Chisoxfn Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 You won't act on your beliefs by putting your life on the line unless forced to. There is nothing that I can add to that. You want others Americans, you want France, to fight a war that you won't fight. There is nothing that I can add to that. 1940s: America is attacked, people enlist 2000s: America is attacked, hey, I've got Spring Fling and the Hawaiian night frat party coming up, let others fight, I've got to parrrrr-teeeeeeeee! God bless America. Never claim any morality for yourself if you expect someone else to fight and die for something that you say you believe in but won't risk yourself for. If you believe in it, YOU do it. I can act on my beliefs in different ways. By voting candidates in office, making statements in other ways. This war isn't a World War, it isn't a war on our soil and I'm not going to fight in it. I'll admit, I'm not in the military, but I agree with Kark. I'm glad those people did join the services its why they joined. They are there to defend this country and our country would stink without people like them. It would also suck without doctors and other people that make society go around. Korea isn't looking all that great and all of them have to joing the military. Everyone in society has some role or another. Some are defending this country and I respect them a hell of a lot. Some are defending this country as fireman or police officers while others are doing it as attorneys or doctors or politicians trying to make this country better, even though some may disagree with some of those professions I just listed. Iraq didn't attack America, AlQaeda did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Thank you doub! The French, in my opinion, simply ended it quicker. The tides of the war were turning in our favor and we were starting to learn how to defeat the Brits. I think we coulda done it without the French, but Ill admit that atleast one time in history the French helped with something... But without knowing that the French were to support us, moral would of been a lot different and you don't really know how the leaders would take it. I'm not positive on when the French became Allies during the war. If I recall it was Jefferson or Ben Franklin that negotiated them becoming allies, but I may be wrong. Still, I'm with Cerb, they had a navy and that alone could pretty much whipe out all of the seaports if they wanted to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 actually it was really touch and go with the Revolution. We might not have won without French aid, we certtainly wouldn't have won at Yorktown without the French navy and France was the first country to reocognise us as a nation. You got the year wrong - 1956 is not the year you mean - typo on your part, no biggie. Psycho, please note if you haven't already that while I disagree with some of your positions, I have no quarrel with you since you will entering the military when you aren old enough - you will back up your words with your life. I still don't believe everyone is built for the military or should serve in the military. Here we have the right to chose whether we enlist or not, just like we have the right to chose our job. I admire your son and I respect all those in the military as well as the police, and fire departments, but that doesn't mean I have to do it. Thank goodness there are a lot of people out there that do want to do it. We all need doctors too, but thats not what I'm going to be either. The thing is, here in America we aren't forced to enlist in the military like they are in Korea. Man, I think it would suck if everyone had to enlist. Well first off our military would be huge. Secondly, If we think military spending is high now, well then guess what it will be when they are having to pay salaries or college fees to even more people. Lastly, just because i"m not in the military doesn't mean I can't have a belief. If I believe we should help another nation, doesn't mean I personally have to back it up. I'll do my part, but I'd like to think I could do it in other ways, such as morally supporting the troops or doing my best to support the economy and this country or plenty of other things. On a last part, the Revolutionary war was completely different. It was on OUR soil, this is somewhere else. Your damn right if it was on our soil I'd be backing it up or if it was for our freedom. This war is for other peoples freedom. I may not be over in the Gulf with people like your son or Nuke and God Bless them and all the other troops over there, but it doesn't mean I can't say I'm for the war. Thats for damn sure. Saddam is a tyran thats killed his own people. Why would he hesitate doing the same on the US or other countries. Just cause France doesn't find it a big worry isn't my problem and I don't think its the US's problem. Plenty of countries are supporting us in this issue. Saddam needs to be stopped. He's been given numerous chances to disarm and comply with inspections and he's never done so. Why the hell would he change now. Do we have to wait until he kills more? First off, chisoxfn, I respect you. Just to get that straight. But with a war in Iraq, its almost a 99% chance that you wont be killed. For the young soldiers serving in Kuwait, its possible they could be killed. They are in harms way. I dont agree with cw in that all supporters of the war should enlist but I think youre also wrong to say that by supporting the troops morally you are in harms way. I have nothing against you, so dont think that. Just wanted to point this out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 actually it was really touch and go with the Revolution. We might not have won without French aid, we certtainly wouldn't have won at Yorktown without the French navy and France was the first country to reocognise us as a nation. You got the year wrong - 1956 is not the year you mean - typo on your part, no biggie. Psycho, please note if you haven't already that while I disagree with some of your positions, I have no quarrel with you since you will entering the military when you aren old enough - you will back up your words with your life. I still don't believe everyone is built for the military or should serve in the military. Here we have the right to chose whether we enlist or not, just like we have the right to chose our job. I admire your son and I respect all those in the military as well as the police, and fire departments, but that doesn't mean I have to do it. Thank goodness there are a lot of people out there that do want to do it. We all need doctors too, but thats not what I'm going to be either. The thing is, here in America we aren't forced to enlist in the military like they are in Korea. Man, I think it would suck if everyone had to enlist. Well first off our military would be huge. Secondly, If we think military spending is high now, well then guess what it will be when they are having to pay salaries or college fees to even more people. Lastly, just because i"m not in the military doesn't mean I can't have a belief. If I believe we should help another nation, doesn't mean I personally have to back it up. I'll do my part, but I'd like to think I could do it in other ways, such as morally supporting the troops or doing my best to support the economy and this country or plenty of other things. On a last part, the Revolutionary war was completely different. It was on OUR soil, this is somewhere else. Your damn right if it was on our soil I'd be backing it up or if it was for our freedom. This war is for other peoples freedom. I may not be over in the Gulf with people like your son or Nuke and God Bless them and all the other troops over there, but it doesn't mean I can't say I'm for the war. Thats for damn sure. Saddam is a tyran thats killed his own people. Why would he hesitate doing the same on the US or other countries. Just cause France doesn't find it a big worry isn't my problem and I don't think its the US's problem. Plenty of countries are supporting us in this issue. Saddam needs to be stopped. He's been given numerous chances to disarm and comply with inspections and he's never done so. Why the hell would he change now. Do we have to wait until he kills more? First off, chisoxfn, I respect you. Just to get that straight. But with a war in Iraq, its almost a 99% chance that you wont be killed. For the young soldiers serving in Kuwait, its possible they could be killed. They are in harms way. I dont agree with cw in that all supporters of the war should enlist but I think youre also wrong to say that by supporting the troops morally you are in harms way. I have nothing against you, so dont think that. Just wanted to point this out... Oh sorry if I meant that. I was simply implying that there are other ways to support the country then fighting in the war. I respect everyone over their. I do agree with you in regards to the war over there as well. More will likely die of friendly fire then anything else. Hopefully all casualties will be a minimal. I know the US has been contacting Saddams generals via private email and they are doing all they can to prevent lots of battles. I think when the US goes in, the war will be very short, but if they do this right, the rebuilding effect will take a very long time. When the British won the French and Indian War they had the dillema of having to govern all that new land. This time around it will be a lot different, but the US is going to have to support this area for a while until people establish themselves and get it back together. This could take 10 years or more, it all depends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Jason, I do not believe that Saddam is any type of imminent threat. This whole thing at best is Wag the Dog. As far as the military - never be prepared to send someone else off to die unless you are going to go also. If there is truly a threat to America, it is the patriotic duty of everyone to serve anmd that includes young men enlisting. Why kind of threat is it when people go on life as usual? If one supports this propsed war, it has to be backed up with one's life. It is far too morally inexcusabe to send others out to do something that you will not do. If it were your ass on the line - would you be in favor of it? There are no excuses if this were a real threat to America. And especially here, with all the athletes who belong to these boards - by what right do all these physically equipped people who play lots of games and sports send others off to war when they won't go themselves? I'm not swinging at you, not all all. I am asking the questions that need to be asked and answered of everyone. It is not acceptable to say yeah, I support war in which Americans and Iraqis will die but my life should go on with school and games and dating and sports and Hell No I won't go but if you disagree with the war, f*** you, f*** France, f*** all you AntiAmericans who oppose the war. Why should anyone challenge my right to strenuously object to a war that I feel is immoral when those who challenge me, and my patriotism, will not go to fight the war they think is morally justafiable and patriotic? Unless a person backs it up with your life, what are the empty words worth? Those who are protesting are morally consistent. Those who talk big about supporting the war and bashing France and antiwar protestors have no moral right to say all these f*** yous to us when they will not go do what they say is so right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Jason, I do not believe that Saddam is any type of imminent threat. This whole thing at best is Wag the Dog. As far as the military - never be prepared to send someone else off to die unless you are going to go also. If there is truly a threat to America, it is the patriotic duty of everyone to serve anmd that includes young men enlisting. Why kind of threat is it when people go on life as usual? If one supports this propsed war, it has to be backed up with one's life. It is far too morally inexcusabe to send others out to do something that you will not do. If it were your ass on the line - would you be in favor of it? There are no excuses if this were a real threat to America. And especially here, with all the athletes who belong to these boards - by what right do all these physically equipped people who play lots of games and sports send others off to war when they won't go themselves? I'm not swinging at you, not all all. I am asking the questions that need to be asked and answered of everyone. It is not acceptable to say yeah, I support war in which Americans and Iraqis will die but my life should go on with school and games and dating and sports and Hell No I won't go but if you disagree with the war, f*** you, f*** France, f*** all you AntiAmericans who oppose the war. Why should anyone challenge my right to strenuously object to a war that I feel is immoral when those who challenge me, and my patriotism, will not go to fight the war they think is morally justafiable and patriotic? Unless a person backs it up with your life, what are the empty words worth? Those who are protesting are morally consistent. Those who talk big about supporting the war and bashing France and antiwar protestors have no moral right to say all these f*** yous to us when they will not go do what they say is so right. So does that mean when we believe we need to send aid to other countries I have to go there too, simply because I want to help them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Jason, you are better than that. Look at the bitter attacks in here on France which does not support this proposed war. How can anyone attack them when they themselves are not willing to go to war? The attacks on antiwar demonstrators - how can anyone attack them when they themselves are not willing to go to war? And willingness here means enlisting since that is within the means of those who are most vitriolic in their attacks. If you are being attacked and no one comes to your aid, what do you want of me? Do you want me to yell "f*** you" at everyone else who does not assist you, or do you want to me to show by example what is right by actually helping you even at a risk to myself? If you expect someone else to risk their life for something you say you believe in, you have to risk your life too. And I cannot fathom what the definition of patriotism is that says it is acceptable to say "f*** you" to people who oppose war by people who say they support it, want others to fight it, but will not do it themselves. The very definition of a hypocrite is someone who expects others to do something they will not do themselves. And when life is on the line, that hypocrasy is morally indefensible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Jason, you are better than that. Look at the bitter attacks in here on France which does not support this proposed war. How can anyone attack them when they themselves are not willing to go to war? The attacks on antiwar demonstrators - how can anyone attack them when they themselves are not willing to go to war? And willingness here means enlisting since that is within the means of those who are most vitriolic in their attacks. If you are being attacked and no one comes to your aid, what do you want of me? Do you want me to yell "f*** you" at everyone else who does not assist you, or do you want to me to show by example what is right by actually helping you even at a risk to myself? If you expect someone else to risk their life for something you say you believe in, you have to risk your life too. And I cannot fathom what the definition of patriotism is that says it is acceptable to say "f*** you" to people who oppose war by people who say they support it, want others to fight it, but will not do it themselves. The very definition of a hypocrite is someone who expects others to do something they will not do themselves. And when life is on the line, that hypocrasy is morally indefensible. I just hate France because they think they can blackmail Eastern Europe into opposing the US. This goes against everything America stands for. France doesnt deserve our friendship and I hope they dont join us against Iraq. Being allied to such jerks is what hurts our reputation to foreigners... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OfficerKarkovice Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 As far as the military - never be prepared to send someone else off to die unless you are going to go also. If there is truly a threat to America, it is the patriotic duty of everyone to serve anmd that includes young men enlisting. Why kind of threat is it when people go on life as usual? If one supports this propsed war, it has to be backed up with one's life. It is far too morally inexcusabe to send others out to do something that you will not do. If it were your ass on the line - would you be in favor of it? There are no excuses if this were a real threat to America. And especially here, with all the athletes who belong to these boards - by what right do all these physically equipped people who play lots of games and sports send others off to war when they won't go themselves? I'm not swinging at you, not all all. I am asking the questions that need to be asked and answered of everyone. It is not acceptable to say yeah, I support war in which Americans and Iraqis will die but my life should go on with school and games and dating and sports and Hell No I won't go but if you disagree with the war, f*** you, f*** France, f*** all you AntiAmericans who oppose the war. I disagree...as I'm sure you know...and I guess it is just going to have to stay at that. There is no way we are going to agree on this issue. I know there are people who agree with me and I'm sure there are some that agree with you. I'm just leaving it at that because there is no reason to sit here and argue about the same thing over and over when neither one of us is going to change our view. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Jason, you are better than that. Look at the bitter attacks in here on France which does not support this proposed war. How can anyone attack them when they themselves are not willing to go to war? The attacks on antiwar demonstrators - how can anyone attack them when they themselves are not willing to go to war? And willingness here means enlisting since that is within the means of those who are most vitriolic in their attacks. If you are being attacked and no one comes to your aid, what do you want of me? Do you want me to yell "f*** you" at everyone else who does not assist you, or do you want to me to show by example what is right by actually helping you even at a risk to myself? If you expect someone else to risk their life for something you say you believe in, you have to risk your life too. And I cannot fathom what the definition of patriotism is that says it is acceptable to say "f*** you" to people who oppose war by people who say they support it, want others to fight it, but will not do it themselves. The very definition of a hypocrite is someone who expects others to do something they will not do themselves. And when life is on the line, that hypocrasy is morally indefensible. I just hate France because they think they can blackmail Eastern Europe into opposing the US. This goes against everything America stands for. France doesnt deserve our friendship and I hope they dont join us against Iraq. Being allied to such assholes is what hurts our reputation to foreigners... Mayhaps, you might want to read about some US blackmail of Europe. This, OldRoman, is blackmail of the purest kind. Be pro-war or we collapse the economy, what humanitarian aid. US to Punish German 'Treachery' by Peter Beaumont, David Roseand and Paul Beaver The Observer (UK) Sunday February 16, 2003 America is to punish Germany for leading international opposition to a war against Iraq. The US will withdraw all its troops and bases from there and end military and industrial co-operation between the two countries - moves that could cost the Germans billions of euros. The plan - discussed by Pentagon officials and military chiefs last week on the orders of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - is designed 'to harm' the German economy to make an example of the country for what US hawks see as Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's 'treachery'. The hawks believe that making an example of Germany will force other countries heavily dependent on US trade to think twice about standing up to America in future. This follows weeks of increasingly angry exchanges between Rumsfeld and Germany, in which at one point he taunted Germany and France for being an irrelevant part of 'old Europe'. Now Rumsfeld has decided to go further by unilaterally imposing the Pentagon's sanctions on a country already in the throes of economic problems. 'We are doing this for one reason only: to harm the German economy,' one source told The Observer last week. 'Our troops contribute many millions of dollars. Why should we continue to support a country which has treated Nato and the protection we provided for decades with such incredible contempt?' Another Pentagon source said: 'The aim is to hit German trade and commerce. It is not just about taking out the troops and equipment; it is also about cancelling commercial contracts and defence-related arrangements.' The Pentagon plan - and the language expressed by officials close to Rumsfeld - has horrified State Department officials, who believe that bullying other countries to follow the US line will further exacerbate anti-Americanism and alienate those European countries that might support a United Nations resolution authorising a war. German industry earns billions of euros every year from supporting the US Army Europe which, although reduced from its Cold War heights, still totals 42,000 troops and 785 tanks - almost three times as many as the British Army owns. Many of these soldiers and their fighting equipment, including Apache helicopters, have already been sent to the Gulf. German industry is heavily involved in supporting the US presence. Among the defence companies which stand to lose out are missile-maker Diehl, aerospace and defence giant EADS Deutschland, armaments maker Rheinmetall and vehicle maker Krauss-Maffei Wegmann. There is also a US Air Force contingent of about 15,000 service people with bases at Bitburg, Frankfurt-am-Main and neighbouring Ramstein, where the commander doubles as part of the Nato command. This force includes nearly 60 F-16 fighter-bombers and a squadron of A-10 tank-buster aircraft. Rumsfeld and his staff have made no attempt to hide their fury at Schröder's 'treachery and ineptitude' over Iraq. Last week Schröder leaked to reporters a Franco-German plan for avoiding war by increasing the number of UN weapons inspectors before informing his American counterparts. 'After this, Germany is finished as a serious power,' one of the sources added. 'This is simply not the way to conduct diplomacy at a moment of international crisis.' One diplomatic source said Rumsfeld was 'furious at Germany. He is a bruiser and it looks as though he means to do it'. Under these plans, the US would move its troops in Europe eastwards to countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states, all of which have strongly supported America's line against Saddam Hussein. It is likely that the overall size of the deployment would be reduced, as the US military changes its priorities for a long-term and disparate engagement with international terrorism. Although Rumsfeld had already been considering a redeployment of US troops around the world after a war in Iraq to save money and respond to new threats, the plans now under consideration go far beyond what had been discussed. It is likely that future years will see a sharp increase in the proportion of special forces troops able to deploy rapidly across the globe. Germany would suffer considerable financial loss if US forces were withdrawn from the country. The bases provide jobs for local people as everything from administrators to cleaners, and are huge customers for dairy products and bread. Read this at: http://www.observer.co.uk/international/st...,896573,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Apu, I do respect you but this is not blackmail. We are simply saying that if they dont support us we dont want to have anything to do with them. We dont have to be in Germany. We choose to be there. It helps them out and this is yet another examply of that we help other countries but they refuse to help us. So this just goes with my point that if no one else wants to support us we have no reason to support them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjmarte Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Jason, you are better than that. Look at the bitter attacks in here on France which does not support this proposed war. How can anyone attack them when they themselves are not willing to go to war? The attacks on antiwar demonstrators - how can anyone attack them when they themselves are not willing to go to war? And willingness here means enlisting since that is within the means of those who are most vitriolic in their attacks. If you are being attacked and no one comes to your aid, what do you want of me? Do you want me to yell "f*** you" at everyone else who does not assist you, or do you want to me to show by example what is right by actually helping you even at a risk to myself? If you expect someone else to risk their life for something you say you believe in, you have to risk your life too. And I cannot fathom what the definition of patriotism is that says it is acceptable to say "f*** you" to people who oppose war by people who say they support it, want others to fight it, but will not do it themselves. The very definition of a hypocrite is someone who expects others to do something they will not do themselves. And when life is on the line, that hypocrasy is morally indefensible. I just hate France because they think they can blackmail Eastern Europe into opposing the US. This goes against everything America stands for. France doesnt deserve our friendship and I hope they dont join us against Iraq. Being allied to such assholes is what hurts our reputation to foreigners... Mayhaps, you might want to read about some US blackmail of Europe. This, OldRoman, is blackmail of the purest kind. Be pro-war or we collapse the economy, what humanitarian aid. US to Punish German 'Treachery' by Peter Beaumont, David Roseand and Paul Beaver The Observer (UK) Sunday February 16, 2003 blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Read this at: http://www.observer.co.uk/international/st...,896573,00.html Um I think your source is a little biased. They are giving their interpretation of the administrations motives. They are giving opinion, not fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Not really BJ. They have sources and, unlike Colin Powell, don't plagiarize info from 1992. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjmarte Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Although Rumsfeld had already been considering a redeployment of US troops around the world after a war in Iraq to save money and respond to new threats, the plans now under consideration go far beyond what had been discussed. These plans were already in the works. This article completely overstate the political nature of the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Jason, you are better than that. Look at the bitter attacks in here on France which does not support this proposed war. How can anyone attack them when they themselves are not willing to go to war? The attacks on antiwar demonstrators - how can anyone attack them when they themselves are not willing to go to war? And willingness here means enlisting since that is within the means of those who are most vitriolic in their attacks. If you are being attacked and no one comes to your aid, what do you want of me? Do you want me to yell "f*** you" at everyone else who does not assist you, or do you want to me to show by example what is right by actually helping you even at a risk to myself? If you expect someone else to risk their life for something you say you believe in, you have to risk your life too. And I cannot fathom what the definition of patriotism is that says it is acceptable to say "f*** you" to people who oppose war by people who say they support it, want others to fight it, but will not do it themselves. The very definition of a hypocrite is someone who expects others to do something they will not do themselves. And when life is on the line, that hypocrasy is morally indefensible. I've not said f*** you to anyone opposed to the war. I won't either. I disagree but everyone here is entitled there own opinion. I don't know what I said in that post that made me come off horrible. I am always willing to help people, and if the time came where we had to defend our country, I'd be the first one up to help. Maybe my thinking would be different if the military was asking for people to join right now or saying they need a draft. I know there were so many rumors regarding a draft being re-instated but I've never heard them say they need more soldiers. Would my thinking be different if I had to fight in the war? To be honest it probably would be and I should think about that. The only reason I feel that way is because I don't know how I'd act during a war when the heats fully on and your life is at risk and you can die any second. My beliefs on this issue is that it should never come down to this. I'm not calling for a full fledge war, but many special operations and a few bombings of the weapons plants. Other then that, I don't think this war is going to take much when it comes to fighting. The big goal is going to be rebuilding the country and that will take a lot of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 I don't know how many of you read Tom Tomorrow's cartoons, but they are f***ing hysterical. www.thismodernworld.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 22, 2003 Author Share Posted February 22, 2003 those are pretty funny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Oh my God, you have to be joking me. We would have NEVER won the Revolutionary War without France, I cannot believe you are so uninformed as to say that. Britain had a Navy, we didn't, simple as that. That's kind of debatable. At the rate the Revolutionary War was going and the inability of the British to overwhelmingly defeat the Americans there is a school of thought that suggests that the British would have just given up after the war became too costly and time consuming. Not saying I agree with this... I don't think we could have won without France, either... I doubt George would have ever let a colony get away without absolute surrender. But to say that anyone who thinks we could have "won" without France is uniformed, isn't entirelty true, IMO. STOP THE PRESSES..... Doub finally posted something in a political thread that I AGREE with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 I have posted this before and will again - anyone age 18-30 who posts a f*** France thing, and who wants France to go fight a war, but has not actually enlisted their own self, is a pansy woos moral coward piece of s*** blowhard hypocrite. You want war, put your ass on the line and back up your mouths with your lives. If you believe this war is necessary to America, then you are obligated to fight in it. You want France to be in your war and attack them for not wanting to fight, you are full of the deepest s*** if you aren't going to fight it yourself with your own ass on the line. Why send France to do what you won't? Enlist, big talking jive talking mother f***ers. Enlist. So easy to be an armchair warrior saying f*** you France - enlist yourself and show that you actually believe in the things you say. Otherwise, the bulls*** level of all these big talk posts from people who won't enlist is great indeed. And have a nice day! Thats bulls*** who do you think funds the damn war thats right the people at home living there everyday lives by paying taxes etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 actually it was really touch and go with the Revolution. We might not have won without French aid, we certtainly wouldn't have won at Yorktown without the French navy and France was the first country to reocognise us as a nation. You got the year wrong - 1956 is not the year you mean - typo on your part, no biggie. Psycho, please note if you haven't already that while I disagree with some of your positions, I have no quarrel with you since you will entering the military when you aren old enough - you will back up your words with your life. I still don't believe everyone is built for the military or should serve in the military. Here we have the right to chose whether we enlist or not, just like we have the right to chose our job. I admire your son and I respect all those in the military as well as the police, and fire departments, but that doesn't mean I have to do it. Thank goodness there are a lot of people out there that do want to do it. We all need doctors too, but thats not what I'm going to be either. The thing is, here in America we aren't forced to enlist in the military like they are in Korea. Man, I think it would suck if everyone had to enlist. Well first off our military would be huge. Secondly, If we think military spending is high now, well then guess what it will be when they are having to pay salaries or college fees to even more people. Lastly, just because i"m not in the military doesn't mean I can't have a belief. If I believe we should help another nation, doesn't mean I personally have to back it up. I'll do my part, but I'd like to think I could do it in other ways, such as morally supporting the troops or doing my best to support the economy and this country or plenty of other things. On a last part, the Revolutionary war was completely different. It was on OUR soil, this is somewhere else. Your damn right if it was on our soil I'd be backing it up or if it was for our freedom. This war is for other peoples freedom. I may not be over in the Gulf with people like your son or Nuke and God Bless them and all the other troops over there, but it doesn't mean I can't say I'm for the war. Thats for damn sure. Saddam is a tyran thats killed his own people. Why would he hesitate doing the same on the US or other countries. Just cause France doesn't find it a big worry isn't my problem and I don't think its the US's problem. Plenty of countries are supporting us in this issue. Saddam needs to be stopped. He's been given numerous chances to disarm and comply with inspections and he's never done so. Why the hell would he change now. Do we have to wait until he kills more? police officers can lick my sac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Wow... what an interesting discussion with such a wide variety of opinions. So, let mt throw a little more gas on the fire. Regarding France, yes, they were instrumental in helping us win the "rebellion" or Revolutionary War. And yes, they did have their own agenda in mind. They certainly didn't do it for any idealistic reasons about weather or not we should have taxation without representation. So, even given the fact that they did help us win our liberty , we have, in the past century, at least helped them preserve, re-establish is probably a more appropriate word, their liberty. We have paid that debt twice over, already. Then, we bailed them out in Nam. If France is our ally, then I don't want anymore like them. You young guys that are screaming fight, but say you won't join.... you have that right. But, know that you have that right because those others that have joined, and the ones that came before them, are and/or were defending that right for you. And remember this too .... if this war turns sour on us, you just might end up being drafted and putting your ass on the line whether you want to or not. And to those that are armed forces members, or have loved ones in the services.... God Bless you and yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Wow... what an interesting discussion with such a wide variety of opinions. So, let mt throw a little more gas on the fire. Regarding France, yes, they were instrumental in helping us win the "rebellion" or Revolutionary War. And yes, they did have their own agenda in mind. They certainly didn't do it for any idealistic reasons about weather or not we should have taxation without representation. So, even given the fact that they did help us win our liberty , we have, in the past century, at least helped them preserve, re-establish is probably a more appropriate word, their liberty. We have paid that debt twice over, already. Then, we bailed them out in Nam. If France is our ally, then I don't want anymore like them. You young guys that are screaming fight, but say you won't join.... you have that right. But, know that you have that right because those others that have joined, and the ones that came before them, are and/or were defending that right for you. And remember this too .... if this war turns sour on us, you just might end up being drafted and putting your ass on the line whether you want to or not. And to those that are armed forces members, or have loved ones in the services.... God Bless you and yours. not me ill be moving to jamaca to taste the fine crons over there i wont fight a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Wow... what an interesting discussion with such a wide variety of opinions. So, let mt throw a little more gas on the fire. Regarding France, yes, they were instrumental in helping us win the "rebellion" or Revolutionary War. And yes, they did have their own agenda in mind. They certainly didn't do it for any idealistic reasons about weather or not we should have taxation without representation. So, even given the fact that they did help us win our liberty , we have, in the past century, at least helped them preserve, re-establish is probably a more appropriate word, their liberty. We have paid that debt twice over, already. Then, we bailed them out in Nam. If France is our ally, then I don't want anymore like them. You young guys that are screaming fight, but say you won't join.... you have that right. But, know that you have that right because those others that have joined, and the ones that came before them, are and/or were defending that right for you. And remember this too .... if this war turns sour on us, you just might end up being drafted and putting your ass on the line whether you want to or not. And to those that are armed forces members, or have loved ones in the services.... God Bless you and yours. not me ill be moving to jamaca to taste the fine crons over there i wont fight a war. So you'll try do be a draft dodger, and you support this war? Pardon me if I'm incorrect I simply don't follow the logic if that is it. Pardon me for a second but I am going to throw my own brand of fire starter. We (as one representative of the non U.S.A.) are constantly bombarded with this notion that the U.S. consider themselves the country that has twice saved the world from hostile occupation. The problem I have with that is that American troops in the first world war spent less that 100 days in actual combat. A contribution that was invaluable and a sacrifice that can't be repaid for many, however to take credit for the outcome of that war is very self serving and insulting. Likewise in the Second World war where the U.S. take credit for the liberation of Rome and have declared themselves winners of that war despite the fact that the months of fighting the German occupation to make the liberation of Italy possible was done by Kiwi's, Aussies, Brits and Canadians. The politics of the situation ordered that American troops take Rome and with it the credit for the liberation. Forgive me if I am incorrect as I will defer to the fact that I am not officially a high school graduate and therefore my history could have been misrepresented to me. My eventual point is that the American Empire may in fact be untouchable today, but to have this notion that your country was resposible for winning the Two World wars (the assault on Japan not withstanding), does not do the situation justice. The U.S. by most people outside America's account is not batting 1.000 in forein wars. WW I- Not much of a factor WW II- decisive victory over Japan upon development of Nuclear Bomb. Korea- Victory in South Korea, defeat in North Korea Vietnam- Brutal defeat. Again I reiterate that I am not looking to offend, merely give a different opinion on the debate ongoing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI1020 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I'm glad my teaching career was brief. Historical and geographical knowledge are lost. Maybe forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.