Hippies need to listen.

[The Metamorphosing Leon]

I'm tired of all this anti war hippie crap I've been seeing.

To all you hippies out there listen to this.

Brilliant stuff spouted by Frank Miller, all the things I struggle to say.

Give it a listen and then go study the fall of the Roman Empire. After that go support your troops.

[Ghost Soldier]

No matter if your for the war or against it you have the right to speak freely.  If you don't like what one side is saying don't listen.  Being a fellow soldier now in the IRR after my honorable discharge I can tell you there are those in uniform on both sides of the camp.

[The Metamorphosing Leon]

Oh sure, I'm all for speaking freely, but what Miller brilliantly puts to light is all the stupidity that those who speak freely tend to speak.

Our country is showing all the signs of a collapsing empire. We're all so caught up in our own splendor that we aren't noticing our disintegration.

The general population is feeling superiority, that we can't be touched. That 9/11 was a fluke, it can't happen again.

Our leaders can't agree on anything and are more concerned about being reelected than about effectively running the greatest superpower the world has ever seen.

There is a lack of the right kind of support for our troops abroad. All we talk about is bringing them home. Well a guy trained to operate a machine gun does no good sitting in his house watching TV when a nuke goes off and eliminates his commanders. Unfortunately the strong warrior hero is a person of the past, little more than a movie star who earns some bucks for hollywood.

These same things happened in Rome and she fell to the barbarians. It then took over a thousand years for society to even get close to where the Romans had taken it. If not for some monks who kept classical literature alive we might still be swinging axes at each other and shitting in the woods.

We all want peace, I don't argue with that, but why try and ignore the violence? It won't go away, it needs to be eliminated. What was the greatest event that brought our country out of economic disparity? World War II.

Sometimes you have to break a few eggs and kick a little ass.

You know, it's just what I see. I'm sure people have valid arguments against what I'm saying, I just have yet to hear them. So, feel free to show me the error of my ways.

[Arrrhalomynn]

First of all, I strongly disagree comparing the Roman empire in any way to the United States. The Roman empire was an actual empire, 2000 years ago, in an entirely different world. It ruled over many different kinds of peoples which it had conquered and mostly exploited. There was no democracy of any kind and emperors got on the throne by the right connections or violence. There was also constant internal strugle, which the USA hasn't seen since the civil war. Civilians and politicians disagreeing about the policy is nothing compared to the internal struggling in the Roman Empire, which consisted of many civil wars, constand borders skirmishes and ruthless tyrany.

I'm not saying the internal struggling of the Roman Empire isn't the cause of its fall, but it's one of the many causes and certainly not the most important one. A much more obvious choice of cause for it's downfall would be the incoperation of barbarians. As the end of the empire got nearer, many barbarian peoples were allowed to settle within the borders of the empire and many armies at the border consisted entirely of barbarians. These peoples turned into the enemy and had a great starting position and very well trained armies. In short, the enemy was mostly within the border at the time of its collapse or just on the other side of it and they could march right in.

The difference with the enemies of the USA is that they are not within the borders, they are on the other side of the world and pretty much incapable of attacking the USA. The 9/11 attack was a terrorist attack that is nowhere near comparable to an invasion of barbarians. There's no possibility for terrorists to conquer or destroy the USA, like the Roman Empire was destroyed by the barbarians. The only way they could do that from halfway across the globe is by shooting a whole bunch of atomic bombs at the most important cities, and the iraqis and afghans are entirely uncapable of that. So sending troups that way doesn't do much for the safety of the USA. In fact, 3000 (or so) American soldiers already got killed there and I doubt you'd have as many dead americans if the USA had chosen a more passive approach to (supposed) terrorism. It seems to me that you're so afraid of another terrorist attack, that you're willing to sacrifice more lives to prevent a terrorist attack, than it would claim if one happened.

I don't really understand the comparison to World War II. The American economy does miles better now than it did before World War II and the Muslim Terrorists are in no way comparable to the Nazi's. They had a central command and acted mostly out of nationalistic feelings, whereas these terrorists groups are relatively small groups that act out of a deep religious conviction. Very few nazi's felt his ideals were worth dying for, while it's the greatest honor for the fanatic muslim terrorist.

You say the violence won't go away if you ignore it, but that's only partially true. Apart from preventing violence, the American (and other countries) presence in Iraq and Afghanistan also provokes violence. If these foreign armies weren't in these places, the natives wouldn't use car bombs or suicide bombers, because there's no target. The most fanatic ones might try and take their terrorism to the USA, but with the right preventive measures they won't do more damage than they would have done in their home countries with American military presence. And it would cost a lot less. There have always been terrorist groups, ETA, IRA, Brigate Rosse, etc. They are a fact of life and won't go away, all you can do is minimize the risks. This can be done in many ways, and using the military is just one of them.

I find the thought that you can eliminate violence by using violence ridiculous. In this case there are large groups of people that strongly disagree with Western, and especially American, values and culture. The more you piss these people off, the more likely the are going to get radical and start using force. You can't kill every terrorist, because for every terrorist you kill, two new ones pop up. If you disagree with this, then I wonder why there isn't less terrorist violence since 2001, while so many terrorists have been killed or captured. I'm not saying we should just hug all terrorist and accept their presence and I also don't claim to have a sollution (because there isn't any), but after 5 years of constant fighting it's pretty clear that violence isn't the answer and has a negative effect.

I also believe that calling the USA the greatest superpower the world has ever seen is a sign of a severe case of megalomania. I suggest you wait 300 years to see how much of it is left and how much of a lasting impression it has left behind before making such claims.

Why aren't you in the military? You seem to be so fond of violence and war. You find it such a neccesary aspect of keeping your own culture alive and admire the strong warrior hero. It's very easy to put other people's lives at risk while you stay out of the line of fire yourself.

[The Metamorphosing Leon]

I really don't know why I'm not in the military yet. I do intend to do something with it, but for the time being I'm waiting to see what the best path will be. I'm more for finding fixing and informing people of the problems than grabbing a gun and running off to war.

You may be right about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq provoking more violence than if we had stayed away. It is true that by having forces there it gives your average Joe with a Kalashnikov a nice chance to just go cap some of our boys. But it can be made to go away and I believe it must be made to go away if we ever want this world to be peaceful.

Application of the proper forces in the middle east, and I don't mean just militarily, we need cultural and economic forces too, should get these people out of the dark ages. What we don't want to keep doing is sitting there with a skin and bones force whose only there to keep things barely glued together. I believe Europe and the rest of the world should join in full force. The Middle East needs to be transformed if we ever want the people there to live in peace.

I can see why what we're doing seems stupid and wrong but it's not. Everyone thinks we're looking for Osama all the time. We're not, Osama is a powerless dickhead. What we're doing is seeking to turn these countries into free, economically sound, places.

If we leave these places will just tear themselves apart until some other form of oligarchy or dictatorship takes over. How is that preferable to a small scale land war with some illiterate retards?

Well perhaps that's what the people saying bring our troops home want? They want civil war and genocide to take place. Let's just close our borders and stay out of it.

Nope.

The same people are saying we should go into Darfur, which is at this moment exactly what Iraq will look like if we leave.

It's all bullcrap designed to make the retard public, who has been brainwashed by Vietnam into seeing any military force in another country as evil, elect the politicians who claim to have the answer, which they most certainly don't have.

Hell, I say why prolong the middle east's suffering? Lets pull out and just turn the place into glass. Let's nuke the fuckers before they can kill themselves.

[wrldstrman]

Most of the time I wish all the military personal and police officers would say the heck with it and let it go to a every man for themselves....all the winnie anti eveything liberals would be the first to go then everyone could go on with life as normal.

All people want to do is gripe and complain about the police and make it to where your half afraid to do your job..people in this country take up for the criminals  and make the police out to be the bad guys...what if all the police did walk off the job  and the military  and we let all the criminals loose to do whatever they wanted..Im sure all these poor rapist, murders, theifs etc etc. wouldnt prey on the liberals, anti gun, pro child molester advicates movie stars or political people. And Iran, Russia North Korea would automatically throw flowers at us and love

Hey man some guy just broke into my house and raped my wife and killed my kids  what im I to do..Oh well that criminal has rights to Its to bad he choose your family. But love peace and happiness to you. Isnt it great there are no police to tell us what we can and cant do.    This guy molested my five year old....well you know he is just having a few mental problems  were sorry you kids life has been runied but you know .We cant be to hard on the guy he is a human being....

Im sorry if my post sounds crazy  this country has gone so far out there there is no hope.

If someone molestes a child I say hang him by his balls. No excuses  The only right he has is to be punished I dont care if a person shoved a palm tree up his butt at some point in his life. If you kill someone you should be chained to a wall for life...The only rights criminals should have is the right to be punished to the max.

[Barracuda]

^ Total agreement.

[Arrrhalomynn]

Words

First you said that the wars in the middle east are needed to protect the USA, but now you say it's to protect the natives. You're switching goals like the US government did after it didn't manage to find any weapons of mass destruction. You never appeared very altruistic to me, so I'm surprised you are willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives on a cause like this.

Anyways, I agree pulling out all troups completely is undesirable. The wars the USA started caused a terrible mess in these countries and it's their duty to clean it before they leave (to at least a certain extent).

I disagree however on your idea of proper military forces. So far military force has proven to be incapable of producing a lasting change in the mentallity of the natives. It has resulted in more pissed of civilians and tens of thousands of deaths. Change has to come from within and no amount of military terror will make these natives realize how wrong they sre. Going at it full force, which I can only assume is taking out every possible threat, will result in a reign of terror unseen since Stalin's purges. Turning these countries into vast military battle grounds won't change them into free, economically sound, places. A compromise has to be made and military force should be the last option.

So there's no European country willing to use its military to the extend of the Americans, because there is no result to be expected and it costs a tremendous amount of money and lives.

What bothers me, and probably many more people who oppose the war, is that there are no risks for the people making the decisions. Just like for people like you and most other people that support the war. It's so easy to sit here in your comfy chair and say that other people should risk their lives, shoot another country into shambles and create a breeding ground for terrorism, when you know it'll never hurt you.

[Three]

First you said that the wars in the middle east are needed to protect the USA, but now you say it's to protect the natives. You're switching goals like the US government did after it didn't manage to find any weapons of mass destruction. You never appeared very altruistic to me, so I'm surprised you are willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives on a cause like this.

Don't be an idiot.  Actions can have more than one goal.  Don't they teach you anything in your schools over there?

Anyways, I agree pulling out all troups completely is undesirable. The wars the USA started caused a terrible mess in these countries and it's their duty to clean it before they leave (to at least a certain extent).

Don't be an idiot.  I know from first hand experience that Bosnia and Croatia are better places, and the people there were/are grateful for America's involvement, just like South Korea.

I disagree however on your idea of proper military forces. So far military force has proven to be incapable of producing a lasting change in the mentallity of the natives. It has resulted in more pissed of civilians and tens of thousands of deaths. Change has to come from within and no amount of military terror will make these natives realize how wrong they sre. Going at it full force, which I can only assume is taking out every possible threat, will result in a reign of terror unseen since Stalin's purges. Turning these countries into vast military battle grounds won't change them into free, economically sound, places. A compromise has to be made and military force should be the last option.

Everyone I know who has been over there has said the exact opposite.  To quote my ex-roomate “the place is still a shit hole.  Its weird because you have new,clean buildings next to filthy ghettos.  But it is a lot better than it was even a year ago”.  You're right.  Change is going to come from within.  And thats exactly whats going on son.  But we can't build the schools, city infrastructures, social change, whatever without control of the region.  Having armed forces present is a necessity since the place is how it is.  Don't be an idiot.

So there's no European country willing to use its military to the extend of the Americans, because there is no result to be expected and it costs a tremendous amount of money and lives.

Don't be an idiot.  There is no country that has a military like America son.

What bothers me, and probably many more people who oppose the war, is that there are no risks for the people making the decisions. Just like for people like you and most other people that support the war. It's so easy to sit here in your comfy chair and say that other people should risk their lives, shoot another country into shambles and create a breeding ground for terrorism, when you know it'll never hurt you.

Don't be an idiot.  How should I put this........  The US armed services is all volunteer.  That makes your argument about the people over there not being the ones who made the decision to be over there.  And I know that last comment wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway.  I am going to join the army.  As soon as I get my degree, I am enlisting.  So you can GTFO with your inaccurate generalizations .

[Arrrhalomynn]

You calling me names sure has convinced me I'm wrong!

[Three]

Your cop-out hasn't.

*edit; You're still an idiot.

[Tynstar]

Play nice and stop the name calling



You idiot. 

[The Metamorphosing Leon]

Words

First you said that the wars in the middle east are needed to protect the USA, but now you say it's to protect the natives. You're switching goals like the US government did after it didn't manage to find any weapons of mass destruction. You never appeared very altruistic to me, so I'm surprised you are willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives on a cause like this.

Anyways, I agree pulling out all troups completely is undesirable. The wars the USA started caused a terrible mess in these countries and it's their duty to clean it before they leave (to at least a certain extent).

I disagree however on your idea of proper military forces. So far military force has proven to be incapable of producing a lasting change in the mentallity of the natives. It has resulted in more pissed of civilians and tens of thousands of deaths. Change has to come from within and no amount of military terror will make these natives realize how wrong they sre. Going at it full force, which I can only assume is taking out every possible threat, will result in a reign of terror unseen since Stalin's purges. Turning these countries into vast military battle grounds won't change them into free, economically sound, places. A compromise has to be made and military force should be the last option.

So there's no European country willing to use its military to the extend of the Americans, because there is no result to be expected and it costs a tremendous amount of money and lives.

What bothers me, and probably many more people who oppose the war, is that there are no risks for the people making the decisions. Just like for people like you and most other people that support the war. It's so easy to sit here in your comfy chair and say that other people should risk their lives, shoot another country into shambles and create a breeding ground for terrorism, when you know it'll never hurt you.

It's hard to say much more than Kreso did, and I didn't really want to get into this argument about the war, but yeah, it's a double sided sword we're wielding here. We keep terrorists from organizing full scale attacks and we help rebuild countries that need to be rebuilt.

And you're obviously listening to the wrong kind of media. The natives don't hate us, we're what's keeping them alive. Do you really think the natives in these countries see us as the bad guys? I don't think so. We liberated them, we give them supplies, we protect them with our lives.

And what do the "freedom fighters" do for their own flesh and blood people? They randomly blow them up so that they can kill just one of our soldiers. When these terrorists come into power they impose insane laws, they enslave women, they kill whomever they want and they can't provide supplies to their people. Why the hell would the common person trying to live his or her life in peace want that?

And we can't win this without proper application of force. We lost Vietnam because we never applied our full force to winning the war. We just kept the smallest force there as possible. Our goal, stupidly, was to maintain the borders. We would move into VC territory, win a victory, then pull back into our territory, allowing the VC to move right back in again. It doesn't work that way. You have to completely suppress the enemy and win over the people on your side. And as I said, I don't mean just military forces, we need to get these people into the right century.

As far as being concerned about people sitting in far off towers and making decisions from comfy chairs, I ask...

What's so different from what you're doing? If you were sitting in Iraq and being terrorized by U.S. soldiers it would be one thing. But you're not, you're sitting in a comfy chair arguing about the same thing I am. It's easy to sit in your chair and say we shouldn't have attacked Afghanistan, or Iraq, when you know it'll never hurt you.

But wait...it could have hurt you. Let's say we allowed terrorism to keep its bases and from these bases attacks keep coming. You would never be safe because you would never know when it was coming. You could be in the wrong place at the wrong time and you could be blown to smithereens by a terrorist whom you protected by opposing the actions which would have kept him away from you.

The fact that I do feel safe, knowing that the organizations capable of attacking me are crippled, should be an indication as to why I'm arguing for this war. I don't want to live in fear. I also don't want other people to live in fear.

[JWKobayashi]

While I support the troops in the war, what I don't like is that there is no tangible goal in sight.  When do we say "we're done" over there? When is it enough? If we pull out too soon, the whole effort was for nothing.  If we stay too long, we waste additional funds and lives.

[Tynstar]

I say nuke the middle east and call it done.