancing utiopian afterthought, it requires a serious look at various factors. I doubt you've seriously thought it through.
Heres a little history lesson they did not teach you in public schools As the war in Europe continued, America's leaders were attempting to get America involved, even though the American people didn't want to become part of it Roosevelt, the presidential candidate, was promising the American people that the Roosevelt administration would remain neutral should he be re-elected. Others knew better. One, for instance, was General Hugh Johnson, who said: "I know of no well informed Washington observer who isn't convinced that, if Mr. Roosevelt is elected (in 1940), he will drag us into war at the first opportunity, and that, if none presents itself, he will make one." Roosevelt had two opportunities to involve America in World War II: Japan was at war with China, and Germany was at war with Great Britain, France and other countries. Both war zones presented plenty of opportunities to involve the American government in the war, and Roosevelt was quick to seize upon the opportunities presented. His first opportunity came from the war in the Pacific. It was in August, 1940, that the United States broke the Japanese "purple" war-time code. This gave the American government the ability to read and understand all of their recoverable war-time messages. Machines were manufactured to de-code Japan's messages, and they were sent all over the world, but none was sent to Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt's public efforts to involve America, while ostensibly remaining neutral, started in August, 1940, when the National Guard was voted into Federal service for one year. This was followed in September by the Selective Service Act, also for one year's duration. But the key to America's early involvement occurred on September 28, 1940, when Japan, Germany and Italy signed the Tripartite Treaty. This treaty required that any of the three nations had to respond by declaring war should any one of the other three be attacked by any of the Allied nations. This meant that should Japan attack the United States, and the United States responded by declaring war against Japan, it would automatically be at war with the other two nations, Germany and Italy. Roosevelt now knew that war with Japan meant war with Germany. His problem was solved. He had made secret commitments to Winston Churchill and the English government to become involved in the war against Germany and he knew that the only way he could fulfill his secret commitments to Churchill to get us into the war, without openly dishonoring his pledges to the American people to keep us out, was by provoking Germany or Japan to attack. Roosevelt moved towards the Pacific theater first, knowing that, if he could provoke Japan to attack America first, America would automatically be at war with Germany as well. He also knew that, should Germany attack America, Japan would have to declare war on America. So Roosevelt attempted to get either nation to attack the United States first. Japan was to get the first opportunity. In October, 1940, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox sent for Admiral J.O. Richardson, Commander-in-Chief of the American fleet in the Pacific. Knox advised him that the President wanted him to establish a patrol of the Pacific—a wall of American naval vessels stretched across the western Pacific in such a way as to make it impossible for Japan to reach any of her sources of supply; a blockade of Japan to prevent by force her use of any part of the Pacific Ocean. Richardson protested vigorously. He said that would be an act of war, and besides, we would lose our navy. Of course Roosevelt had to abandon it. This scene in history poses two rather interesting questions: 1. Why did Roosevelt, the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces, including the Navy, not directly order Admiral Richardson to do as he wished? Why did he choose to use his Secretary of the Navy to almost politely ask him to create the naval patrol? Is it possible that Roosevelt did not choose to use his supreme power because he knew that this was indeed an act of war and that he did not want to be identified as the originator of the plan. If Richardson had agreed to Knox's proposal, and Japan had attacked an American naval vessel, Roosevelt could have directly blamed the admiral for allowing the vessel to get into the position of being fired upon by the Japanese Navy in the first place. Roosevelt wanted a scapegoat and Richardson refused. 2. Why did Roosevelt not replace the admiral with someone who would do exactly as he wished? It is possible that Roosevelt realized that Richardson now knew about the plan, and since he did not approve, he would be in a position to clearly identify Roosevelt as the source of the idea should the second admiral agree to it. Roosevelt did not want to jeopardize his carefully constructed image as a "dove" in the question of whether or not America should become involved in the war. It is important to remember that, in November, 1940, just after this incident, candidate Roosevelt told the American people: "I say to you fathers and mothers, and I will say it again and again and again, your boys will not be sent into foreign wars." Richardson later appraised his situation at Pearl Harbor and felt that his position was extremely precarious. He visited Roosevelt twice during 1940 to recommend that the fleet be withdrawn to the west coast of America, because: 1. His ships were inadequately manned for war; 2. The Hawaiian area was too exposed for Fleet training; and 3. The Fleet defenses against both air and submarine attacks were far below the required standards of strength. That meant that the American government had done nothing to shore up the defenses of Pearl Harbor against an offshore attack since the naval manuevers of 1932 discovered just how vulnerable the island was. Richardson's reluctance to provide Roosevelt's incident for the United States to enter the war, and his concern about the status of the Fleet, led to his being unexpectedly relieved of the Fleet command in January, 1941. The American Ambassador to Tokyo, Joseph C. Grew, was one of the first to officially discover that Pearl Harbor was the intended target of the Japanese attack, as he corresponded with President Roosevelt's State Department on January 27, 1941: "The Peruvian minister has informed a member of my staff that he had heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that, in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor...." In March 1941, President Roosevelt was still hoping for an incident involving the United States and Germany, according to Harold Ickes, Roosevelt's Secretary of the Interior. He reported: "At dinner on March 24, he [Roosevelt] remarked that 'things are coming to a head; Germany will be making a blunder soon.' There could be no doubt of the President's scarcely concealed desire that there might be an incident which would justify our declaring a state of war against Germany...." Roosevelt and Churchill had conspired together to incite an incident to allow America's entry into the war. According to Churchill: The President had said that he would wage war but not declare it, and that he would become more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces. The United States Navy was taking over the convoy route to Iceland. The President's orders to these escorts were to attack any U-boat which showed itself, even if it were two or three hundred miles away from the convoy.... Everything was to be done to force "an incident". Hitler would be faced with the dilemma of either attacking the convoys and dashing with the United States Navy or holding off, thus "giving us victory in the Battle of the Atlantic. It might suit us in six or eight weeks to provoke Hider by taunting him with this difficult choice." But Hider was attempting to avoid a confrontation with the United States. He had told his naval commanders at the end of July [1941] to avoid incidents with the United States while the Eastern campaign [the war against Russia] was still in progress .... A month later these orders were still in force. Churchill even wrote to Roosevelt after the German ship the Bismarck sank the British ship the Hood, recommending in April, 1941: "... that an American warship should find the Prinz Eugen (the escort to the Bismarck) then draw her fire, 'thus providing the incident for which the United States would be so thankful,' i.e., bring her into the war." Hitler was not as wise in other matters. He attacked his "ally" Russia on June 22, 1941, even though Germany and Russia had signed a treaty not to declare war on each other. With this action, the pressure to get the United States involved in the war really accelerated. Roosevelt, on June 24, 1941, told the American people: "Of course we are going to give all the aid that we possibly can to Russia." And an American program of Lend-Lease began, supplying Russia enormous quantities of war materials, all on credit. So with Hitler pre-occupied with the war against Russia and refusing to involve himself with the Americans on the open sea, Roosevelt had to turn his attentions back to Japan for the incident he needed. The next step was to assist other countries, the English and the Dutch, to embargo oil shipments to Japan in an attempt to force them into an incident that would enable the United States to enter the war. Japan, as a relatively small island, and with no oil industry to speak of, had to look elsewhere for its oil, and this was the reason for the proposed embargo. It was thought that this action would provoke Japan into an incident. Ex-President Herbert Hoover also saw the manipulations leading to war and he warned the United States in August, 1941: "The American people should insistently demand that Congress put a stop to step-by-step projection of the United States into undeclared war... ." But the Congress wasn't listening.
President Roosevelt wasn't listening either to the charges of Congressman Martin Dies, Chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. By August of 1941, the Dies committee had assembled a large amount of evidence which more than confirmed the suspicions which we had entertained on the basis of surface appearances: It was clear that the Japanese were preparing to invade Pearl Harbor and that they were in possession of vital military information. This information was made available to the Roosevelt administration by Congressman Dies personally. But this was the second time that Dies had appealed to Roosevelt about his knowledge of Japan's intention to attack Pearl Harbor. Early in 1941 the Dies Committee came into possession of a strategic map which gave clear proof of the intentions of the Japanese to make an assault on Pearl Harbor. The strategic map was prepared by the Japanese Imperial Military Intelligence Department. Dies telephoned Secretary of State Cordell Hull who talked to President Roosevelt. Congressman Dies was told not to release the document to the public, and the Roosevelt administration did nothing. (In April, 1964, when Dies told the American public of these revelations, he added this comment: "If anyone questions the veracity and accuracy of these statements, I will be glad to furnish him with conclusive proof.") It was also in August, 1941, when the new product of the I.G. Farben cartel was tested on humans for the first time. The product was called Zyklon B and it was to be used on the Jews and others at the concentration camps. In the Pacific Theater, Japan's war messages, being read in Washington, started asking their spy in Pearl Harbor to report ship movements, and, later, the exact nature and location of the ships in the harbor. Japan's request for more information on what was happening at Pearl Harbor was followed on October 16, 1941, by the resignation of the Prince's cabinet in Japan. These resignations were followed by the military administration of General Tojo and his cabinet. All of this activity was recognized by the American government as a decided step toward war, but still nothing was done to alert Pearl Harbor. It was on this day that Henry Stimson, Roosevelt's Secretary of War, wrote the following in his diary: "... and so we face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure that Japan be put into the wrong and to make the first bad move—overt move." Stimson was to repeat this concern that faced the Roosevelt administration when he testified before one of the Committees investigating Pearl Harbor. There he was quoted as saying: "The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves." The Japanese would still not respond with the incident to provoke the United States into retaliating, but America was convinced that it would happen ultimately. For instance, Secretary of State Cordell Hull told Roosevelt on November 7, 1941, that he foresaw "every possibility of an early war with Japan." Japan continued its efforts towards staying out of a war with the United States and had its Ambassador in Washington continue his efforts towards securing a no-war treaty with the Secretary of State. On November 22, 1941, they wired their Ambassador: "Do your best, spare no efforts and try to bring about the solution we desire." But even though Japan was attempting to avoid war with the United States, the Japanese were being encouraged by an unlikely source to strike out at the United States. On May 17, 1951, the New York Daily News featured an article by its Washington correspondent, John O'Donnell, concerning various old Far Eastern intelligence reports which were being closely guarded in Washington. Among those documents were the 32,000 word confession of Soviet spy Richard Sorge. Mr. Sorge was a Russian spy who had infiltrated the German embassy in Japan and worked hard to convince Japanese officials that Japan should not attack Russia, but move south, at the risk of war with the United States. When Sorge informed the Kremlin [in Russia] in October, 1941, that the Japanese intended to attack Pearl Harbor within 60 days, he received thanks for his report and the notice that Washington — Roosevelt, Marshall, Admiral Stark, et al. — had been advised of the Japanese intentions. On November 25,1941, the day that the Japanese fleet sailed for Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt convened a meeting of the various Cabinet officers: Secretaries Stimson, Knox, Marshall and Admiral Harold R. Stark, Chief of Naval Operations. According to Stimson's testimony: "The President brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps [as soon as] next Monday, for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning. In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people, it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors." On November 26, 1941, the Japanese Embassy in Washington sent the following message to Tokyo: "Hull said... I am sorry to tell you that we cannot agree to it [Japan's treaty Proposal]." The British Intelligence Service, which had men inside the Japanese diplomatic agencies in the United States, took the November 26th telegram to Tokyo as meaning that the "Japanese negotiations off. Services expect action within two weeks." And Roosevelt and the Department of the Army also knew this, as "... a very important American Army Intelligence officer, in service in the Far East during 1941... had gained knowledge of the Yamamoto plan to send a task force to attack Pearl Harbor and sent three separate messages to Washington revealing this information, and at least two of these reached the Army files well before the attack on Pearl Harbor." Finally, in desperation, the Japanese government sent a message to their Washington embassy on December 6, 1941, in essence breaking off all negotiations with the American government After the message was intercepted by the American government, de-coded and given to Roosevelt, he is quoted as saying: "This means war." Roosevelt now knew that Japan planned on attacking the United States, but still he did nothing about warning the American forces at Pearl Harbor. And on December 7,1941, Japan launched a "surprise attack." The American forces were not prepared for the attack. And the attacking Japanese forces had orders from Japan to return to Japan should they detect any evidence that the Americans had been alerted. As their air force attacked Pearl Harbor, they reported that the American planes were having difficulty in getting off the ground. This was because the American planes had been grouped in circles, with their propellers all facing inward as the result of an order by President Roosevelt. It was reported that Roosevelt had ordered the planes grouped in this fashion because he feared "acts of sabotage" against the planes and he was acting to protect them. Since airplanes do not have a "reverse gear" the grouping of the planes in this manner made it extremely difficult for them to rapidly get out of the circle and into the air. One critic of the circling of these airplanes, Harry Elmer Barnes, has written: "Bunching the planes in a circle, wing to wing, would [make them] helpless in the event of a surprise air attack." Another strange circumstance was the make-up of the fleet anchored at Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack. The Pacific Fleet consisted of nine battleships and three aircraft carriers along with a host of smaller ships. During the attack, the Japanese sank or seriously damaged eight battleships but no aircraft carriers. The American government had reasoned that the aircraft carriers would have an extremely important role to play in the type of war they felt would be waged in the Pacific theater. So all of the aircraft carriers were moved out of Pearl Harbor and all of the less valuable battleships were left behind. The battleships were expendable because most of them had been constructed prior to or during World War I, which meant that they were old and obsolete. Along with the aircraft carriers, Roosevelt's government also withdrew the smaller, more mobile ships that they knew could be more efficiently utilized in a sea war. On November 28th, Admiral William F. Halsey was sent to Wake Island with the carrier Enterprise, three heavy destroyers and nine destroyers. On December 5th, Admiral John E. Newton was sent to Midway with the carrier Lexington, three heavy cruisers and five destroyers. The carrier Saratoga had been sent to the Pacific Coast. Admiral Husband Kimmel, the commander of the naval forces at Pearl Harbor, clearly places the blame for Pearl Harbor's unpreparedness on President Roosevelt. He has written: "We were unready at Pearl Harbor because President Roosevelt's plans required that no word be sent to alert the fleet in Hawaii." The Rt Hon. Oliver Lyttleton, a member of Churchill's war cabinet, declared in an address to the American Chamber of Commerce in London on June 24, 1944: "America provoked [the Japanese] to such an extent that the Japanese were forced to attack Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war." The Council on Foreign Relations published an article in its publication called Foreign Affairs in January, 1974, that agreed with Lyttleton. The article stated that "Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor actually thrust the United States into World War II, but the Roosevelt administration decided a year and a half earlier to risk war in order to prevent the totalitarian domination of all Europe." So on December 8, 1941, President Roosevelt asked the Congress to declare war on Japan, stating that December 7, 1941 would go down in history as a "day of infamy." So when Roosevelt addressed the nation through his speech in Congress, he lied when he said: "We don't like it — and we didn't want to get in it — but we are in it and we're going to fight it with everything we've got." So Roosevelt asked for, and received, a Declaration of War against Japan. Germany followed on December 11th with a Declaration of War against the United States. This action was in accordance with the terms of the Tripartite Treaty signed earlier by Germany, Italy and Japan. Roosevelt's activities in the planning of Pearl Harbor had a costly price. The final toll was 2,341 U.S. servicemen dead and 1,143 wounded; eighteen ships including the eight battleships were sunk or heavily damaged; more than two hundred Army Air Corps and Navy planes were destroyed or unusable; and sixty-eight civilians were killed. For his supposed unpreparedness at Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel was relieved of his command, and he retired on January 7, 1942. After the war was over. Congress looked into the reasons for the lack of preparation at Pearl Harbor. Their conclusions are most revealing: 1. The attack was unprovoked by America; 2. There was no evidence that the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of Navy, provoked the attack; 3. The American government made every effort to avoid the war with Japan; 4. The attack was caused by the Army's and Navy's failure to detect hostile forces; and 5. The errors made were errors of judgment and not derelictions of duty. The last conclusion was apparently intended to relieve the commanders of the armed forces from responsibility so that they could not be court-martialed. Admiral Kimmel and General Walter C. Short, the commander of the armed forces at Pearl Harbor, continuously pleaded for a court martial to clear their reputations, but they were never granted. Admiral Robert Theobold, the Commander of all destroyers at Pearl Harbor, wrote a book entitled The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, in which he detailed his conclusions about the "surprise attack." He wrote: 1. President Roosevelt forced Japan to war and enticed them to initiate hostilities by holding the Pacific fleet in Hawaiian waters as an invitation to that attack; 2. The plans to use Pearl Harbor as the bait started in June, 1940; 3. War with Japan meant war with Germany; and 4. Roosevelt, Marshall and Stark knew about Pearl Harbor 21 hours before the attack. But in spite of all of this evidence that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was known by Roosevelt and his top advisors well in advance of that actual event, there are those who still hold to the position that the government, and Roosevelt specifically, knew nothing about it. So America now had a two-front war against Japan in the Pacific and against Germany in Europe. Just as planned!
Shwoo, I thought you were serious for a second there. Read "Sun Tzu" sometime. We have already effectively lost the war. They need not spend trillions of dollars on weaponry, as they don't have the level of corruption that we have in our military industrial complex where but a small fraction of the money actually goes into anything tangible. As far as troops, they have superior numbers, and they could easily send in hundreds of thousands covertly by cargo ship, infiltrating them into the country over time, with their weapons stored at various Chinese shipping facilities along the west coast. They have ICBM's take could take out our major cities, and could possibly disable any counter attack through use of their anti-satellite technology, destroying our GPS satellites causing our missiles to be unable to navigate to their targets. Hell, they could have already disabled the targetting systems onboard our ICBM's through the infiltration of our nuclear labs, putting backdoors into the targetting software that they could pry open whenever they wish in order to render the missle system useless, or worse, targetting them against US targets.
I'm fully aware of what led up to Pearl Harbor and do not disagree with anything you wrote concerning that. But that is simply a red herring that avoids the real question of what would have happened if we DIDN'T enter WWII when we did.
I guess you don't even know the timeline of WWII so this is pointless. The Battle of Britain was won by October of 1940 if that's any hint. Plus the Royal Navy had complete dominance of the Mediterranean throughout and had sunk the Bismarck by May of 1940, driving German sea control all the way to east of the Denmark Strait. And the Germans were going to do what to the US all the way across the Atlantic? Gimme a break. Also, let's not forget who declared war on who. Y'all act like Britain was some saint in 1938 that ruled her Empire around 25% the world with fairy dust and gum drop kisses. It's just that Old Britannia had her corpse piles more evenly spread out geographically so folks were less apt to notice. Plus, last I knew Dunkirk ain't in England. Britain was just pissed the Nazis were able to conquer more of mainland Europe in a year than they had in 800 years of trying.
American pilots volunteered to serve with the RAF prior to our entering the war. Never mind. I'm done and you win. I thought maybe this was a rational discussion, not some Red Dawn wet dream.
It would not have occured in the early part of the 40's, but if they had been able to reach world domination to the exclusion of the Americas, by the 50's they would have been able to stage an attack on both coasts along with an invasion from South America.
Eternal vigilence is what keeps us free. It is idiotic to rely upon the hope that every nation in the world will play nice and not attempt to attack at some future date. I gave one possible scenario, there are many others that could easily play out.
Oh, wow, ten whole American pilots. Well that settles it. Hell's bells, they shouldn't even call it the Battle of Britain. Maybe the Battle of Brooklyn would be more apt. Jeeesh.
That's good.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Just because someone wasn't on the front line, doesn't mean they should not be recognized. No standing army? That's a recipe for disaster.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Let's not forget the others that also helped out... From the site I linked; Do you even have any concept of what it takes to hold together an empire like you describe? It took Britain 500 years to put in their infrastructure for tenuous hold at best (see United States 1776), shaping alliances, backstabbing deals, assassinations, putting in and swapping out thousands of local Quisling princes, kings, governors, etc.over hundreds of years and most of this against backwards people who didn't even know what a rifle was. Shit, some of them hadn't even discovered fire. You're delusional if you think Germany was going much further than the English Channel or Siberia in 10 years.
The Germanys lost WW II as soon as they attacked Russia. From that point on, it was just a later of time. Every time I hear one of the old timers say that if it wasn't for them, we'd all be speaking German, I have to laugh. Talk about an exaggerated sense of self-importance. LOL
And you think that's an odd mix for an empire the size of England's? Most of those were still subjects of George VI at the time. What's next? Are you going to give a breakdown of the nationalities in the French Foreign Legion in 1940? It's Europe for chrissakes. That's how they operate.
I served for 15 years. I've never asked for yours or anyone else's thank you, nor do I or have I ever expected gratitude from anyone. I joined because that's what my maternal and paternal family did, served in the military. It's been that way since I don't know when. My great grandfathers, my grandfathers, my uncles and my brothers have all been career military men, both officer and enlisted. It was expected of me and I was groomed for it. I make no apologies to you nor anyone else.
If America hadn't fought Germany on it's European front, they could have more effectively fought against Russia on the Eastern front. We drew their attention and weakened them, causing them to divert resources and troops away from the war against Russia. Let's not forget that Italy was also involved, and we had a huge role in defeating them as well.
Brave souls responded to a clear threat against an ally due to their convictions and courage. Don't try to take that away from them.
The opposite is almost invariably true. Ask the Costa Ricans why they do so well in one of the most unstable parts of the world without one. You're 1000 times more likely to have your standing army turned on the people in a coup or purge than you are to be conquered by an outside force.
Speaking of... I was chatting with a friend of mine who is a lieutenant in the military. He and I got into an argument about politics because he's one of those true believers who cannot see the future for what it is. When asked what he thought of our troops being used on American Soil for different missions, or against the American People, his words were, "It'll never happen because it's unconstitutional." Imagine his surprise when I posted a link to the new defense bill where it states that American Soldiers will now be charged with carrying out the willful orders of the government for all domestic operations. Meaning, they can and now will be used against the American People, if the need so arises. Funny how the world turns aint it?
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
The war was not going well for Britain until we came to their assistance. With all due respect, this just isn't true. I would respectfully suggest you read up on the Battle of Britain. By the time the United States entered the war, the threat of invasion by Germany was over. This was mostly because of Hitler's own stupidity. After the Battle of Britain Hitler pretty much changed tactics, against the advice of his general staff I might add. If Hitler would have continued putting pressure upon the British Air Force he would have had air superiority which would then have given him an opportunity to invade Britain. He blew it though and that opportunity never came again. The only help the United States was giving at this time was military supplies. I would also disagree with your earlier post that the Nazi's would have taken over Europe had the United States not entered the war. This just isn't the case. It is pretty much acknowleged that even if the United States had not entered into the war, the Russians and the rest of Europe would have defeated Hitler. While it took a long time for the Russian War machine to gear up due to the size of the country and its poor infrastructure, once it was geared up, Hitler didn't stand a chance.
I mean the government of the United States. There were many American pilots who volunteered to fly for both the British and Canadian Air Forces. but they did so as private citizens.
First of all, most you listed were Dominioners who didn't have a choice. Second, you think the Czechoslovaks saw the British as allies? It was the Brits who wouldn't even allow the Czechs at the table to decide their own fate at the Munich Agreement. A good many Czechs were just as satisfied serving in the Wehrmacht shooting Brits. Some were more predisposed to be in the resistance so they could blow up Austrians, and still others were Commies who spent their time laying tracks for the Soviets to roll in with the socialist paradise. I'm sure there were even some Catholic zealots who went down to help the Croat Ustasha dispose of their little Serbian Orthodox problem. You have some fairy tale black and white version of Europe that is about as sophisticated as a 5 year olds.
I expect that's because of our nearby presence. WWII made it clear that a ready military is part of surviving the future. That does not mean license to preemptive invasions or domestic tyranny. For that you need a corrupt Congress and a thoroughly corrupt and treasonous WH.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
You are wrong. There are many that have defended this country from real threats, regardless of what you think. No, I am right. China upped it's military spending to a whopping 46 billion (the usual agencies in the US claim it is 96 billion but who would believe them?) Who could blame them? US flotillas off her coast day and night- fat spy planes over her coast day in night. How many countries on her borders are US aligned and have US bases? China has a reason for needing a military. It is called defense. Defense from a country that has proven itself to be a serial aggressor. Who has China invaded? Does China have even one- one - foreign military base? Bully? Who has "Bullied" the US? I will say this again- of all the countries of the world- this one- has the least reason to have a standing military. Not a living veteran has done anything to "defend" this country from anything. Now- if you want to "honor" some of them- honor the ones who were drafted against their will at the age of 21 and got a german 88 in the gut at some idiotic pointless battle that we don't "celebrate"- that Steven Spielburg doesn't make a movie about- like Hurtgen. Honor them- not for their "service" - but for being victims and having their lives snuffed out for the whimsy of some a-hole politician in a distant city that never gave a shit about him. Unless you consider slaughtering stone age tribesmen to be "defense" and deserving of the term "wars" This country hasn't defended itself from foreign threat since 1815 and even then- most of that defense was by citizen militias.
How did our "nearby presence" work out for Panama, Grenada, Honduras, Nicaragua, Chile, and El Salvador? Think about it.
I never said it was a friendly nearby presence.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
There's two types of countries on that list. Ones that the US invaded or ones that the US used the country's own military in either a coup or civil war for its own purposes. By getting rid of their standing army, Costa Rica has eliminated half of the possible threats (the one used most often).
What do you think corrupts Congress and has made the White House the seat of delusional wannabe Neros of the world? It is the US armed forces. It is the greatest scam ever. Americans resisted the scam when there was no mass media to scare them with ludicruous tales of "threats". It was hard to convince a literate Iowa farmer in 1875 that his taxes needed to be raised to support a military to invade China and get a piece like every other Europeon nation was doing or had done. But- with the dawn of the radio age- and the income tax- it was off to World War One and Americans have been buying the scam ever since.
Yep. They have built military bases on the Paracel and Spratly islands, and have acquired the Panama Canal zone and set up huge "shipping facilities" there which could very well be used as military staging areas. They have a similar base in the Bahamas.
I would guess that Costa Rica hasn't given us a reason to invade and that it has nothing to do with their lack of a standing army.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
No one recently, thanks to those that have served as a deterrent against that would try.
It's the handful of greedy industrial-complex corporations. The Cold War is dead, long live the new Cold War!
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Uh huh. What can one say to someone who sites commericial deals to run the pananma canal and the building and improving of docks for commerce as military bases? Not much. We are done.
No I don't. I warned back before the invasion of Iraq that we were attacking an innocent nation needlessly, and that it would result in a quagmire similar to Vietnam. It's only served to lower our readiness against REAL threats, and has resulted in a huge loss of life and treasure. It has brought us scorn from across the globe, and has done nothing positive for our "National Security".
Bingo. No money in it for the MIC.
Do you think they would be so stupid as to overtly build military bases in Central America, where instead they could do so covertly by disguising them as "shipping facilities" and "warehouses"?
Well thanks for the kind words SOP. I'll be sure to reciprocate in due time.
No, it is the standing military. The greedy industrial complex corps naturally exist to feed the standing military. No standing military- no complex. This country does not now, nor has it ever needed a standing military. Ever. I know this hard to see given that we are raised in a sea of military worshipping goop since we have been in diapers- but it is the fact. This country cannot- cannot- be invaded. The greatest military on Earth with the largest most sophisticated navy the world had ever known couldn't keep 13 colonies with barely 2 million people- only a third of which supported the rebellion- from seceeding. And Germany was going to invade with Tiger tanks and "take over" America? Japan? LOL. And in this day and age- when a few tactical nuke missles could wipe out any invasion fleet in mid ocean or decimate any landing staging area- there is really really really no reason for a standing military larger than what is necessary to keep a few nukes polished and ready.
We are done. If you are the sort of person who sees commerce facilities as "bases" then I imagine a bag of castor beans found in Iraq means they had a chemical weapons program. We have nothing to talk about.
Screw you Burkeman. You're the sort of person that gives the neocons their ammunition, and causes people to side with them against all reason.
Well being invaded by an aggressive nation is too high a price to pay for not giving the greedy corporations a military to sell to. There are other options. We have not been invaded, but there has been a silent coup. Our military has been mute while we fight wars for Israel. Bribery has shut the mouths of many, I imagine blackmail shut the rest. Assuming we rid ourselves of this evil plague brought to us by the Bush cabal, we will still need a high-tech standing army. The world is complex and China has a 200,000,000 standing army.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
China does not have a two hundred million standing army. It had a 2 million man army but has since been slashing that down as it modernizes. And China- of course- has reasons for one. They are called Russia, India, Japan, and the US. Those are real potential threats to China- not fake ones. China's military has never operated beyond a country that borders it. Their last attempt at a sea invasion of another country was in 1281 against Japan- (and China was under Mongol rule then) and it failed miserably. Recent Chinese history more than justifies a standing army. Frankly- I am amazed they don't spend more on their military than the paltry sums they do now considering the shame of being invaded by Japan, Russia, and carved up into zones of control by European powers last century. What similiar experience has the US suffered that would justify the trillion dollar a year military budget and 1000 foreign military bases? Nothing even remotely close.
Ooops! Thanks for the correction: With 2.3 million active troops, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is the largest military in the world
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Do you really think that Israel is to blame for why the US is up to its neck in the ME in blood? Israel is just one excuse. If Israel didn't exist DC would still be using its collosal military in the ME or some other part of the world. Look- when you are an empire- when you aspire to rule the world- smaller countries are going to try and use you for their ends. And some faction in the empire will think it is a good idea. That Israel seeks to use a DC Beltway warfare state already pre-disposed to foreign involvement- that wants wars to justify its powers and existence- that goes looking for countries to beat up on and invade- that looks for trouble- is only natural. Israel is under no illusion. The US is not it's friend. They are using an imperial state that is looking for wars anyway- to fight theirs. If it wasn't Israel's wars- it would be someone elses. Nearly all the wars Imperial Rome fought aided or helped out some other party that sought to use Rome to achieve their local ends. And Rome was more than willing to be used. The legions just needed something to do. This idea that Israel is "controlling" US policy is rather naive and quite simplistic. Israel is not getting the DC warfare state to do anything it isn't already more than willing and ready to do. A few blips in history and it could have been Iran that the US is fighting for in the ME. The "who" or the "what" or the "where" really doesn't matter to the Empire. Hell- if the US had 3 million wealthy, educated, and highly successful Armenian Americans instead of just 300,000- maybe the US would be fighting on behalf of "Greater Armenian" now instead of Greater Israel. It really doesn't matter to DC.
I agree. This idea that Israel is "controlling" US policy is rather naive and quite simplistic. Israel is not getting the DC warfare state to do anything it isn't already more than willing and ready to do. But Israel does exist, and the most powerful lobby is AIPAC.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
LOL. Never has a document been more invoked and cited but rarely ever followed than the US Constitution. The Constutition prohibits the Federal government from doing 90 percent of what it does today. When Bush allegedly said about the Constitution, that it was just a "Godamned piece of paper", he was only saying what has been true for a very long time.
And if AIPAC didn't exist- it would be someone else. If there wasn't a Jew in the United States- the US empire would still be kicking down doors in the ME or some other part of the world at the behest of some other self interested party. The point is- it doesn't matter to DC whose wars they fight. They want to fight elective wars. You know what prevents the US from siding with Iran and bullying Israel? An Iran lobby and a few million partisan Iranian Americans at the ear of the emporer. That's all.
LOL. A bit of an exxageration. Tasmanians were close though. When the Brits got there- the Tasmanians, cut off from the rest of the world for about 15,000 years, had lost the ability to make fire. They had regressed to the stage of "fire keepers"- they always kept a flame going and if that went out- had to wait for a forest fire.
Even if we accept that World War II was in some sense defensive (which is debatable), that still doesn't explain why I should feel gratitude to today's vets for their occupation and destruction of hole in the wall third world countries that not only never threatened us but probably didn't even care about our existence. Once again, why should I "thank" somebody for siding with one Somali warlord over another, bombing Serbia or occupying Iraq? How did any of that nonsense "protect our freedoms?" And why should be people who did this be entitled to some kind of special standing in society?
As there would be no airforce or artillery to call in airstrikes from a mile away I doubt the veterans would be of much use fighting an occupation. Experience shooting guys in sandals and track suits armed with AK 47's with gattling guns mounted on C-140 gunships circling overhead at 3000 feet wouldn't be much help. US Veterans haven't fought a peer enemy in 50 years. US troops in stand up fights with equals have a rather mixed record. Ask the Germans- who played their B and C teams on the Western front what they thought of the American fighting man?
Well, at least those that START 'em.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
I'm not following you here, could you clarify this statement?
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
You will never hear me demeaning veterans. Worst case, they went to hell, and if they were lucky they returned. Best case they wasted a hunk of their life. I think what these people are calling out against is the drumbeat of FALSE FEAR perpetrated on us. They view Veterans Day as a jingoistic, opportunistic appeal that ingenuously honors veterans and promotes more waste of lives.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
The admiral of the Mongol fleet had a bad time of it - ran into a typhoon, fleet wrecked etc. His retirement was a short. The Arabic Emir gives us the English word Admiral, BTW.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Of course they/we do. But they are misdirecting their rage for yet another unnecessary war once again brought down upon us by a tribe of plutocrats. My heart goes out to you.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
War has become a spectator sport Remember all the press conferences during Gulf War I with generals showing us video of how we could drop a bomb down an air shaft of fly a cruise missile in a window? You could almost hear the home viewing audience cheer the death and destruction. We are a shameful shadow of the nation we once were and have been slouching toward this situation for a long time.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Tragically, an assault on the common man by another untouched, "high-minded", wrong-headed politician.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
It's the wars that DIDN'T happen that I was referring to. In other words, I was speaking of the DETERRENCE against wars, rather than actual recent conflicts. Oh, you mean like the current debacle Bush involved us in? the Axis powers could have launched invasions of South America. From there, they could have pushed northwards up through Mexico, and carried out an invasion of the US from both coasts and from the south. And right about then, accoding to the lights of a feller called Monroe, they'd have gotten on our fightin' side.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
The "war" is not going well for us. See anybody coming to our assistance?
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
You're a propagandist's wet dream.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
You know what prevents the US from siding with Iran and bullying Israel? An Iran lobby and a few million partisan Iranian Americans at the ear of the emporer. That's all. I'm not following you here, could you clarify this statement? LOL Surely you /sarc.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
1) I thought we prevailed in WWII quite well without one? 2) Whatever made Eisenhower warn of the military/industrial complex?
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Actually- the Typhoon wasn't that bad. Recent studies and dives suggest Chinese ship builders may have deliberately sabotaged the ships they built for the Mongols as they were none to jazzed about their overlords.
Did you watch Ken Burns' "The War"? Yes Ike warned us, but it takes two to tango. Now they are privatizing the military. For whom? The corporations.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
No, I am not being sarcastic, I do not understand what he is trying to say.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Intresting. I remember going to a movie house in Taiwan when I was about ten (1965) and watching a overly long terribly dramatic big budget (for Japan, I guess) about the heroic event. I didn't know Japanese or Chinese to understand the script, but it really didn't matter. Mongols = Evil, Japanese = Good.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" The fact of the matter is this- if the US elite in 1914 were Pennsylvanian Germans instead of Wasp Yankees World War One would have ended in a stalemate or England and France would have lost. And then what? The Germans would have forced them to eat hausenfeffer instead of chicken co au vin and blood pudding? Every war of DC's doing since 1898 has done absolutley nothing for 99.9 percent of Americans. Worse than nothing- has robbed them of treausre, grown the power of government over their lives in each successive war- or worst of all- taken one of their sons' lives.
Come to think of it the ships all did come apart in the typhoon, according to the movie, that is. Was terribly dramatic, not too far off from those early Japanese Si Fi movies we all love.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Nonsense. Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, et al were just gofers? Podhoretz, a phone call away from Bush/Cheny, is just a journalist? It would have been bombs away in Iran yesterday if the cakewalk hadn't fallen flat and left the two geniuses scratching their heads and licking their wounds.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Sorta like Chinese Kung Fu movies today- Japs are generally single dimensional evil figures when portrayed. Watching old American World War Two movies is a funny time. So stupid and overtly racist as to be hilarious. The Japs in these movies are always squinting real tight so that they have only slits for eyes- have buckteeth- and or bottle thick glasses. LOL. And the Germans are invariably beefy apemen who yell everything when they talk (which is generally limited to "halt" or "vear r ur papers?") Not much has changed. Now the Ragheads are single dimensional figures of evil in every idiotic movie- or - if they are "good"- traitors and suck ups completely deracinated of any Arabic or Muslim cultural trace.
If we would have not blockaded the Japanese we wouldn't have been attacked. Our blockade was an act of war in itself. The Japanese had to do something or they would have starved to death. There was absolutely no need for American involvement in WW2. Germans were growing tired of Hitler and were ready to revolt and the Russians weren't just going to roll over and die if Germany happened to take Moscow. Taking territory is one thing, holding it is something else entirely. The same with the Japanese. They could have never held their reign of terror over China and Korea for too long, they didn't have the manpower or the weapons to do so. We made a mistake entering both WW1 and WW2. Now it appears we are going to start WW3 just to have something to do. Unbelievable. Of course the elite are really responsible for our involvement in these wars, only they are powerful enough to get a superpower to fight for them.
God is always good!
That partisans for Israel have the ear of DC and are influential is not debatable. That they are the cause for why DC is running amok in the world and the ME is what is not true. If not Israel- the US would be in the ME championing some other state or siding with someone else. It doesn't matter who. That is the point. If Iranian Americans were richer, more numerous, and better connected to DC than Jewish Americans things would be different in the ME but do you doubt the US would still be waging elective wars there? Of course Israel is going to try to get the empire to fight its wars. That is only natural. But the empire doesn't care who they fight for- as long as they fight. War is the point- not the who or the what or the where.
As usual you are eager to denounce the US at every turn but shy away from the controlling interests. From Edward House on we have been led into unwanted wars and no manner of your word parsing can deny history.
Jews are an integral part of the empire of the USA. I know they are only about 2% of the population, but their power over the media can easily get another 49% to think like them, hence their wishes become the majority's wishes. Brainwashing works, if it didn't then it wouldn't be used so extensively.
God is always good!
Did you watch Ken Burns' "The War"? Nope, I'm 71 and had a feeling it would turn out the same as the versions I've been watching for the last 50+ years. I've concluded that their main purpose is to refresh the sheeple's image of Hitler so we can slap his moniker on the next tin-pot dictator we wanna pick a fight with. Yes Ike warned us, but it takes two to tango. I don't remember his putting any conditions on it. You kinda lost me there, Pard. Now they are privatizing the military. For whom? The corporations. For their own sorry asses. They've run outta soldiers and the draft is presently the new third rail. Course it does add another layer to the M/I complex we were talkin about.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
I believe his implication was, not to put too fine a point on it, that if a couple of circumstances were reversed we'd have a fleet at the eastern most point of the Mediterranean and be making very nasty threats and charges against the nuclear nation in that neighborhood.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
i've really enjoyed your posts today, iconoclast.
Japan made a big budget movie recently that was controversial because it portrayed Hideki Tojo in what some consider to be an overly sympathetic light. The Germans and Japs are both beginning to take cultural steps to cast WWII in a different light. Movies portraying their fighting men as heroic victims is the first step in this process. The German made films "Das Boot" and later "Stalingrad"- are both along these lines (and Stalingrad was very much a white wash of the German armies actions in that city.) Rather- they are portrayed as simps being used by evil governments and a few radicals- while most were apathetic or hostile to their governments and the wars they were being made to fight. This is of course- bullshit. They were, for the most part, happy willing participants. We saw the same process with Vietnam. It wasn't the two million Vietnamese killed by Americans that were the victims- nope- it was the Vietnam Vet. He is the victim in our culture. Either a victim of his government or a victim of "cowardly traitors" at home. No personal responsibility for their actions whatsoever. Which is pretty much the reigning notion in America- no one is responsible for anything they do ever. Always someone or something else is to blame.
Thank you, dear. You caught me right before I toddled off to bed with my still employed nursie. Night night ... see you tomorrow, God willing and errands allowing.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Once again, why should I "thank" somebody for siding with one Somali warlord over another, bombing Serbia or occupying Iraq? How did any of that nonsense "protect our freedoms?" It didn't. Actually- all those ridiculous engagements and wars are directly responsible for destroying our freedoms . . . because that is what standing militaries do to republics. They are used abroad to make enemies that then are cited to justify police powers at home. This isn't new. Madison, Jefferson wrote about this at length 200 years ago. Hell- Tacitus wrote about it 2000 years ago. And why should be people who did this be entitled to some kind of special standing in society? They shouldn't be. But they are give uncritical almost saint like status so that any criticism of the warfare state can be easily construed as criticizing the sainted holy veterans who are numerous. The armed wing of the state is given honor and status in every culture- in America it is more nauseating than most- because otherwise they would just be armed thugs. And that is all a standing military really is- the armed thugs of the state. Take away the medals, the parades, and their often cited but rarely if ever followed "codes of honor" and that is what you have- thugs. Blow away the cultural shit mist that surrounds standing militaries and all you have left is a bunch of young men with guns ready and willing to kill for the state. By the way- the only "code" that the US military seems to have is not "death before dishonor", not any chivalric code of combat that holds them to certain rules that they would rather die for than violate . . . nope- it seems to be little more than "Do anything it takes to come home alive in one piece".
Gee, that should be a smash hit in Nanking.
you have left is a bunch of young "ignorant" men with guns ready and willing to kill for the state. I must be pointed out you left out the adjectivialy important ignorant. Not a perjoritive, just a fact.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Given that mass media was a pretty new thing in the early 20th century and people all over the world were falling for the great big stupid simplifications of history - like communism and various specious national fascist movements- I can forgive most Americans for being taken in by the scaremongering of a few Newspaper and Radio barons and their DC buddies. But now? Americans should be the most media savy people on the planet. And yet- Iraq- effing Iraq, even an Iraq with WMDs, was sold to them as a threat? Islam? Islam is coming to get them? Give me a break. Americans deep down all know these are lies. They don't care or they want these wars. They like it! They like DC "kicking ass". Nope. It ain't just the "elites" who are to blame. Americans share in the blame.
That might be my motto if in the hell of war.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" In the case of the American standing military- yes- "ignorant" does indeed apply. Which makes it an even more dangerous institution. Which army do you think was better educated? The Wermacht circa 1941 or the US military circa 2007? Think about that. Think about what some kid raised on rap, Grand Theft Auto, and porn is doing in Iraq right now compared to a German raised on American westerns and big band music and what we know they did in Russia and Poland. I shudder.
Don't just blame the military, the corporations are what make it possible. Privatization shows that the corporations don't need the military to continue their evil machinations.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Except that doesn't jive with his other posts.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
BTW, "The War" is very much worth watching, just as his Civil War documentary was. We were not ready for WWII, but we got ready in a hurry. A future enemy would not give us that kind of time. And now that we've given away all our manufacturing, we really would have to start from scratch.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
That has been the motto of every soldier in every modern war. There is no higher code than that. Bomb goes off near you- shoot everyone and ask questions later- or not- as is the case most of the time. Do anything- kill anyone- to stay alive or unharmed. That was the reasoning behind the "heros of Haditha" as they are called on Newsmax. Bomb went of- kill everyone nearby. Sniper in a house somewhere? Don't risk your ass by moving in on him on the ground and trying to take just him out- nope- just bomb the neighborhood and kill 50 people. That is "honorable"? There is no honor in these wars. None. The rationale behind the burning to death of infants at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that it saved the lives of American troops. Well- that is fine and all- but it ain't honorable.
Which army do you think was better educated? The Wermacht circa 1941 or the US military circa 2007? Think about that. Think about what some kid raised on rap, Grand Theft Auto, and porn is doing in Iraq right now compared to a German raised on American westerns and big band music and what we know they did in Russia and Poland. I shudder. B I was going to try to be clever but it seems small.................. I agree, it is too obvious to not agree.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Intereatingly enough, the Chinese government has forbid large protests and remembrances of the rape of Nanking as China and Japan move ever closer together economically (China is now Japan's number one trading partner- just surpassing the US this last year.) Political realignments of silly governments always follow behind the economic reality of never silly commerce- but it will come eventually.
There is no honor in these wars. None. The rationale behind the burning to death of infants at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that it saved the lives of American troops. Well- that is fine and all- but it ain't honorable. Yep - Ya put people in these horrible situations you can expect horrible results. Of that I am sure of. So the question to my mind is how did people who cannot find Iraq on the friqqing globe and know NOTHING of the real situation there get issued guns bombs jet fighters, tanks etc. As you know Burke, that is the fundamental horror of the war.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Ever see the movie "Idiocracy"? It isn't that much of a parody of a dumbed down stupid America steeped in porn and gratuitous violence- an utterly barren culture ruled by base passions.
Hello iconoclast and christine. Greetings palo verde. I figured with all the negative notoriety we Ron Paul supporters were getting at LP it was time to look for a venue more open to a foreign policy of non-intervention. I am now a strong Ron Paul supporter, and have been since this summer.
Welcome to 4!
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Welcome...and don't worry about mentioning 'Ron Paul'...we can handle it. :-)
No. But I see it every day. However I ask the folks I know if they "hate Iraqis or Iranians) just to see what is out there. It catches them by surprise, I think. Normally they say no, its their goverment they have a issue with. Which is a joke, cause I KNOW they know next to nothing about the issues. I just smile, at least someone asked them, maybe they will investigate a bit further. Don't hold our collective breaths on it.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Thanks for the warm welcome.
Ask them how much time they spend worrying about Iran killing them personally or any of their family? Ask them to walk around with a clip board for one week and to note every time a wave of fear about Iran or "Terrorism" takes a hold of them. If one of them actually has even one check down by the end of the week they are either retarded or dishonest.
hi buckeye, welcome! glad you've joined us. ;)
what other forums besides LP is censoring RP articles and news?
FR and Red State. He has the interventionists very worried.
did you know that Nat'l Right To Life is going to endorse Fred Thompson? can you imagine rejecting the pro life ob/gyn Paul in favor of Thompson? yeah, you bet the interventionists are worried.
They're entirely worried about the wrong things. If 95% of pro-GOP voters could see how their Republic is being undermined by globalism from the inside out, they would walk away from the pied pipers leading them to their enslavement. It's no wonder the GOP's favorite slogan is: they hate us because we're free.
Perhaps if you or your sons are ever called upon to fight for this country, you'll understand. One of the "fruits" of these ill-begotten wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the lack of respect for those that have served in the armed forces throughout this Nation's history. I see the NWO's plans are working, even on those that think they are impervious to such psychological manipulation.
See anybody coming to our assistance? Who'd want to after we are the ones that started it?
So are you attempting to say that the US was not involved in WWII?
There are many that enter the military out of sense of duty to their country. That they are used to fight unnecessary wars is not their doing. Their hearts were in the right place, but the reality today is that they aren't truly defending this country over in Iraq, contrary to what the media has led the general population to believe. Then there ARE those that simply can't find work who opt for military service, but should we look down upon them, or understand that the lack of work is the end result of those that have betrayed our country and exported many jobs previously performed by American workers? I have no respect for those that partake in torture and brutality, but DO respect those that truly served this country when called upon to do so. They BELIEVED they were fighting for this country's defense. Have none of you had fathers that fought in the wars of the past?
Couldn't agree more. I'm deeply disappointed that RP isn't getting the response from the public at large that he is from internet folk. There are two homes in my neighborhood that I thought might be good candidates for an RP yard sign ... one had a homemade sign saying "End the War", the other had one of those American flags with the stars forming a peace sign. I talked to a person at each and left them my phone number, neither were familiar with the only non-interventionist in the race. Neither phoned me. The sheeple are so conditioned to the two-party-one-message bondage that they just can't get there minds(?) around any other alternative. God help us.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
I don't disagree that if Israel didn't exist that the imperialists would invent another excuse but they'd have a hell of time inventing a better one. The Zionist cause has not only the backing of openly dual-allegiance agents with piles of money and tremendous cultural influence but a legion of nut-case fundamentalists as well.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
I find that to be a trait common to all humanity. I guess I came out of the womb an iconoclast. Even as a very young man I found the Nuremberg Trials troubling. My feeling even then was that those chickens could come home to roost, there being no people on earth immune to the effects of fevered nationalism, propaganda, and charismatic leadership (whether evil or otherwise misguided). Parenthetically, I have no German blood in my veins, my forebearers being all Irish or Scots-Irish. But one of my favorite uncles by marriage was of German parentage and he fought under Patton. The irony was not lost on me that the young men firing at each other were surely victims of manipulation by the powerful and rabidly self assured.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
I hold that also to be a universal trait.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Contradictions have a way of slipping in when passionate men speak. ;-)
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
I'm not blaming the military. I am not a pacifist, just (I would hope) a sane man inhabiting a mad nation. Don't get me started on corporations. I'm even more iconoclastic on that topic. Suffice to say that corporate business structure and a large and powerful central government is a marriage made in hell.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Bingo! Time is not our impediment, globalism is.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Did you get into an argument with them?
Been there, done that. :-(
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Hi Pal, good to see you.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
And neither was the massive killing of non-combatants in the European theater, Dresden being the example most often cited. WWII radically changed the guidelines for war, or perhaps I should say moved us back to scorched earth barbarism. Come to think of it, perhaps I'm failing to give General Sherman his due. However, the last two major wars, VN and the ME, have presented giant powers with new challenges ... guerrilla warfare and terrorism. So far, we seem determined to place our heads firmly in the sand and unconsiously trudge forward with "shock and awe".
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
No but I will. We enjoyed Mike Judge's "Office space".
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Yep, I talked to a young woman a few weeks back, against the Iraq war, and asked her whom she was going to vote for. She said Edwards. I didn't even bother trying . . .
Huh???
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Give me a little more credit than that.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
I see the NWO's plans are working, even on those that think they are impervious to such psychological manipulation. Sorry, but in case you haven't noticed, the "support our troops" mantra is basically the administration's newspeak for "support our wars." It's a small step from uncritical admiration for soldiers to uncritical love for the welfare- warfare state. If anyone is buying into NWO propaganda here, it's you. So I repeat my original question: We're supposed to "thank" the troops for "protecting our freedoms." How did bombing, invading, and occupying Somalia, Serbia, or Iraq protect my freedom? How did any of those countries threaten my freedoms?
If you've followed what I've already stated here, I didn't support any of those actions. I'm stating the fact that we DO have a military that DETERS foreign aggression, and that we should appreciate those who have served as that deterrent.
I could think of no other reason why you would state that I am "a propagandist's wet dream" in response to my post #45, where I simply stated that in the real world, the US DID fight in WWII, unlike the scenario that the other poster was yapping about. I also had stated that the analysis of possible outcomes of a scenario where the US did NOT enter WWII was something that required more than a passing thought. So what part of what I posted did you have a problem with?
Lately, our military has been doing nothing but PROVOKING foreign hostility. Who is going to invade us anyway? Iran? Iraq? Serbia? Some Somali or Haitian warlord? We could cut our military spending tenfold, and I can still guarantee you that there won't be any Iranian soldiers occupying Indianapolis or Chicago.
Wrong, it is those that run this government that have been doing the provoking. The military simply follow orders. A captain of an aircraft carrier is not going to disobey a lawful order to set sail to a specific location. A pilot will need to obey a lawful order to patrol the sky over a certain area. Bush and his neocon cabal are the ones rattling their sabers, the military does not decide it on their own. That the people of this country have elected an idiot and a stooge to the highest office in the land is the problem, it is not the fault of the military.
"That the people of this country have elected IDIOTS AND STOOGES to the highest office in the land is the problem, it is not the fault of the military." Some of these people need to read the words of Gen. Smedley Butler . He laid it out in plain language that even Burka should be able to understand.
Bush and his neocon cabal are the ones rattling their sabers, the military does not decide it on their own. That the people of this country have elected an idiot and a stooge to the highest office in the land is the problem, it is not the fault of the military. Some military personnel are just following orders. Many others, particularly back in 2003, supported Bush, his wars, and the neocon agenda 100%. Bush's popularity in the military was among the highest of any group, because a lot of people think that pro war = pro military and pro soldier. It's only in the last year, now that anyone with a brain can see that Iraq is a lost cause, that we get some grumblings about Bush and his wars from the military. And remember what happens to those in the military who don't toe the party line on Bush's wars. Their comrades see to it that they go the way of Pat Tillman, only nobody notices most of the time because they aren't former football stars.
I doubt he was whacked by his own squad members. Somebody wanted to shut him up, but somebody way high up the food chain.
And I believe that it was so high up the chain, that a SpecialOps team was tasked to do it. Stone-cold, soulless killers.
I think Burka just likes to hear himself talk and pats himself on the back for what he considers to be profound insight. It appears that he considers other people to be insects that are not worthy of having a discussion with him, especially if they have an opinion that differs from his own.
That's more than likely the way that it would be done.
All one has to do is read and dissect the rantings of Burka to see he is an America hater. A very bitter hateful person. He subscribes very demeaning names to people in such a way that they agree with him. As long as people read but do not comprehend his blathering he will enjoy it.
So did most of the country, except for those that could see through the smoke and mirrors even at that point in time.
True, but the most extreme Bush supporters that I've ever met tend to be either a) In law enforcement (with FBI agents being the most pro-Bush) or b) military. It would be interesting to see a break-down of the numbers of Bush's approval rating among military, law enforcement, and civilian.
During my time in the military, all of the rank and file hated first Truman and then Eisenhower. The number of people that care one twit for the government of any administration is really of little significance.
He does appear to be quite bitter, and his writings do appear to be that of one that has no great love for this country. I don't get a sense that he is one that simply hates what this country has become under the hand of those that wish to destroy her, it appears that he hates the simple fact that it exists. Nobody is proud of the way the early settlers treated the native people here. There are things that are less than just and fair in our history. But the PRINCIPLES embodied in our Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are what this country was meant to represent, even though imperfect men did not always heed those principles over the span of time. There are and always will be evil men that will attempt to subvert the laws of this nation for their own personal gain at the expense of the rest of us. It is our duty as Americans to identify them and bring them to justice, rather than throw in the towel and claim that the country is beyond redemption.
I think there were many in the federal law enforcement and intelligence communities, along with senior military staff, that knew the real score back in 2003. Especially those whose investigations were shutdown by "higher authority". Hell, here's an interesting link for you to ponder; Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials question 9/11
No shit Sherlock. I suppose that's a bad thing in your eyes. How dare the dirty French have ill feelings towards the rank and file Wehrmacht. They were just following orders. Actually it's worse, 'cause these dudes are all volunteers while the Wehrmacht was full of conscripts. People should be judged on their individual choices. What the hell else would you judge them on? I see you're one of those people who thinks there should be different moral rules for those in government than those who aren't. If it's wrong for you or me to get on a plane to go kill people in Iraq as Joe Schmoe private citizen, then it's wrong for someone in an ugly camo shirt with a flag stitched to the sleeve to get on a plane and do the same thing. Simple as that. If it's wrong for me to kick in people's doors at 3am 'cause they're smoking a spliff, then it's wrong for a guy with a tin badge and some lights on top of his car. These are real simple concepts here. By the way, have you ever been to an Army base down? Egads are they nasty. Endless stretches of titty joints, liquor stores, pawn shops, massage parlors, bars, tattoo shops and fast food with a ring of trailer parks on the periphery. My favorite sight in base towns is the seemingly endless stream of pregnant white trash girls with no wedding rings on wandering around in shorts so you can see their ankle tattoos. So appetizing. I bet divorce lawyers make a killing in those towns.
Odd that such a fine upstanding citizen as you would be frequenting such places. But, then maybe not.
Not odd at all. Some of us have jobs that require us to travel. What's odd is that you would even chime in with such a lame non-rebuttal. I notice you didn't deny the truth of the statement. That's good you didn't, because you would have to lie to do it.
You confuse the enemy of the people of France with their own military. I'm sure the French do not hate their resistance forces that fought the Nazis, nor do the Brits hate their own military that saved them from German invasion in WWII. That you hate OUR military illustrates where your head's at. You hate our military because you don't like the military, period. You think yourself better than they, and look down upon them as if they were bugs for you to sqaush with your foot. Of course there are some scumbags that join the service, just as there are scumbags that don't and simply spew bullshit on Internet forums instead. Don't confuse some of the actions of the battle weary (some have been there over three times) and psychologically damaged troops fighting in Iraq cloud the actions and deeds of our forefathers, who DID fight to defend this country, and served with honor and integrety as best they could. I could go into a long drawn out discussion of why a military force ordered by its governing body to engage in combat is morally superior to a private citizen engaging in hostilities, but I won't, as it isn't. IF the action is in defense of the interests of the Nation, then it is assumed to be morally justified. If it is in the interests of a private individual, and has nothing to do with defense, then it isn't. If there's ever a draft SOP, you best hope they don't toss your ass in some god- forsaken hell hole where you'll be dodging bullets and disease infested bugs 24/7 for the duration of your time in service. You might just come home to people such as yourself that will call you a scumbag, a loser, and a piece of shit for serving in the military.
Do the French hate the Vichy? Some did obviously and some didn't obviously. Could a German despise the SS? Of course there are some scumbags that join the service... And just those few bad apples made Fayetteville NC, Jacksonville, Columbus GA, Phenix City AL, and Valdosta the shitholes they are today? Whatever. By your reckoning with all those fine upstanding men there,military base towns should be better, cleaner, nicer, etc. than the average town and this isn't the case and you know it.
They chose to go there VOLUNTARILY. They joined a force that has done nothing but harrass, bomb, and destroy backwards hellholes for 50 years straight and not one of those places had attacked the US. That's like joining the Mafia and then claiming you had no idea they were involved in extortion. Everyone knows the Mafia engages in extortion as do we know that Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon and Somalia hadn't attacked us. Yet people still join the Mafia and the military. There are no excuses.
It is the vultures that run those businesses in those towns that are the real problem, not so much the military personel that are forced to live there. There are MANY cities that have military bases nearby that DON'T have the problems you list. It's just that the ones you list have local officials that turn a blind eye to opportunists that prey upon the young men that are looking for something to do other than sit in the barracks and jerk off.
My reply was a conclusion based a series of your replies. In future I will try to keep in mind that some posters are a good deal slower than others and if i choose to make a similar reply to you I will try to remember to end it with (summary conclusion) ... that is if I bother to reply at all. Have you given any thought to going back to just lurking?
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Where? Name 'em. I've probably been to 50 major base towns and they are like carbon copies of each other. Here's some more: El Paso, Colorado Springs, Cheyenne. Here's what a comment on a real estate site had to say about Ft. Knox (it shows I'm not the only one noticing): Sorry to break the news, but there are really no quaint small towns arounf Ft Knox. The area around Ft Knox is nasty, there is nothing but strip clubs, bars, and adult books around that stretch of 31W. Fairly accurate description of certain parts of Ft Carson - from what I've HEARD.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" That's not what they thought they were signing up for. In fact, that's not exactly what we have been doing as a matter of policy, although in reality, some of what you claim is in fact true. That's not ALL our military has done, however, as there are many that serve in the military that DO serve as a deterrent against REAL threats. An example would be the submarine force, whose mission is to patrol the seas and launch a nuclear strike if called upon to do so.
Excellent point - all I know is that as a percentage of donors, the military give more to RP than anyone else.
I already told you why that's not a plausible excuse. We KNOW what the military has done for 50 years. Or are you saying that people who join the military are just so retarded they can be excused for believing what they heard from recruiters and politicians over what they could see with their own eyes was US foreign policy for 50 years? I could maybe buy that.
First off, MANY US cities and towns have problems, even though there is NO military base nearby. I DO acknowledge that there ARE some real issues at some basetowns, but those problems are largely brought about by the opportunists that prey upon the young men there. You attempt to paint the military as the CAUSE of a non-specific set of problems, then expect me to list places that don't have these yet to be defined issues. Why don't YOU give me an example of what you are talking about, as you haven't been very specific as to the sort of problems you are attributing to the military, you just use vague language and imply that any problems in those areas HAS to be caused by the military.
In their defense, I have to offer up stultifying stupidity. Their backgrounds, educations, etc do not give them the best tools to make these sorts of decisions as teenagers...most do not have a hint of a clue.
I seriously DOUBT that you KNEW for the past 50 years what you claim to be blatently obvious. How old are you, 70+?
And BTW bud, what do you suggest, that we do away with ALL of our military, and simply wear sandals, smoke weed, and hope for worldwide peace and love? What are you, some burnt out hippie from the 60's that dodged the draft?
The surrounds of most military bases is not all that much different from the areas surrounding many college campuses - except that the college kids have much more jack and so the bars, pool halls, and are the rest are much more upscale. Businesses are smart enough to tailor their facilities to their customers' ability to pay. I will say that I've never seen a "Pay-Day Loans" store around campus.
Travel??? Right. I must say you and Burka seem to have a great deal of knowledge about the seedy low life of the military. I find that interesting. Lots of people have jobs and travel but you two seem to have a rather intimate relationship to that life. Very interesting.
Increased drunkenness, theft, burglary, violence, broken homes, bastard kids, shit schools, divorce, wife beating, bad housing, unkempt property and a general degradation of the quality of life are what can be expected to be overly represented in close proximity to anywhere a standing army is stationed. That's been a fact throughout history written about from this forum all the way back to Greek historians. Multiple examples of towns that exemplify these traits have been given, and I'm done beating this dead horse.
It's all about people trying to make money off those who they view as potential clients, or suckers, depending on the business.
You got your tenses mixed up there, bub. Work on that and it will make sense.
That's rampant in many large cities. Prove that those issues are due to the military.
You ever lived in New York? Sounds like you are describing how millions live in such places.
Yes. As for the smoking pot, I'll leave that to your unemployed Army buddies after they get fired.
You KNEW, as you HAVE KNOWN. For the past 50 years. Understand it yet? Do you wish me to state it differently, perhaps in a slower rhythm?
Sounds like you are describing how millions live in such places. That's the point you two dipshits. Small military towns have those problems out in the middle of nowhere.
No, KNOW as in KNOW present. We K-N-OW. At least I do. Apparently the verdict is sill out on you.
Don't know anybody in the Army, but once a Marine always a Marine. Don't worry, we'll leave you with your crack pipe and your ho's.
Nah, I try to stay away from Ft. Benning.
You certainly must. You lived it and don't deny it exists.
You appear to be claiming that ALL people that have joined the military over the past 50 years are assholes that wish to kill innocent people that have not attacked us. That we have bombed countries that have not attacked us may have been going on for 50 years or so, but for how long have YOU known about it? How do you expect young people over the past 50 years to have KNOWN what isn't that obvious to many still today, and was certainly not obvious decades ago?
You and Burka remind me of misfits in the military, spent three years, finally made PFC and then blame it on the military when some local church lady gave you the clap. I knew you been around that scene before, it shows.
Are you hitting the hard stuff and seeing double while talking to yourself in the mirror?
That's the way it's been, since the world began. If you've picked your pricing, your product, your location, and your 'amenities' correctly; you should do well. If any come up short, so may your balance sheet.
I don't claim to be a mind reader like you apparently do. I just watch what they do and make conclusions that way. Sure seems like they do an awful lot of it for a group of people who don't want to do it.
You see, nothing in the military reminds me of anything as I wasn't raised feral and didn't see the military as anything but a downward path so never joined. You on the other hand admit to first hand knowledge.
Joined? I got news for you young man. I go back to WW2 and we were INVITED to someone elses war. Your condemnation of the military, something you never lived but seem to take great pride in demeaning, shows a total lack of character.
is on a solid rock foundation of 5000 years of known human history. Thanks for noticing.
The military doesn't decide they are going to bomb a nation one day and start doing it the next. It is those you have elected to Washington that decide to bomb a country, and USE our military to carry out their dirty work. Those that serve in the military, along with the general population, are told of some urgent need to do so in order to "protect our country".
I could also tell you about "some urgent need" to place your life savings in my Nigerian bank account. That doesn't mean we don't get to call you a dumbass if you do it.
You're supposed to collect the money from them SOP, not give it to them. Is that why you're so bitter, you sent your life savings to Mr. Umbuta at the Bank of Nigeria? I was wondering where all that money came from that he sent me... LOL
Thanks for noticing. Odd, I have never seen or heard that before, just from you. Most countries I know of have military now and in the past. Sort of a necessary program for survival.
you sent your life savings Hmm. Exactly the opposite of the tenor I posed. You have trouble with possessives now as well as tenses. Must be rough not grasping the rudiments of your native language.
Was that part of the debate? Do try to follow along old man or the nurse will send you to bed without your pudding cup.
I still think your hatred for the military is based on a bad personal experience. Like I said afore, misfits are misfits whether in the military are here on 4um spouting their hatred, little men if you will. Worst kind.
Yawn.
You can think the Sun revolves around the Earth for all I give a shit. The problem is you haven't even made the attempt to dispute a single assertion I've made about the character of a standing army. And we both know why that is. All you're left with (in fact all you started out with as usual) is a personal attack. It may amuse you, (hell, your lame attempts amuse even me)but it won't make you right.
You finally admit something is amiss, all you have is assertions of your personal opinions which are based on hate. All of which are not accepted by those that can see your rank hatred.
You are the weakest debater on here I swear. Whether I hate or love the military my observations stand undisputed by you for a simple reason - you can't do it. By the way, another common thread through history on standing armies is higher levels of homosexuality than the general population. It's a regular queer smorgasbord. I bet you REALLY noticed that in there didn't you?
You must find such things fascinating. Apparently, the fact that you were too chicken shit to join leads you to find all sorts of reasons why those that did join are somehow fucked up and less of a human than you are. That, or you're feeling that you missing out on some action. Perhaps you should give Jeff Gannon a ring, he might be able to give you what you apparently desperately need.
Actually the military is often a coward's way out for people who can't hack it in business, work or family life. They want to go somewhere where life is regimented, discipline is external instead of self, and all life necessities are provided. That's why military towns resemble the dysfunctional lifestyle found in a typical poor rural trailer park or inner city gubmint housing. They aren't less human, but they sure as hell aren't to be put on a pedestal for worship as you do. You must find such things fascinating. I find alot of history fascinating. Should I only look at the things that aggrandize the standing army? Truth be told there aren't many. That, or you're feeling that you missing out on some action. Perhaps you should give Jeff Gannon a ring, he might be able to give you what you apparently desperately need. When you can't debate the obvious...yada,yada, yada.
You're the one guilty of playing the fag card first.
I'm not playing any "card". No more so than if we were talking about prison conditions and it was brought up there. From Spartans to Jannisaries to the Royal Navy, sodomy has been a prevalent aspect of military life. Don't ask don't tell, who are they trying to kid? Every once in a while the NIS or CID will harass a few queer bars in Norfolk or Fayetteville just to look like they are doing something about it, and then with a nod and a wink it's back to cornholing as usual.
My guess is that people in the military went from being the most enthusiastic supporters of the war to the most disillusioned. I'm not surprised by the high support they're giving to a libertarian, anti-war candidate after 4 years of being burned out by neocon wars.
I have an idea. You can test your theory by conducting a survey of military personel in bars near Camp Pendleton, or Camp Lejeune. Go up to a table of Marines, and ask them if they would be interested in some gay sex. Let me know their answer...
whack, kapow, thump, teeth all over.
It'd certainly be fun to watch... LOL
Another idiot that thinks outwardly macho bravado is the opposite of homosexuality. Since you seem to love the military so much though, maybe you should try to really love them. The Marines you're looking for hang out at the Boom Boom Room and the Brass Rail. The gay porn producers who are looking for in-shape masculine tops have been recruiting military at those places for years. I wonder if that's where they picked up Ann Coulter's buddy Cpl. Sanchez (aka Rod Majors) and the Marine Captain turned gay porn star, Rich Merritt. From what I've read, globe and anchor tattoos are quite prevalent in the business.
Looks like you know where to find them, eh Smokin? You must be a familiar face there...
Yeah, you so witty. Wellpers, I'm pretty much done. My point has been made without refutation, so there's no reason to continue. Bump away.
Yep, you've made it quite clear that you know where to pick up fags.
I guess by that reasoning you're a porno addict based on your comments about porn here the other day. Also, everyone on 4um must be a corrupt, queer, gubmint official since so many are knowledgeable about those things too. Yeppers, the only way someone can learn about toe-tapping fags in the airport bathroom is by being a toe-tapping fag.
Huh? Please, ask the nurse for more meds. Did they forgot to give you your weekly shock therapy this week? If you say so. I bet you know a LOT about toe-tapping, eh?
#2. To: Ada (#0)
It is high time that Americans stop elevating members of the military to a position of honor. It is long past the time when veterans have done anything honorable. We should abolish Veterans Day. And because of our shameful foreign policy and militarism during the twentieth century, we should abolish any Armistice Day celebration as well.
#3. To: all (#0)
#4. To: Burkeman1, christine (#2)
Nothing is more revolting than the legions of American "Veterans"- most of whom never heard a shot fired in anger- and did little more than jack off for 2 to 4 years on the American tax payer dime - demand that we kiss their ass and "thank them." For what? Eating, drinking? Going to titty bars? Taking drugs? Supporting child prostitute pimps in the Phillipines and a dozen other places aroudn the world? Not a living "veteran" has ever defended this country from a real threat. Not one.
#5. To: Burkeman1, christine (#2)
I'll second that. Nothing is more revolting than the legions of American "Veterans"- most of whom never heard a shot fired in anger- and did little more than jack off for 2 to 4 years on the American tax payer dime - demand that we kiss their ass and "thank them." For what? Eating, drinking? Going to titty bars? Taking drugs? Supporting child prostitute pimps in the Phillipines and a dozen other places aroudn the world? Not a living "veteran" has ever defended this country from a real threat. Not one.
#6. To: Cynicom (#4)
Your hate for everything American is appalling.
#7. To: robnoel (#6)
Based on your comment....I take you have never beem in a war or understand anything about history
#8. To: Cynicom (#7)
#9. To: Burkeman1 (#2)
SO sick of this shit.
#10. To: Cynicom (#7)
#11. To: Ada (#0)
Why do most Americans hold veterans and current members of the U.S. military in such high esteem? Why is there such a military mindset in the United States?
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
"I see the Constitution as being written precisely for one purpose -- to restrain the power of government; never to restrain the people" - Ron Paul
#12. To: Cynicom (#7)
May I assume you also would consider Ron Paul a "jack off"???
#13. To: Cynicom (#5)
he is a veteran, "AGAINST HIS WISHES"
#14. To: farmfriend (#11)
(Edited)
Guilt over the way vets were treated after Nam.
#15. To: robnoel (#10)
#16. To: Ada (#0)
There Are Too Many Veterans
#17. To: iconoclast (#9)
War has become a spectator sport
#18. To: Burkeman1 (#2)
It is high time that Americans stop elevating members of the military to a position of honor. It is long past the time when veterans have done anything honorable. We should abolish Veterans Day.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. -- H. L. Mencken
#19. To: Cynicom (#15)
I admit my grasp of history may be shallow for my nearly 80 years of life. Having lived thru the depression, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and assorted other affairs, perhaps I was not paying attention.
#20. To: robnoel (#19)
Based on the above you should know better about wars and those that serve...
#21. To: robnoel (#19)
#22. To: Enderby (#18)
#23. To: Enderby (#18)
It is high time that Americans stop elevating members of the military to a position of honor.
#24. To: Cynicom (#20)
#25. To: Cynicom (#20)
#26. To: christine (#24)
#27. To: Cynicom (#5)
(Edited)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#28. To: Ada (#0)
It is high time that Americans stop elevating members of the military to a position of honor.
#29. To: Cynicom (#20)
#30. To: Burkeman1 (#2)
Not a living "veteran" has ever defended this country from a real threat. Not one.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#31. To: FormerLurker (#30)
The very fact that we have (or had) a strong military is what kept other nations from bullying this country around.
#32. To: robnoel (#31)
Its 80 million gun owners in America that has stopped "other nations from bullying this country around".....
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#33. To: FormerLurker (#30)
You are wrong. There are many that have defended this country from real threats, regardless of what you think.
#34. To: FormerLurker (#32)
#35. To: FormerLurker (#32)
Even in a conventional conflict, not many would be ready to stand up against well trained troops armed with automatic weapons, artillery, and air support.
#36. To: RickyJ (#33)
OK, in which war?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#37. To: RickyJ (#35)
But the sheer volume of novices would overwhelm the professionals easily.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#38. To: FormerLurker (#30)
It is those that you disparage as "jack offs" that gave this Nation her strength, and kept the bullies at bay.
#39. To: FormerLurker (#36)
#40. To: RickyJ (#35)
You are right, professional murderers are always going to have an edge over novices. But the sheer volume of novices would overwhelm the professionals easily.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#41. To: FormerLurker (#36)
If he had been able to take over all of Europe, Africa, and Russia, and if Japan had been able to take over China
#42. To: robnoel (#39)
Do you make your own cool-aid or do the send it FedX?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#43. To: SmokinOPs (#41)
(Edited)
Hitler couldn't even scrape up enough boats to launch an invasion across the damn English Channel. The RAF put down the Luftwaffe all by their little selves.
The History Channel has warped your brain
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#44. To: FormerLurker (#42)
#45. To: robnoel (#44)
(Edited)
Thats a fairy tale I deal in the real world
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#46. To: FormerLurker (#45)
#47. To: FormerLurker (#45)
Part Two
#48. To: SmokinOPs (#38)
(Edited)
A parody about how China spends 1/30th on their military and have 0 aircraft carriers and fly spy planes right up to US airspace (oh wait that was the US doing that to China, never mind) and have 30,000 soldiers in a nation bordering the US ( oh wait, that's Uncle Scam in Korea, never mind), and yet the goobers still wet the bed in fear of the "Red Chineeee".
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#49. To: robnoel (#47)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#50. To: FormerLurker (#43)
The war was not going well for Britain until we came to their assistance.
#51. To: SmokinOPs (#50)
The Battle of Britain was won by October of 1940 if that's any hint.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#52. To: FormerLurker (#48)
As far as troops, they have superior numbers, and they could easily send in hundreds of thousands coverty by cargo ship, infiltrating them into the country over time, with their weapons stored at various Chinese shipping facilities along the west coast.
#53. To: SmokinOPs (#50)
And the Germans were going to do what to the US all the way across the Atlantic?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#54. To: SmokinOPs (#52)
Never mind. I'm done and you win. I thought maybe this was a rational discussion, not some Red Dawn wet dream.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#55. To: FormerLurker (#51)
#56. To: christine, Ferret Mike, Cynicom, robnoel, MUDDOG, boonie rat (#24)
"Your service is not lessened by the fraud."
#57. To: Burkeman1 (#2)
#58. To: SmokinOPs (#55)
"There were 10 Irish, 13 French, 20 south Africans, 21 Australians, 29 Belgians, 84 Czechoslovakians, 86 Canadians, 98 new Zealanders, and 139 Poles that fought in the Battle of Britain."
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#59. To: FormerLurker (#53)
It would not have occured in the early part of the 40's, but if they had been able to reach world domination to the exclusion of the Americas, by the 50's
#60. To: FormerLurker (#53)
but if they had been able to reach world domination
#61. To: FormerLurker (#58)
"There were 10 Irish, 13 French, 20 south Africans, 21 Australians, 29 Belgians, 84 Czechoslovakians, 86 Canadians, 98 new Zealanders, and 139 Poles that fought in the Battle of Britain."
#62. To: Burkeman1 (#2)
#63. To: Arete (#60)
The Germanys lost WW II as soon as they attacked Russia.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#64. To: SmokinOPs (#61)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#65. To: robin (#57)
No standing army? That's a recipe for disaster.
#66. To: SmokinOPs (#65)
#67. To: FormerLurker (#43)
If we hadn't joined Britain in her fight against Germany, Britain would have exhausted her resources and would have been unable to repel an invasion. It was BECAUSE of our help Britain was not invaded.
#68. To: FormerLurker (#67)
The only help the United States was giving at this time was military supplies.
#69. To: FormerLurker (#64)
(Edited)
Brave souls responded to a clear threat against an ally due to their convictions and courage.
#70. To: SmokinOPs (#65)
Ask the Costa Ricans why they do so well in one of the most unstable parts of the world without one.
#71. To: FormerLurker (#30)
(Edited)
#72. To: robin (#70)
I expect that's because of our nearby presence.
#73. To: SmokinOPs (#72)
#74. To: robin (#73)
(Edited)
I never said it was a friendly nearby presence.
#75. To: robin (#70)
(Edited)
For that you need a corrupt Congress and a thoroughly corrupt and treasonous WH.
#76. To: Burkeman1 (#71)
Does China have even one- one - foreign military base?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#77. To: SmokinOPs (#74)
Ones that the US invaded or ones that the US used the country's own military in either a coup or civil war for its own purposes.
#78. To: Burkeman1 (#71)
Bully? Who has "Bullied" the US?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#79. To: Burkeman1 (#75)
#80. To: FormerLurker (#76)
#81. To: Burkeman1 (#71)
Unless you consider slaughtering stone age tribesmen to be "defense"
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#82. To: robin (#77)
Costa Rica hasn't given us a reason to invade...their lack of a standing army.
#83. To: Burkeman1 (#80)
What can one say to someone who sites commericial deals to run the pananma canal and the building and improving of docks for commerce as military bases?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#84. To: SmokinOPs (#69)
You have some fairy tale black and white version of Europe that is about as sophisticated as a 5 year olds.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#85. To: robin (#79)
It's the handful of greedy industrial-complex corporations.
#86. To: FormerLurker (#83)
#87. To: Burkeman1 (#86)
If you are the sort of person who sees commerce facilities as "bases" then I imagine a bag of castor beans found in Iraq means they had a chemical weapons program.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#88. To: Burkeman1 (#85)
#89. To: robin (#88)
#90. To: Burkeman1 (#89)
#91. To: robin (#88)
Our military has been mute while we fight wars for Israel.
#92. To: Burkeman1 (#91)
If Israel didn't exist DC would still be using its collosal military in the ME or some other part of the world.
#93. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#66)
When asked what he thought of our troops being used on American Soil for different missions, or against the American People, his words were, "It'll never happen because it's unconstitutional."
#94. To: robin (#92)
But Israel does exist, and the most powerful lobby is AIPAC.
#95. To: SmokinOPs (#59)
Shit, some of them hadn't even discovered fire.
#96. To: FormerLurker (#42)
(Edited)
#97. To: FormerLurker (#40)
The best one could hope for would be a strong insurgancy against an occupation force. However, I'm not sure many in this country could wage such an insurgancy, EXCEPT for the VETERANS.
#98. To: robnoel (#19)
those that support wars have by and large never been there.
#99. To: Burkeman1 (#94)
You know what prevents the US from siding with Iran and bullying Israel? An Iran lobby and a few million partisan Iranian Americans at the ear of the emporer. That's all.
#100. To: Cynicom (#20)
Damned riff raff "jack off" veterans anyway, why should we even recognize tham.
#101. To: Burkeman1 (#89)
Their last attempt at a sea invasion of another country was in 1281 against Japan- (and China was under Mongol rule then) and it failed miserably.
#102. To: Cynicom (#26)
Do these people share any blame??? Of course not, they ride on the high moral plane.
#103. To: Arete (#17)
#104. To: Cynicom (#23)
The Civil War?
#105. To: FormerLurker (#36)
#106. To: FormerLurker (#43)
The war was not going well for Britain until we came to their assistance.
#107. To: FormerLurker (#45)
In the real world, the US fought against the Axis powers in WWII. In your world, we shouldn't have. Looking at the possibilities and probabilities of your world takes more than just a glancing utiopian afterthought, it requires a serious look at various factors.
#108. To: robin (#99)
#109. To: robin (#70)
WWII made it clear that a ready military is part of surviving the future.
#110. To: tom007 (#101)
#111. To: iconoclast (#109)
#112. To: iconoclast (#108)
#113. To: Burkeman1 (#110)
Actually- the Typhoon wasn't that bad. Recent studies and dives suggest Chinese ship builders may have deliberately sabotaged the ships they built for the Mongols as they were none to jazzed about their overlords.
#114. To: iconoclast (#107)
#115. To: All (#113)
#116. To: Burkeman1 (#91)
This idea that Israel is "controlling" US policy is rather naive and quite simplistic. Israel is not getting the DC warfare state to do anything it isn't already more than willing and ready to do.
#117. To: tom007 (#113)
#118. To: robin (#70)
WWII made it clear that a ready military is part of surviving the future.
#119. To: iconoclast (#116)
#120. To: Burkeman1 (#119)
That they are the cause for why DC is running amok in the world and the ME is what is not true. If not Israel- the US would be in the ME championing some other state or siding with someone else
#121. To: Burkeman1 (#119)
Of course Israel is going to try to get the empire to fight its wars. That is only natural. But the empire doesn't care who they fight for- as long as they fight. War is the point- not the who or the what or the where.
#122. To: robin (#111)
#123. To: robin (#112)
No, I am not being sarcastic, I do not understand what he is trying to say.
#124. To: iconoclast (#122)
#125. To: tom007 (#113)
#126. To: christine (#124)
i've really enjoyed your posts today, iconoclast.
#127. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#96)
#128. To: Burkeman1 (#125)
The Germans and Japs are both beginning to take cultural steps to cast WWII in a different light. Movies portraying their fighting men as heroic victims is the first step in this process.
#129. To: Burkeman1 (#127)
you have left is a bunch of young men with guns ready and willing to kill for the state.
#130. To: RickyJ (#118)
Of course the elite are really responsible for our involvement in these wars, only they are powerful enough to get a superpower to fight for them.
#131. To: Burkeman1 (#127)
nope- it seems to be little more than "Do anything it takes to come home alive in one piece".
#132. To: tom007 (#129)
#133. To: iconoclast (#122)
#134. To: iconoclast (#123)
#135. To: iconoclast (#122)
#136. To: tom007 (#131)
That might be my motto if in the hell of war.
#137. To: Burkeman1 (#132)
In the case of the American standing military- yes- "ignorant" does indeed apply. Which makes it an even more dangerous institution.
#138. To: Jethro Tull (#128)
#139. To: Burkeman1 (#136)
Don't risk your ass by moving in on him on the ground and trying to take just him out- nope- just bomb the neighborhood and kill 50 people. That is "honorable"?
#140. To: tom007 (#139)
#141. To: iconoclast, christine, palo verde (#126)
#142. To: buckeye (#141)
I am now a strong Ron Paul supporter, and have been since this summer.
#143. To: buckeye (#141)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#144. To: Burkeman1 (#140)
Ever see the movie "Idiocracy"? It isn't that much of a parody of a dumbed down stupid America steeped in porn and gratuitous violence- an utterly barren culture ruled by base passions.
#145. To: who knows what evil, robin (#143)
#146. To: tom007 (#144)
#147. To: buckeye (#141)
#148. To: buckeye (#145)
It wouldn't be a problem for just one forum doing this. But three that I know of? Something odd is happening.
#149. To: christine (#148)
#150. To: buckeye (#149)
#151. To: christine (#150)
#152. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#96)
And why should be people who did this be entitled to some kind of special standing in society?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#153. To: iconoclast (#106)
The "war" is not going well for us.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#154. To: iconoclast (#107)
You're a propagandist's wet dream.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#155. To: Ada (#0)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#156. To: Burkeman1 (#114)
Every war of DC's doing since 1898 has done absolutley nothing for 99.9 percent of Americans. Worse than nothing- has robbed them of treasure, grown the power of government over their lives in each successive war- or worst of all- taken one of their sons' lives.
#157. To: Burkeman1 (#119)
If Iranian Americans were richer, more numerous, and better connected to DC than Jewish Americans things would be different in the ME but do you doubt the US would still be waging elective wars there?
#158. To: Burkeman1 (#125)
Always someone or something else is to blame.
#159. To: Burkeman1 (#127)
"Do anything it takes to come home alive in one piece".
#160. To: robin, Burkeman! (#134)
Except that doesn't jive with his other posts.
#161. To: robin (#133)
Don't just blame the military, the corporations are what make it possible.
#162. To: robin (#135)
And now that we've given away all our manufacturing, we really would have to start from scratch.
#163. To: iconoclast (#156)
I talked to a person at each and left them my phone number, neither were familiar with the only non-interventionist in the race. Neither phoned me.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#164. To: tom007 (#137)
"Satan / Cheney in "08"
#165. To: buckeye (#141)
#166. To: Burkeman1 (#136)
There is no honor in these wars. None. The rationale behind the burning to death of infants at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that it saved the lives of American troops. Well- that is fine and all- but it ain't honorable.
#167. To: Burkeman1 (#140)
Ever see the movie "Idiocracy"?
#168. To: iconoclast (#156)
The sheeple are so conditioned to the two-party-one-message bondage that they just can't get there minds(?) around any other alternative.
#169. To: FormerLurker (#154)
So are you attempting to say that the US was not involved in WWII?
#170. To: FormerLurker (#163)
Did you get into an argument with them?
#171. To: FormerLurker (#152)
(Edited)
One of the "fruits" of these ill-begotten wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the lack of respect for those that have served in the armed forces throughout this Nation's history.
#172. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#171)
How did bombing, invading, and occupying Somalia, Serbia, or Iraq protect my freedom? How did any of those countries threaten my freedoms?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#173. To: iconoclast (#169)
(Edited)
Huh???
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#174. To: FormerLurker (#172)
(Edited)
If you've followed what I've already stated here, I didn't support any of those actions. I'm stating the fact that we DO have a military that DETERS foreign aggression, and that we should appreciate those who have served as that deterrent.
#175. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#174)
(Edited)
Lately, our military has been doing nothing but PROVOKING foreign hostility.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#176. To: FormerLurker (#175)
That the people of this country have elected an idiot and a stooge to the highest office in the land is the problem, it is not the fault of the military.
#177. To: FormerLurker (#175)
Wrong, it is those that run this government that have beed doing the provoking. The military simply follow orders. A captain of an aircraft carrier is not going to disobey a lawful order to set sail to a specific location. A pilot will need to obey a lawful order to patrol the sky over a certain area.
#178. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#177)
Their comrades see to it that they go the way of Pat Tillman, only nobody notices most of the time because they aren't former football stars.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#179. To: FormerLurker (#178)
Somebody wanted to shut him up, but somebody way high up the food chain.
#180. To: Cynicom (#176)
Some of these people need to read the words of Gen. Smedley Butler . He laid it out in plain language that even Burka should be able to understand.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#181. To: lodwick (#179)
And I believe that it was so high up the chain, that a SpecialOps team was tasked to do it.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#182. To: FormerLurker (#180)
#183. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#177)
Many others, particularly back in 2003, supported Bush, his wars, and the neocon agenda 100%.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#184. To: FormerLurker (#183)
So did most of the country, except for those that could see through the smoke and mirrors even at that point in time.
#185. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#184)
It would be interesting to see a break-down of the numbers of Bush's approval rating among military, law enforcement, and civilian.
#186. To: Cynicom (#182)
All one has to do is read and dissect the rantings of Burka to see he is an America hater. A very bitter hateful person.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#187. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#184)
(Edited)
True, but the most extreme Bush supporters that I've ever met tend to be either a) In law enforcement (with FBI agents being the most pro- Bush) or b) military.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#188. To: FormerLurker (#152)
One of the "fruits" of these ill-begotten wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the lack of respect for those that have served in the armed forces throughout this Nation's history.
#189. To: SmokinOPs (#188)
My favorite sight in base towns is the seemingly endless stream of pregnant white trash girls with no wedding rings on wandering around in shorts so you can see their ankle tattoos. So appetizing.
#190. To: Cynicom (#189)
Odd that such a fine upstanding citizen as you would be frequenting such places.
#191. To: SmokinOPs (#188)
No shit Sherlock. I suppose that's a bad thing in your eyes. How dare the dirty French have ill feelings towards the rank and file Wehrmacht.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#192. To: FormerLurker (#191)
I'm sure the French do not hate their resistance forces
#193. To: FormerLurker (#191)
Don't confuse some of the actions of the battle weary...
#194. To: SmokinOPs (#192)
By your reckoning with all those fine upstanding men there,military base towns should be better, cleaner, nicer, etc. than the average town and this isn't the case and you know it.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#195. To: FormerLurker (#173)
I could think of no other reason why you would state that I am "a propagandist's wet dream" in response to my post #45, where I simply stated that in the real world, the US DID fight in WWII, unlike the scenario that the other poster was yapping about.
#196. To: FormerLurker (#194)
There are MANY cities that have military bases nearby that DON'T have the problems you list.
#197. To: SmokinOPs (#188)
By the way, have you ever been to an Army base down? Egads are they nasty
#198. To: SmokinOPs (#193)
They chose to go there VOLUNTARILY. They joined a force that has done nothing but harrass, bomb, and destroy backwards hellholes for 50 years straight and not one of those places had attacked the US.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#199. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#184)
It would be interesting to see a break-down of the numbers of Bush's approval rating among military, law enforcement, and civilian.
#200. To: FormerLurker (#198)
That's not what they thought they were signing up for.
#201. To: SmokinOPs (#196)
Where? Name 'em.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#202. To: SmokinOPs (#193)
Yet people still join the Mafia and the military. There are no excuses.
#203. To: SmokinOPs (#200)
We KNOW what the military has done for 50 years
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#204. To: SmokinOPs (#200)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#205. To: FormerLurker. SmokinOps, all (#201)
#206. To: SmokinOPs (#190)
Some of us have jobs that require us to travel.
#207. To: FormerLurker (#201)
Why don't YOU give me an example of what you are talking about, as you haven't been very specific as to the sort of problems you are attributing to the military
#208. To: lodwick (#205)
(Edited)
The surrounds of most military bases is not all that much different from the areas surrounding many college campuses - except that the college kids have much more jack and so the bars, pool halls, and are the rest are much more upscale. Businesses are smart enough to tailor their facilities to their customers' ability to pay. I will say that I've never seen a "Pay-Day Loans" store around campus.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#209. To: FormerLurker (#203)
I seriously DOUBT that you KNEW
#210. To: SmokinOPs (#207)
Increased drunkenness, theft, burglary, violence, broken homes, bastard kids, shit schools, divorce, wife beating, bad housing, unkempt property and a general degradation of the quality of life are what can be expected to be overly represented in close proximity to anywhere a standing army is stationed.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#211. To: SmokinOPs (#207)
Increased drunkenness, theft, burglary, violence, broken homes, bastard kids, shit schools, divorce, wife beating, bad housing, unkempt property and a general degradation of the quality of life are what can be expected to be overly represented in close proximity to anywhere a standing army is stationed.
#212. To: FormerLurker (#204)
And BTW bud, what do you suggest, that we do away with ALL of our military
#213. To: SmokinOPs (#209)
You got your tenses mixed up there, bub. Work on that and it will make sense.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#214. To: FormerLurker (#210)
That's rampant in many large cities.
#215. To: FormerLurker (#213)
You KNEW, as you HAVE KNOWN.
#216. To: SmokinOPs (#212)
Yes. As for the smoking pot, I'll leave that to your unemployed Army buddies after they get fired.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#217. To: FormerLurker (#216)
Don't worry, we'll leave you with your crack pipe and your ho's.
#218. To: Cynicom (#206)
Lots of people have jobs and travel but you two seem to have a rather intimate relationship to that life.
#219. To: SmokinOPs (#215)
No, KNOW as in KNOW present. We K-N-OW. At least I do. Apparently the verdict is sill out on you.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#220. To: SmokinOPs (#214)
That's the point you two dipshits.
#221. To: SmokinOPs (#214)
That's the point you two dipshits.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#222. To: FormerLurker. all (#208)
It's all about people trying to make money off those who they view as potential clients, or suckers, depending on the business.
#223. To: FormerLurker (#219)
(Edited)
You appear to be claiming that ALL people that have joined the military over the past 50 years are assholes that wish to kill innocent people that have not attacked us.
#224. To: Cynicom (#220)
(Edited)
You and Burka remind me of misfits in the military, spent three years, finally made PFC and then blame it on the military when some local church lady gave you the clap.
#225. To: SmokinOPsand didn't see the military as anything, but a downward path so never joined. (#224)
and didn't see the military as anything, but a downward path so never joined.
#226. To: Cynicom (#225)
Your condemnation of the military...
#227. To: SmokinOPs (#223)
Sure seems like they do an awful lot of it for a group of people who don't want to do it.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#228. To: FormerLurker (#227)
Those that serve in the military, along with the general population, are told of some urgent need to do so in order to "protect our country".
#229. To: SmokinOPs (#228)
I could also tell you about "some urgent need" to place your life savings in my Nigerian bank account
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#230. To: SmokinOPs (#226)
is on a solid rock foundation of 5000 years of known human history.
#231. To: FormerLurker (#229)
You're supposed to collect the money from them SOP, not give it to them.
#232. To: Cynicom (#230)
Most countries I know of have military now and in the past.
#233. To: SmokinOPs (#232)
#234. To: SmokinOPs (#231)
You have trouble with possessives now as well as tenses
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#235. To: Cynicom (#233)
(Edited)
I still think your hatred for the military is based on a bad personal experience.
#236. To: SmokinOPs (#235)
#237. To: Cynicom (#236)
#238. To: SmokinOPs (#237)
By the way, another common thread through history on standing armies is higher levels of homosexuality than the general population. It's a regular queer smorgasbord.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#239. To: FormerLurker (#238)
Apparently, the fact that you were too chicken shit to join leads you to find all sorts of reasons why those that did join are somehow fucked up and less of a human than you are.
#240. To: SmokinOPs (#239)
When you can't debate the obvious...yada,yada, yada.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#241. To: FormerLurker (#240)
You're the one guilty of playing the fag card first.
#242. To: lodwick (#199)
Excellent point - all I know is that as a percentage of donors, the military give more to RP than anyone else
#243. To: SmokinOPs (#241)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#244. To: FormerLurker (#243)
#245. To: Cynicom (#244)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#246. To: FormerLurker, Cynicom (#243)
I have an idea. You can test your theory by conducting a survey of military personel in bars near Camp Pendleton, or Camp Lejeune. Go up to a table of Marines, and ask them if they would be interested in some gay sex.
#247. To: SmokinOPs (#246)
The gay porn producers who are looking for in-shape masculine tops have been recruiting military at those places for years.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#248. To: FormerLurker (#247)
Looks like you know where to find them, eh Smokin? You must be a familiar face there...
#249. To: SmokinOPs (#248)
My point has been made without refutation
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#250. To: FormerLurker (#249)
Yep, you've made it quite clear that you know where to pick up fags.
#251. To: SmokinOPs (#250)
you're a porno addict based on your comments about porn here the other day.
the only way someone can learn about toe-tapping fags in the airport bathroom is by being a toe-tapping fag.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest