Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: eagleclaw on October 06, 2004, 12:34:27 am
-
We thank you for protecting are country. God bless you. And keep up the good work.
-
Even though I'm an American I must point out there was no visible threat from Iraq and the attack was mostly offensive.
-
Now, if I may ask, who exactly are they protecting it from? Wo is it that threatens America?
I'm working my way through the wonderful book Sorrows of Empire, and it makes some rather brilliant points on the subject of militarism.
The military-industrial complex has become the status quo, as it was never meant to be, so that now, there is an army, indeed a whole military class, without an enemy, and hence, a purpose. The US was never intended to have a standing army during peace-time, the founding fathers considered it, rightly so, as a threat to liberty. You see, in that past hundred years or so, the US has been moving steadily towards empire, and is now perhaps the most expansive in history,
When you say "protecting America", you don't really mean America as a physical location, as the national territory of America, as most other countries do. You mean "American interests" which is anyone that threatens US hegemony. Iraq (and Iran, Syria, North Korea and others) are in no way a threat to America, they are a threat, or rather an obstacle, to American interests, which is generally military occupation and the profits of American corporations which influence policy.
Maybe you ought to shake that grey matter around a bit and ponder this point.
oh and, I'm Rictor. Seeing as how you're new, you'll very quickly come to recognize me as the bastard who loves to argue politics and can't keep his mouth shut.
-
Originally posted by MeowMix2
Even though I'm an American I must point out there was no visible threat from Iraq and the attack was mostly offensive.
Yes and you also said the SCP was warez......:wtf:
I dont particularly care if their was a cause was a right one or not, the fact that theyre doing their job and putting their lives on the line for their country is somthing that demands respect in my opinion. Sorry im a bit biased in this...
-
I agree with Rictor.
-
Originally posted by Night Hammer
I dont particularly care if their was a cause was a right one or not
Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.
Wow, that was easier than expected.
-
Spoken like a true Democrat, taking everything out of context. I said nothing of your statments of who or what America is defending. I only said that they deserve respect. Nice try though;)
-
Respect, maybe. Hitler deserves respect, he managed to do quite alot. But what you are showing is support, not respect. Respect does not entail support or endoresement.
What I can not understand is how you and so many other support the army regardless of what they are doing or what their goals are. If they are saving lives you support them just the same as if they are taking them. Of course their purpose matters, thats the reason they are doing what they are doing. I can be the best, er....swimmer in the world, and that desrves respect, but if I'm swimming in order to lets say kill all the Russians in the world, then what I am doing is not right.
They may be putting their lives of the line, but if that is for a bad cause, what does it matter?
And yes, I realize you said respect not support, but its quite evident that you do also support them, judging by your posts in politcal threads on here.
edit: I am NOT a Democrat. I badmouth Kerry more tha Bush.
-
Originally posted by Night Hammer
Spoken like a true Democrat, taking everything out of context. I said nothing of your statments of who or what America is defending. I only said that they deserve respect. Nice try though;)
[sarcasm] It's not like Republicans have never taken anything out of context. [/sarcasm]
:p
-
But not as publicy or as loudly as the good ol' Dems:p
Ric, I spose I do support them, due to family ties and the fact that I think things should done in the world. No I dont think we should maintain a peacekeeping force or set up new countries but I think dictators and terrorists should be gotten rid of. Since we are the only country that seems to use force everyone criticizes us. The UN's solutions dont work, economic sanctioning doesnt really do much. It affects the innocent people yall whine n ***** about us affecting, not the leaders, not the people who make the decisions. Iraq had it for about 13/14 years didnt seem to bug them, **** Cuba has been under them since the 60's theyre doin fine(Im Cuban, have family there). Force is the only thing morons like Sadamm and Qadaffi respond to. So the military does their job only to be criticized by a bunch of *****es who wont do anything to help themselves or anyone else.
and you may not be a democrat but you seem liberal as hell
-
oh and eagleclaw how many troops do you think that are actually doing anything check this board very frequently?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Respect, maybe. Hitler deserves respect, he managed to do quite alot. But what you are showing is support, not respect. Respect does not entail support or endoresement.
What I can not understand is how you and so many other support the army regardless of what they are doing or what their goals are. If they are saving lives you support them just the same as if they are taking them. Of course their purpose matters, thats the reason they are doing what they are doing. I can be the best, er....swimmer in the world, and that desrves respect, but if I'm swimming in order to lets say kill all the Russians in the world, then what I am doing is not right.
They may be putting their lives of the line, but if that is for a bad cause, what does it matter?
And yes, I realize you said respect not support, but its quite evident that you do also support them, judging by your posts in politcal threads on here.
edit: I am NOT a Democrat. I badmouth Kerry more tha Bush.
I blame the politicians, not the troops. It's the job of the army to defend their country, but not to identify the threat... at the end of day they have no choice but to obey the politicians, because if they didn't, then they wouldn't be much of a defense.
Oh, NightHammer - sanctions kept Iraq from getting WMD, so they did work in that example, as UNMOVIC and the ISG have proven. The objection to the US throwing about its military & political might is because it doesn't do so in anyones interest beyond its own. Whilst it's understandable that a country would only look after itself, it doesn't make it any more palatable to the rest of the world.
And look at the actual meaning of the word 'liberal' next time you use it, then you might realise when it can be correctly used. Liberal != US Democrat.
-
I think we can all agree on one point: Sooner or later, everyone gets what's coming to them....
-
Originally posted by an0n
I think we can all agree on one point: Sooner or later, everyone gets what's coming to them....
History seems to concur.
-
Good points Rictor. I concur.
-
MeowMix's statement in this thread is insightful
his comments in otherthreads however show that he's a total freaking retard
-
Says the guy who just never lets go of the bone...
-
This may be of some interest/relevance;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1319718,00.html
-
Dont get me wrong, I think Sadam was an evil in the world, a madman, and needed getting rid of. What I have a problem with is the fact that this wasnt enough for the 'Grand Coalition' forces. Blair is now, I think, finished politically, though not entirely because of the war, while Bush still seems to stand a good chance of staying, partly due to Kerry's dullness and inability to rip him to pieces as any capable opponent should be able to.
This despite the fact that even Bushs closest aids, Cheneys recent statement, however unclear, about no links between Al'Queda and Iraq, are now begining to wobble on previous claims.
Its just the blind faith Americans seem to put in their leaders and treat any criticism of them as an attack on their country, way of life, and liberty and all the rest.
I serve in the reserve forces (Irish, which are admittedly pretty pathetic) and am thinking about trying for the regulars, Cadets, (which are actually really well trained) so I sympathise completely with the soldiers. Their situation is even worse now that the great and just quest has been exposed as a fraud.
But its pretty typical I think of Bushs Presidency. The little guy feels the squeeze while bush has the lights turned down so he doesnt have to look bad squinting.
-
The thing with America is that, since the Twin Towers got rocket-plane'd, they've had this "You're un-American" crap crammed into their throat holes.
Basically, because they're all *****es, every last one of them, they all yielded to the onslaught of the "If you criticize, you're an unpatriotic, treasonous, beard-loving, Arab bastard!" brainwashing.
It's sad to see, but when 90% of the population is rednecks, drug dealers, NRA psychos and trailer-park trash you've got to expect this kind of ****.
-
I think the removal of Saddam Hussein could have been a compelling reason for war - were it not for the international consequences of launching a US war in an Arab country at that time (even if removing a dictator like Saddam was/is a decent motive, it was and is the wrong time). I don't think the American people would have accepted such a division of effort from the 'War on Terror', either.
So the US (in particular, but the UK also didn't do much to disagree) invented a false imminent threat from Iraq in order to justify the war as self defense. but no-one bought it, and they ended up painted into a corner when UNMOVIC found nothing in inspections, and the US had a load of troops sitting around in the desert who could only stay for so long.
-
Originally posted by an0n
The thing with America is that, since the Twin Towers got rocket-plane'd, they've had this "You're un-American" crap crammed into their throat holes.
Basically, because they're all *****es, every last one of them, they all yielded to the onslaught of the "If you criticize, you're an unpatriotic, treasonous, beard-loving, Arab bastard!" brainwashing.
It's sad to see, but when 90% of the population is rednecks, drug dealers, NRA psychos and trailer-park trash you've got to expect this kind of ****.
you forgot the evengelical crowd, an0n.
now, patriotism is all good and fine, but when you get people, who are patriotic to their country's values/morals and rams it down another's throat, it can get pretty ****ing tiresome.
and this goes both ways, i might add. hence why there's so much unrest right now in iraq.. the people lashing out at the US are so-called "patriots"
now, i heard a /really/ good quote from sudeki, and i believe it applies in a fashon..
"without religion or science, a soldier wouldn't earn his pay"
-
No, because he'd be dead.
-
anyone see the F16 reports yesterday ? firing on a crowd of people ?
-
*shock*
At least it never bombed a Red Cross building.
-
Originally posted by Night Hammer
But not as publicy or as loudly as the good ol' Dems:p
Ric, I spose I do support them, due to family ties and the fact that I think things should done in the world. No I dont think we should maintain a peacekeeping force or set up new countries but I think dictators and terrorists should be gotten rid of. Since we are the only country that seems to use force everyone criticizes us. The UN's solutions dont work, economic sanctioning doesnt really do much. It affects the innocent people yall whine n ***** about us affecting, not the leaders, not the people who make the decisions. Iraq had it for about 13/14 years didnt seem to bug them, **** Cuba has been under them since the 60's theyre doin fine(Im Cuban, have family there). Force is the only thing morons like Sadamm and Qadaffi respond to. So the military does their job only to be criticized by a bunch of *****es who wont do anything to help themselves or anyone else.
and you may not be a democrat but you seem liberal as hell
I'm not buying the "we did it to help the Iraqis" excuse, not from you and particularly not from Bush and his band of sociopaths. Why?
There are more people in America that are living under the poverty line (uhm, about 31 million is the number I read) than there are people in Iraq *total* (26 miliion). If you're so keen on helping people, help your own countrymen first. If all Bush wants to do is love everyone and make them happy and all that BS, he's got a good 30 million people right under his nose, waiting for a helping hand that they have been denied since birth. It stands to reason that before you go all the way over to Iraq in order to liberate the poor hudled masses, you would maybe want to look into helping people in your own backyard. And since Bush has and is working for the interests of the elite since day one, that excuse for war is not really a valid one.
Also, and I hope you don't take it personally, you being a Cuban exile kind of explain your political beliefs. The Miami cuban exile community is notoriously right-wing (and among the most militant groups in the US).
Originally posted by aldo_14
I blame the politicians, not the troops. It's the job of the army to defend their country, but not to identify the threat... at the end of day they have no choice but to obey the politicians, because if they didn't, then they wouldn't be much of a defense.
Oh come on. Since when does being a soldier entail abdication of all thought. It is not only possible, but necessary, that soldiers be more than just mindless drones. This wouldn't at all lessen the effectiveness of the military, since it is the reason *why* they fight as opposed to *how* they fight. If the war is one where having an ignorant and indoctrinated military is necessary to fight it, its probably not legitimate in the first place and should not be fought.
Rest assured, standing army of no, if America were to be invaded, you would very quickly have a massive resistance with no help from the politicians. If an army is purely defensive, and it should be, than it does not need politicians to identify threats, it is very obvious when defence of your country is needed.
You can have all sorts of extenuiating circumstances (god, I feel like a lawyer), such as the fact that the army generally recruits from the poorer classes, that most people are heavily misinformed as to what the army is, that Hollywood has been on a systematic campaign of propaganda for many decades now, and those are all true, but in the end these are grown men and women we are talking about, no younger than myself. They have access to all the same sources information as I do, and so they are responsible for their own beliefs.
-
Originally posted by an0n
*shock*
At least it never bombed a Red Cross building.
an0n has a point, i mean, it's no suprise at all.
if it fired on an hospital, or something equally important.. then, it'd be something of a shock.
-
ah, but people are fine?
...or for example the Palestine hotel, where all the journalists are staying. Yeah, seems like a fair target to me, after all, the only good journalist is an embedded journalist.
-
People die everyday due to trigger-happy Americans. Come back when they shoot someone important.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
ah, but people are fine?
...or for example the Palestine hotel, where all the journalists are staying. Yeah, seems like a fair target to me, after all, the only good journalist is an embedded journalist.
i never said it was good or bad.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Oh come on. Since when does being a soldier entail abdication of all thought. It is not only possible, but necessary, that soldiers be more than just mindless drones. This wouldn't at all lessen the effectiveness of the military, since it is the reason *why* they fight as opposed to *how* they fight. If the war is one where having an ignorant and indoctrinated military is necessary to fight it, its probably not legitimate in the first place and should not be fought.
Rest assured, standing army of no, if America were to be invaded, you would very quickly have a massive resistance with no help from the politicians. If an army is purely defensive, and it should be, than it does not need politicians to identify threats, it is very obvious when defence of your country is needed.
You can have all sorts of extenuiating circumstances (god, I feel like a lawyer), such as the fact that the army generally recruits from the poorer classes, that most people are heavily misinformed as to what the army is, that Hollywood has been on a systematic campaign of propaganda for many decades now, and those are all true, but in the end these are grown men and women we are talking about, no younger than myself. They have access to all the same sources information as I do, and so they are responsible for their own beliefs.
What would you like the military to have done, then? Mutiny?
-
Whoa.... talk about thread mutation... I wholeheartedly agree with eagleclaw. Your position on the war is a different matter entirely and is OT.
-
Well, I would like them to be informed individuals, who do require a valid reason in order to go out and kill other people. Is that too much to ask? If we're talking short term, I dunno, conciencous objector seems good.
The same applies equally to any other job. Moral issues ought to determine whether you do your job or refuse, on ethical grounds. Seems far-fetched, but I don't see why its impossible.
-
Thats not how the military works...
-
Don't take this the wrong way but...
considering that the oil fields in the mideast are drying up and Iraq is the last large reserve in the world, I am happy Saddam is gone. Not that I am saying we are going to steal it or that I think the war was about oil but, eventually the oil embargo would have to been lifted and saddam having access to such a huge source of cash is frightening at best.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Whoa.... talk about thread mutation... I wholeheartedly agree with eagleclaw. Your position on the war is a different matter entirely and is OT.
How is the war a seperate matter from the people who fight it?
This is my whole point. Blind, unconditional support for any person or institution is almost always a recipe for disaster.
Originally posted by Deepblue
Thats not how the military works...
yes, I realize, but why. Tell me what that is not the way it *should* work? The fact that something is as it is does not mean that is the best way.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, I would like them to be informed individuals, who do require a valid reason in order to go out and kill other people. Is that too much to ask? If we're talking short term, I dunno, conciencous objector seems good.
The same applies equally to any other job. Moral issues ought to determine whether you do your job or refuse, on ethical groups. Seems far-fetched, but I don't see why its impossible.
That's not the job of an army, though. The job of conscience, reason, etc is performed - or should be - by the elected government. If you allowed the army to decide who, when and where to fight, you'd be dropping into the region of a junta.
If you allowed individual to make the same decision, you'd have a military whose capacity for both attack and defense was completely unknown. You could not be able to make any plans, because you don't know who will fight and when.
The military is the tool of the government. It is the government who makes the decision to use that tool, and it is they who hold responsibility. If the army becomes more than a simple tool, it becomes a danger to democracy itself.
-
Blind, unconditional, obediance, is the only effective way to make a military force work. You may have individuals with opinions, but they are the ones in charge. The average grunt MUST obey instantly or the fighting force becomes a mere armed rabble...
-
Originally posted by Clave
Blind, unconditional, obediance, is the only effective way to make a military force work. You may have individuals with opinions, but they are the ones in charge. The average grunt MUST obey instantly or the fighting force becomes a mere armed rabble...
commonly referred as "chain of command"
-
But not as publicy or as loudly as the good ol' Dems
Untrue.
-
one must remember that some orders are illegal, and when issued an illegal order it is the responsibility of the soldier to disobey that illegal order
all other orders are to be obeyed
-
There's a difference between illegal orders and illegal policy, though.
-
And if they're orders are to degrade POW's in Abbu Grave?
As ever valid and good points Riktor, I feel any words I can add are superflous.
-
Originally posted by Fergus
And if they're orders are to degrade POW's in Abbu Grave?
Then they're illegal, simple as that.
I'm not saying the army is blameless and should have carte blanche in the way it acts, just that it's unfair to blame it for deploying in Iraq when that is a government policy decision.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
That's not the job of an army, though. The job of conscience, reason, etc is performed - or should be - by the elected government. If you allowed the army to decide who, when and where to fight, you'd be dropping into the region of a junta.
woah woah, hold on. The job of conscience and reason is performed by every individual, everywhere. No one can abandon the responsibility that comes with being a human. You are responsible for your actions.
Have we truly come to the point, as a society and a race, where certain delegates are tasked with acting as the public conscience? The government's job is not to make all the decisions so that everyone else can sit on their hands and shrug away all responsibility. This is, in effect, giving the government the job of deciding what is right and wrong, and we all just fall in line. And you see no problem with that?
Originally posted by aldo_14
If you allowed individual to make the same decision, you'd have a military whose capacity for both attack and defense was completely unknown. You could not be able to make any plans, because you don't know who will fight and when.
Yes, those damn individul decisions, so uneffective. Ideally, we would have a military modeled after the Borg perhaps, they know how to get things done.
Okay, I'm bull****ting, but the principle that we must transform people into resources, into what essentially amounts to robots, who follow orders without a single thought firing through their minds, is, to me, sickening. Soldiers are people, and any organization that we impose on a group is secondary to every individual's role as a human being. No one is exempt, simply because of their affiliation with a certain group, such as the military.
The concept that we should have one group who's job it is to dictate policy, and another's who job it is to enforce it (or for that matter, to tolerate it or to suffer the consequences of it), regardless of individual beliefs, is insane. Thats a master/slave system right there.
Originally posted by aldo_14
The military is the tool of the government. It is the government who makes the decision to use that tool, and it is they who hold responsibility. If the army becomes more than a simple tool, it becomes a danger to democracy itself.
Look, people are not tools. Machines are tools, even animals can be tools, because they are not conscious, but people are not tools. Read what I said above.
The role of the military is to protect a nation against invasion. Fine, dandy. When the nation is threatened, people will voluntarily take up the cause of defending it, without having to be ordered to do so. From there, it may be necesarry, even beneficial, to organize this voluntary group into a cohesive army with a chain of command an all that. But this chain of command only accounts for HOW the war is fought, not WHY it is fought, which is the major difference.
Thus, the army would be incapable, or at least severly impared, from taking offensive action, since you could never get enough people to voluntarily sign up for somethng other than defence, without the artificial order imposed by a thoughtless, ever obedient military.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
There's a difference between illegal orders and illegal policy, though.
Any action taken as a result of illegal policy is also illegal. Any order carried out in pursuit of illegal policy is illegal.
You must differentiate between HOW an army fights, and WHY it fights. The why is the driving force behind the how, and thus, equally if not more important.
Great actions carried out in pursuit of an invalid (or immoral, illegal, have your pick) goal are not good.
-
Ransom agrees with everything Rictor just said and has nothing to add, so he speaks in third person to make this post mildly more interesting.
-
You must obey without question, the alternative is not viable.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Also, and I hope you don't take it personally, you being a Cuban exile kind of explain your political beliefs. The Miami cuban exile community is notoriously right-wing (and among the most militant groups in the US).
I'm not exactly a Cuban exile, my parents and grandparents are, but I am just a Cuban. Not really militant though, but yes we are a pretty conservative family.
-
i wasn't talking about policy - i was just reminding people not to make blanket statements about unconditionally following the chain of command
Night Hammer: being a war monger is not "conservativsm", subscribing to bush's policies is _NOT_ "conservativism" - it's right-wing authoritarianism
-
Originally posted by Clave
You must obey without question, the alternative is not viable.
do...do you listen to yourself?
have you lost your mind?
read that sentence again, slowly, as well as your previous post. If you don't understand whats wrong, I'm afraid all words will be lost on you.
read Animal Farm. the horse, Boxer, who was the workhorse of the entire farm, had two mottos, which roughly correspond to that of the military.
One was: "Napolean is always right". Napoleon being the Stalin-like dictator of the farm. Anything he says is always right, even if it is contrary to historical fact, to common sense and decensy or to the personal interests of the animals.
the other was "I will work harder". Whenever something needed to be done, Boxer always worked harder to pick up the slack.
-
First i was militant, now im a war monger.....great
-
Originally posted by Rictor
do...do you listen to yourself?
have you lost your mind?
read that sentence again, slowly, as well as your previous post. If you don't understand whats wrong, I'm afraid all words will be lost on you.
read Animal Farm. the horse, Boxer, who was the workhorse of the entire farm, had two mottos, which roughly correspond to that of the military.
One was: "Napolean is always right". Napoleon being the Stalin-like dictator of the farm. Anything he says is always right, even if it is contrary to historical fact, to common sense and decensy or to the personal interests of the animals.
the other was "I will work harder". Whenever something needed to be done, Boxer always worked harder to pick up the slack.
What is the alternative, then? No military? How would that work in this world?
You'll note the problem was not Boxer, but Napoleon, anyways.
I'll reiterate again, for clarity - how can you possibly give the military the ability and right to decide whether the government is right without ending up in a junta?
-
Disloyalty to the State must be punished.
-
Er... I think Clave is joking. I really hope so. He is joking, right?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
woah woah, hold on. The job of conscience and reason is performed by every individual, everywhere. No one can abandon the responsibility that comes with being a human. You are responsible for your actions.
Have we truly come to the point, as a society and a race, where certain delegates are tasked with acting as the public conscience? The government's job is not to make all the decisions so that everyone else can sit on their hands and shrug away all responsibility. This is, in effect, giving the government the job of deciding what is right and wrong, and we all just fall in line. And you see no problem with that?
One individual cannot dictate the conscience of the entire nation. That is why we have elected representatives. The point of the government is to decide right and wrong - people should be elected on the basis of their ability to do so, and unelected upon failure. (aside from the duty of the opposition, referendums, etc, as other ways of popular pressure)
Now, that may not really have worked in the US or UK example, but that is the principle of it.
Originally posted by Rictor
Yes, those damn individul decisions, so uneffective. Ideally, we would have a military modeled after the Borg perhaps, they know how to get things done.
Okay, I'm bull****ting, but the principle that we must transform people into resources, into what essentially amounts to robots, who follow orders without a single thought firing through their minds, is, to me, sickening. Soldiers are people, and any organization that we impose on a group is secondary to every individual's role as a human being. No one is exempt, simply because of their affiliation with a certain group, such as the military.
The concept that we should have one group who's job it is to dictate policy, and another's who job it is to enforce it (or for that matter, to tolerate it or to suffer the consequences of it), regardless of individual beliefs, is insane. Thats a master/slave system right there.
It's necessary to have a fighting force. You cannot run an ad-hoc military, where soldiers pick and choose when & where they want to fight.
What if the D-Day troops had decided Normandy wasn't for them, for example?
Originally posted by Rictor
Look, people are not tools. Machines are tools, even animals can be tools, because they are not conscious, but people are not tools. Read what I said above.
The role of the military is to protect a nation against invasion. Fine, dandy. When the nation is threatened, people will voluntarily take up the cause of defending it, without having to be ordered to do so. From there, it may be necesarry, even beneficial, to organize this voluntary group into a cohesive army with a chain of command an all that. But this chain of command only accounts for HOW the war is fought, not WHY it is fought, which is the major difference.
Thus, the army would be incapable, or at least severly impared, from taking offensive action, since you could never get enough people to voluntarily sign up for somethng other than defence, without the artificial order imposed by a thoughtless, ever obedient military.
The military is a tool. It is not 'people', because people have to be expendable in order to fight wars - it's a sad but inevitable necessity. Abandoning a squad may let 10,20,30, etc men die, but what if it allows a flanking maneuver that wins the war?
History has shown that wars cannot be fought defensively, whether you want to or not. Sometimes it is a necessity to go on the offensive, often to assist allies. No country can survive in a vacuum, after all.
If you want a country to be defended by a volunteer militia, your asking for defeat. It's military suicide in the event of attack, anyways - no organisation, training, logistics, etc. It's also another thing which history has proven as ineffective - just look at WW2 (again) for an example of what can happen.
There's 2 key things here;
1) should the military be able to make political decisions over when to go to war?
2) can a country survive without an organised and commited military force which is willing to fight and die?
I'd see that the answer to both is no.
-
he doesn't want us to win, and given that we are the domonent military force currently he advocates militarily imposable positions.
-
Originally posted by Ransom Arceihn
Er... I think Clave is joking. I really hope so. He is joking, right?
At this point, he must be.
aldo: Boxer enabled Napolean to rule. He is a loveble character becuase any suffering he inflicts is upon himself, for the benefit of others. So while he may be naive, he only harms himself. The naivete of US troops obviously does not only harm themselves.
The government must be subordinate to the people, never the other way around.
to answer your question, a junta would be avoided because of the simple fact that, left to themselves, people, inclduing soldiers, at least in modern America, would not wilingly attack a foreign nation. They CAN be stirred to action when the need comes, but simply be refusing to act when they feel unwarranted, soldiers could avoid aggression by their inaction.
To put it another way, soldiers would choose when *not* to attack, rather then when to attack. If the need comes, we both know that they can be made to attack without much difficulty.
Now let me ask you a question. If we use this model for the military, giving up freedom for the sake of efficiency, then why not in normal life. Why not allow the government to rule us all, so that we can achieve greater agricultural output, or less crime or whatever. Why leave decisions in the hands of ignorant, falliable individuals, when the masters know so much better?
The truth is, when the survival of a peoples is threatened, then temporary dictaorship for the sake of efficiency and survival may be justified, such as was thw case during WW1 and WW2. But Lets be honest, is the territorial integrity, much less the survival, of America, or any nation (other than a select few) currently threatened? The emphasis is on *temporary* dehumanization and what amounts to enslavement, not that that should become the status quo.
-
we think it is,
actualy we think the survival of us and much of the rest of europe, and north america is in question.
so, were a bit peranoied, how do you think we got were we are(most powerfull nation on the planet by an order of magnatude)?
-
We don't let the government controll civilians, because those are free citizins. When someone signs up for the military, they agree to obey any and all legal orders. Why? What would happen on, let's say, a ship, under attack, when the captain yells "Hard Port" and the helmsman says : "You know, I'd rather not, sir, let's got to Starboard."
Or when a group of soldiers is attacked, the sarge yells "Down and return fire" and someone simply says"**** you", and takes cover without shooting back? How would that work?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
At this point, he must be.
aldo: Boxer enabled Napolean to rule. He is a loveble character becuase any suffering he inflicts is upon himself, for the benefit of others. So while he may be naive, he only harms himself. The naivete of US troops obviously does not only harm themselves.
The government must be subordinate to the people, never the other way around.
to answer your question, a junta would be avoided because of the simple fact that, left to themselves, people, inclduing soldiers, at least in modern America, would not wilingly attack a foreign nation. They CAN be stirred to action when the need comes, but simply be refusing to act when they feel unwarranted, soldiers could avoid aggression by their inaction.
To put it another way, soldiers would choose when *not* to attack, rather then when to attack. If the need comes, we both know that they can be made to attack without much difficulty.
Now let me ask you a question. If we use this model for the military, giving up freedom for the sake of efficiency, then why not in normal life. Why not allow the government to rule us all, so that we can achieve greater agricultural output, or less crime or whatever. Why leave decisions in the hands of ignorant, falliable individuals, when the masters know so much better?
The truth is, when the survival of a peoples is threatened, then temporary dictaorship for the sake of efficiency and survival may be justified, such as was thw case during WW1 and WW2. But Lets be honest, is the territorial integrity, much less the survival, of America, or any nation (other than a select few) currently threatened? The emphasis is on *temporary* dehumanization and what amounts to enslavement, not that that should become the status quo.
Because the military is a special case. It's not for the sake of efficiency, it's for the sake of being a useable entity.
If the military can veto every order it is given, how can any government be in control of a country? What if the military decides there is a threat and wants to be proactive? - that's a junta right there. Or should each indiviual in the military be able to decide if they want to fight whenever a battle looms? Pick the easiest missions they can, regardless of the big picture?
Every time a nation-wide decision is made, we cannot hold a referendum. That is the point of democracy, to allow representation. The government is subordinate to the people, and - through the government - so is the military.
So what are you advocating, anyway? A military that is completely free to pick and choose its battles?
NB: The only reasons 'soldiers can be made to attack without much difficulty' is because that is what the military is designed & trained to do.
-
he is advocateing total disamament by every nation in the world.
-
No soldier in an army is expected to carry out an order he considers to be amoral.
[q]we think it is,
actualy we think the survival of us and much of the rest of europe, and north america is in question.
so, were a bit peranoied, how do you think we got were we are(most powerfull nation on the planet by an order of magnatude)?[/q]
No Bob, the American people think everyone's survival is in question without expansive military actions because the media has taught them so.
Also, you became the most powerful nation on earth through state sponsored terrorism from the middle east to indo china.
Btw, I wouldn't hold the US up as a shining example of how to rule the world - your financial issues are a little more than worrying.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
he is advocateing total disamament by every nation in the world.
That is a laudable aim...
but from what I could tell he was basically saying the US army should have refused to Iraq when ordered to. i.e. mutinied.
-
why we think the way we do is irrelevent to the fact that we do
-
[q]why we think the way we do is irrelevent to the fact that we do[/q]
Are you stoned?
-
ok, let's put it this way, the only reason you don't think the world is doomed is becase your media tells you it isn't.
how does that reasoning sound to you?
absurd yes?
well how do you think your reasoning sounds to us?
simply saying 'you are brainwashed and therefore your oppinion is invalid' is not going to do anything but harden any maind controle that there may be.
-
I wasn't saying you were brain washed I was suggesting, albeit indirectly, that you should question these things rather than just accept them.
-
Violence is the solution to all problems. FIGHT!
Unless it causes me pain...then violence is wrong.
-
arghh, no, look you guys misunderstand me.
First of all, yes, I am advocating complete disarmament, but thats NOT what I was reffering to . I advocate that seperately of what I am saying now, and as a far more distant goal. So, that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
Alright, secondly, what I am saying is not that soldiers should be allowed to choose which order to obey, accept those they consider immoral which they are already free to disregard, but which wars to fight.
Orders. Wars. A war is just a large set of individual orders. If a soldier considers a war unjust, then every order given during the course of that war is also unjust. Once a group of people say "OK, we are going to attack Iraq", then that group of people follows the chain of comand in order to accomplish what they set out to do. However, if they never agreed with what it is that they set out to do, than they do not want to accomplish that and therefore do not need to follow orders.
The idea that someone can sign over any decision-making rights over to another entity, particularly when it deals with life and death, which is what soldiers do, is absurd. There are fundamental human rights and responsibilities that can never be signed away or abdicated, and the decision to take a life or participate i destruction is one of them. No job can require of you to kill without your consent, that is simply outside the bounds of what rights can be taken from you. Once you cross that line, its temporary slavery.
You can hold any job in the world: accountant, soldier, swimming instructor, whatever, but at no point, regardless of your job, can you boss require you to enagage in sexual relations with them. Thats simply outside their control. Same thing with taking life or participating in the taking of life. No employer has the power to make you act against your conscience, and because that is in your control, not theirs, it is your responsibility.
_____________
Bob: bull****, the US is damn well not under any threat to its survival and you know it. You consider 9/11 to be "big stuff" becuase you have to reference point. There are 300 million Americans, 300 of which died in that attack. Yes, a tragedy, but the loss of 0.00001 percent of the population is not a threat to survival by any stretch of the imagination.
There is no country on Earth that could succesfully invade America, and no one will try. Someone may kill a few citizens here or there, but thats not a real threat. And in any case, with all the spy goons running around all over the place, how likely do you think another 9/11 is?
The right to sovereignty means that you can put as much police and military around your borders to stop any terrorists or invaders from entering, but you may not go and attack another country in order to kill them. You can guard your house, but not attack someone's elses.
The truth is, there are no more real threats to the US or the West. The strongest rival, China, is not nearly strong enough to rival US hegemony.v There are no more Hitlers or Stalins, America is the only one left. Therefore, dictaorial powers for the sake of survival are not justified, not by a LONG way.
-
But I'm not a slave to a god
That doesn't exist
But I'm not a slave to a world
That doesn't give a ****
The death of one is a tragedy
The death of one is a tragedy
The death of one is a tragedy
But the death of millions is just a statistic
Fight, Fight, Fight.....
-
Pfft. Manson hasn't made anything worth listening to since Antichrist Superstar.
-
You lie sir!
-
Ok, a few good tracks on Holy Wood but they were just aping AS's best moves.
Best Manson track for me is "The Reflecting God" closely followed by "Mister superstar". The reflecting god is so damn brutal, really gets me going everytime.
-
Respect for the military -> political debate -> military debate -> Manson
Hmmm... yes, i can see the link. :p
-
"Support the troops" seems meaningless to me. Of course I don't want anyone to die. With that said, I still make no pretense about my utter contempt for the military as an organization.
Meaningless war is one of the ways in which generations define their purpose. The same rolls are always played out; the power elite, the ones who subscribe to their doctrines, the reactionaries who automatically subscribe to the opposite, I could go on. We are creatures of intellect, but the bonds of instinct are too strong. People in groups have always been the same. The truth is fluid; whatever it is today hardly matters, because someone is going to be its victim. It's just too hard for our empathy to reach us when the violence is comfortably remote.
-
Originally posted by MeowMix2
Even though I'm an American I must point out there was no visible threat from Iraq and the attack was mostly offensive.
that was an ingnorent thing to say. You should be offended by the actions the current administration has played out and taken soldiers from there families to obtain there political goals that are offensive. the troops ubnfortuantly have to follow this crap wether they want to or not. those who dont end up in military prision, discharged or end up loosin all there benefits. most troops loose there sanity because of truama this significant. much like vietnam veterans.
i praise them for doing a job i cant do, wether it is right or not is not what this thread is about, its about there purpose. a majority of the troops dont believe in bushes crap, but they sworn to follow the orders of that command in chief.
and yes i stand firm when i say i support those soldiers, wether i agree with bushs politics or not. (which i dont!). we just all hope and pray that the sooner the job is done, the sooner theyre will be withdrawn and focus on real problems.
thanks for turning this thread into crap.
-
You guys REALLY gotta grow up.
-
tell me about it....
-
I was including you, for the record.
-
ze avatars, zey are...same!
I'm confused.
-
I thought the orange sig text would've helped.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Respect for the military -> political debate -> military debate -> Manson
UPDATED:
Manson -> Avators -> Maturity
I've seen this before. Next comes the flaming...then the lockage.
(With french accent) Head for ze hills!
*Runs
-
Damn you're annoying kid.
-
I Respect any armed forces, mainly because the members of them willingly put their lives on the line for the country. How many of us are actually willing to do that? How many of us are willing to give up our comfortable lives for a rough one like that in the field? I doubt many of us would.
I don't exactly support there actions in Iraq and elsewhere, but that's more a matter of the government leading the army than the army itself.
-
Originally posted by Singh
I Respect any armed forces, mainly because the members of them willingly put their lives on the line for the country. How many of us are actually willing to do that? How many of us are willing to give up our comfortable lives for a rough one like that in the field? I doubt many of us would.
I don't exactly support there actions in Iraq and elsewhere, but that's more a matter of the government leading the army than the army itself.
:nod: :yes:
This is exactly what I was trying to say earlier.
-
I would be willing to put my life on the line if I found a cause that was worth it. But the army, you don't choose your causes, others choose them for you, and you're jut the grunt that does it.
Since when does the ability to get ordered around without individual thought count as a virtue?
-
Humility and courage are virtues last time I checked. :rolleyes:
-
What you are reffering to is the idealized, Hollywood version of the army, where everyone is an noble, brave portait of virtue and strength. The classical warrior. The real army is ignorant, rascist and small-minded. How many of them do you think know the first thing about the political situation in Iraq, or anywhere for that matter? How many do you think care?
Now listen to me carefully: thoughtless obedience is not an admirable trait. It is thw willingness to make yourself a pawn, a slave to someone's else's whims. It shows that people would rather do what they are told than think for themselves. Sheep if you will.
-
What would you rather your country have - an army which follows orders, or one which takes every opportunity to ignore or change them based on personal whims?
-
I would ideally like no army at all.
But since thats not likely, I would like an army that acts with the conscience of its individual parts. Meaning that, in addition to ignoring or disobeying any orders which a soldier feels is illegal or immoral, they would be free to disobey the order to fight in any war which they feel is illegal or immoral, which is the exact same principle.
Note that what I am talking about is NOT an active stance (eg: picking your own targets, which amount to vigilantiaism) but rather a passive one, as in refusing certain targets based on your moral perogative.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
What you are reffering to is the idealized, Hollywood version of the army, where everyone is an noble, brave portait of virtue and strength. The classical warrior. The real army is ignorant, rascist and small-minded. How many of them do you think know the first thing about the political situation in Iraq, or anywhere for that matter? How many do you think care?
Now listen to me carefully: thoughtless obedience is not an admirable trait. It is thw willingness to make yourself a pawn, a slave to someone's else's whims. It shows that people would rather do what they are told than think for themselves. Sheep if you will.
Service means that you have to be humble to take orders from people you may feel superior to. Courage is the ability to do what you need to do despite your dislike without shrinking.
Rascist and ignorant? Most people I know that serve are extremely intelligent and kind. They are not in any way "rascist." Tell me how you came to the conclusion that the military is ignorant and rascist? Is it because of racial profiling or the fact that they do not share your views. Those that belittle others because they do not share their views are often the people that need to change for the better and develop a more positive attitude.
-
I respect anyone who is willing to take a bullet for a cause.
-
for ANY cause?
be specific here.
-
Its not the cause that matters, its the fact that they believe in it so that their life is less important than what they believe. I bet you want me to say "The war in Iraq" so you can jump in and say "OMG! YOU SUXORS! ITS A BIG LIE! OMG! WTF! SHUT UP TIN CAN! SHUT UP! YOU DONT KNOW! SHUT UP! *slap* SHUT UP! BBQ!"
-
no, I just want to establish whether you hold that true for any cause? The SS, or Pol Pot's soldiers, they ought to be equally deserving of respect if you hold this standard, as US troops are.
What you are saying is that you admire the fighting spirit (or the spirit of brutality, depending on how you want to look at it), regardless of the cause that is serves, that right?
-
The fact that you believe in your cause over your life is not brutality or a fighting spirit. Its a spirit of belief, not "OMG IM GONNA KILL HIS ASS!"
If you were a Nazi in a Concentration Camp killing Jewish people, I would condem that of course. Thats blind murder.
However, a Nazi soldier on the front lines without the knowledge of Concentration Camps is still a soldier, an individual who fights for his country because he believes in it and what it stands for.
A non-violent expression is people who believe in their political party, their research and work, or their dedication to others.
-
alright fine, so al Queda then. Or suicide bombers.
look, all I'm saying is, those who do not think for themselves do not deserve respect. Ignorance is not a virtue. Blind faith, blind conformity, these are not virtues. Being a grunt, a drone, a sheep, a mere machine, for others to use and direct as they with, this is not an admirable thing.
Killing people for no other reason than being ordered to do so, how can you possibly defend that? How is that deserving of respect.
-
Its a cause you believe in, not an order. Its not a blind cause either. You are fully aware of what you are defending as a person and you are conciously aware that it matters more to you than you matter to yourself.
As for the terrorists, I guess I cant respect them either, since now they are blowing up children.
-
Every cause is a blind cause if you are unwilling to accept that you have no way of knowing whether or not you are right.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Its a cause you believe in, not an order. Its not a blind cause either. You are fully aware of what you are defending as a person and you are conciously aware that it matters more to you than you matter to yourself.
As for the terrorists, I guess I cant respect them either, since now they are blowing up children.
Alright, so then I take you think that US soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere are fully aware of the political, social, economic and other implications of their actions? That they are familiar with the history of the conflict, the people and the various forces that have made their presence necessary?
In short, that they are aware of the their circumstances, and what they are fighting for and more importantly, why.
I don't think so. If they are at least as oblivious as the rest of America (and in fact, the world) then they have nowhere near the knowledge necessary to make decisions of the lsort which they are making, decisions which will affect the future of a country and the 25 million people in it.
Hell, most of the antiwar movement, who are generally better informed and more politically aware, are ignorant on the subject.
Face it, people, soldiers included, know more about the NFL than they do about Iraq. And yet, they are over there, playing God with the fates of millions, and they simply trust that the higher-ups will make the right decisions. If someone asked me to invade a country, occupy the people and take lives, I would see to it that I'm a ****ing proffesor on the subject before I even pick up my gun. That way, I am making a conscious decision as an individual that this is what is right, not simply following orders cause I can't be bothered to think for myself.
-
Rictor, you seem to think a soldier is a drone and not a human being. Soldiers can make decisions on whether to obey or disobey an order that sounds extreme, example, killing an unarmed child in the middle of a room. Id definately say "Go to hell sir" and then would drop my gun.
You dont have to know every shining detail as to what you are fighting for, just basically why you are doing it in a plain term is fine with me. Are some of the soldiers going to be lied to? Of course. Everyone is lied to in all circumstances throughout history, but if a soldier came back from seeing his friends die and was horror-stricken, would you run up to him and spit in his face and call him a disgrace of America?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
What you are reffering to is the idealized, Hollywood version of the army, where everyone is an noble, brave portait of virtue and strength. The classical warrior. The real army is ignorant, rascist and small-minded. How many of them do you think know the first thing about the political situation in Iraq, or anywhere for that matter? How many do you think care?
Now listen to me carefully: thoughtless obedience is not an admirable trait. It is thw willingness to make yourself a pawn, a slave to someone's else's whims. It shows that people would rather do what they are told than think for themselves. Sheep if you will.
Dude. I am in the army as it is. Even though its just as a clerk; I see what the others go through when they go outfield and what-not. I know the political games that occur in the army; especially between the ranks. Yet I still respect them. Agreed, not many of hte ground soldiers would think about the political scenario - but that is because they can't afford to think of such a thing during the midst of battle.
I doubt an army Jawan freezing in hte hills of Kashmir has much to think of other than how he's going to get through the night, and hold his position against the equally freezing Pakistani soldier in the hill accross him.
Thoughtless obedience? I'd think not. If a soldier were just a drone; I'd say WWII would have had Six million Military Casualties rather than Civilian ones. It takes more than just blind faith to follow orders; it takes more than just passiveness to survive in a warzone, no matter what your role.
-
Every solider I have ever known, both part-time and career, has been concerned soley with getting drunk and ****ing some random whore.
The single most political sentence I have ever heard a Squaddie mutter was "Wales is ****in' ****".
-
I have not yet had the time to read this entire thing yet, but I am getting to it.
I was wondering, however, if you wanted the perspective of a veteran who served 12 years in both combat arms and intelligence who's career centered on the Middle East?
Naaahhhh..... dinna think so...
And btw, I was never particularly concerned with getting drunk, or whoring. I knew a few soldiers who were, but you see people like that in every profession and every walk of life. The vast majority of those I served with made it a point to be very informed about the people, region, political and factional climate, and culture of the places we were deploying to. It was a require ment that was always stressed very heavily as such knowledge cannot only save lives, but can help to avoid dangerous problems as well.
-
Anyone here actually been in the military?
*raises hand*
The difference between being on the inside and being a civilian is immense. The Army, Air Force, or Navy becomes the core of your life and everyone outside are merely 'civvies' Now I know they are there to be protected, but the main person you had to look after first was yourself, then the people around you, and finally everyone else.
It may seem odd, but some of the exercises we did involved locking down the base and preventing civilian incursion. It was thought that because we had bomb shelters, NBC suits, clean food and water, that people on the outside would break in if there was any kind of war, but especially a nuclear attack. So some of us would play civilians and try and create a riot at the main gate, while others were guards trying to stop them getting in. Now, these things are played out for real, with blank ammo etc. and the first thing you realise is that, if you are ordered to shoot someone, you WILL DO IT....
The matter of responsibility lies with the superior officer on the scene. Of course there are rules which he has to obey, but they can be 'interpreted' if need be. For instance the rules of 'Minimum Force' and 'Warning before opening fire' can be completely ignored if an 'Immediate Threat' is there. So.... we do need a military, but we must also be aware that they will protect their own first before looking out for everyone else. This is one reason why Iraq will drag on and on, because in the eyes of the average grunt on the ground, there are only two groups there - his buddies, and everyone else - who are ALL potential targets. I can understand how they do it, but not how they keep doing it day after day, knowing the it might be thier turn next...
Brave? Yes, I think so...
Edit: Yep, Eviscerator stick some views in here....
Edit 2: Damn! so many posts while I was typing this!
-
Originally posted by an0n
Every solider I have ever known, both part-time and career, has been concerned soley with getting drunk and ****ing some random whore.
The single most political sentence I have ever heard a Squaddie mutter was "Wales is ****in' ****".
Wierd. I barely see it here (ok, its there, but not as much as ya think) :p
-
probly depends on were you are mik was talking about all kinds of crap happining at the base he was stationed at (Japan)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Alright, so then I take you think that US soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere are fully aware of the political, social, economic and other implications of their actions? That they are familiar with the history of the conflict, the people and the various forces that have made their presence necessary?
In short, that they are aware of the their circumstances, and what they are fighting for and more importantly, why.
I don't think so. If they are at least as oblivious as the rest of America (and in fact, the world) then they have nowhere near the knowledge necessary to make decisions of the lsort which they are making, decisions which will affect the future of a country and the 25 million people in it.
Hell, most of the antiwar movement, who are generally better informed and more politically aware, are ignorant on the subject.
Face it, people, soldiers included, know more about the NFL than they do about Iraq. And yet, they are over there, playing God with the fates of millions, and they simply trust that the higher-ups will make the right decisions. If someone asked me to invade a country, occupy the people and take lives, I would see to it that I'm a ****ing proffesor on the subject before I even pick up my gun. That way, I am making a conscious decision as an individual that this is what is right, not simply following orders cause I can't be bothered to think for myself.
All these questions are those you ask of the people who send the troops, not the troops.
-
I agree that ultimately, the government is resposinble for the actions of the military and not the military itself.
However, this does not take away the duty of any military officer to disregard any order that is in direct contrast with moral obligations. But being sent to fight a war is not one of the things. No officer can say "I dun wanna go to war cuz its wrong.".
People saying that any and every person should obey at all times is just a moron. Thats how Saddam worked, not the Western World. If an order is in direct contrast with the moral obligations and standards, an order does not have to be followed.
(This is an actual rule btw. Not something i made up.)
-
Originally posted by an0n
Every solider I have ever known, both part-time and career, has been concerned soley with getting drunk and ****ing some random whore.
The single most political sentence I have ever heard a Squaddie mutter was "Wales is ****in' ****".
But we are all convinced you have a horrible outlook on life, so, its doesnt really matter
-
Originally posted by Clave
Anyone here actually been in the military?
The difference between being on the inside and being a civilian is immense. The Army, Air Force, or Navy ..............................
*raises hand* - :mad2: You for got to list the Marines!
Originally posted by an0n
Every solider I have ever known, both part-time and career, has been concerned soley with getting drunk and ****ing some random whore.
Not I said the ex Marine. :D
-
Thank you for all your replies. Now tell me you think we will ever catch Bin Ladden?
-
Pakistan are probably more likely to catch Bin Laden.
-
Yes. Either that or he'll be blown to hell by a predator launched missile.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Yes. Either that or he'll be blown to hell by a predator launched missile.
Or a Predator's shoulder cannon. ;7
-
I'm betting more on a Pakistani rifle ...
-
or liver failure.
-
Damn Aldo, you beat me to it.
-
less than a month to go, we'll soon see if this whole line of conversation is moot already.
...can you even say line of conversation. You can say line of arguement, but...I dunno, its kind of a grey area. It doesn't sound right.
-
Apologies to Ubermetroid for missing out the Marines....
Oh, and the Special Forces of USA and UK....
As for Bin Laden, he's probably back home now, tucked away in a luxury hidey-hole in Saudi somewhere....
-
...or food poisoning, or old age...
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
...or food poisoning, or old age...
It was funny when it was done like three posts ago.
-
Now I think we should just pull out are troops and just let them fight on there own.
-
No, because he'd be dead.
Heh yeah.
Without religion the soldier wouldn't be fighting.
Without science the soldier wouldn't be able to kill anything. (yes, even a rock is technically technology :p )
-
It's aaaallllllliiiivvvve!!!
Kill it!
-
Now I think we should just pull out are troops and just let them fight on there own.
Because it's easier than taking responsibility for completely ****ing up a country? What did you expect, anyways? That you could just bomb them with huge amounts of explosives (shock and awe), remove the complete structure of government (even more dangerous for a tyrannical regime), pump a few hundred million barrels of oil (to pay foreign contractors) and it'd all work itself out?
Why the hell was this (thread) reraised, anyways? It's ancient history.
-
It's aaaallllllliiiivvvve!!!
Kill it!
-
Now I think we should just pull out are troops and just let them fight on there own.
Flip-flop! :p