ForumGarden

flopstock;1379625 wrote: You folks are just full of crap on this.

It needed saying.

God Bless America and a Merry Christmas to All!


Amen,

And a Merry Christmas to you,

flopstock;1379625 wrote:

God Bless America and a Merry Christmas to All!


Why should the creator of the Universe choose to do that ?

Merry Christmas to you too.....

Because we're special?

SnoozeAgain;1379636 wrote: Because we're special?


Glad that was put as a question, I am sure you all are, every single one.

We're all snowflakes.

SnoozeAgain;1379643 wrote: We're all snowflakes.


Sure.......the chosen snowflakes.

I am humouring you now.

I want to be a snowflake too :yh_cry

theia;1379646 wrote: I want to be a snowflake too :yh_cry
Sorry, to be a snowflake one must be frigid. :yh_shame

It's never God Bless Everyone, only America. Who's full of crap?

Accountable;1379654 wrote: Sorry, to be a snowflake one must be frigid. :yh_shame


... but melts on the tip of your tongue.

"Someone has to do the dirty work"

"I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers." John D. Rockefeller

SnoozeAgain;1379661 wrote: ... but melts on the tip of your tongue.

Ahso!;1379660 wrote: It's never God Bless Everyone, only America. Who's full of crap?
Only when that is the context.

Ahso!;1379662 wrote: "Someone has to do the dirty work"

"I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers." John D. Rockefeller


Think all you want, but the work still has to be done.

LarsMac;1379665 wrote: Think all you want, but the work still has to be done.Let the slave masters do their own dirty work. There's no excuse volunteering for a war such as Iraq, or Afghanistan, for that matter.

Tell me, how was invading a country with no air force or navy to transport troops over here protecting us? What were we being protected from? Were the Afgans and Iraqis going to come flooding off vacation cruise ships and passenger airplanes to try and take us over? You had to be either an idiot, brainwashed or just plain murderous to enlist to fight those wars. And you had to be any of the afore mentioned to support the war (or the troops) in any way, shape or form.

I believe we all agree that the Middle East police action was a mistake and at this point in the thread, really isn't the topic of discussion any longer.

SnoozeAgain;1379668 wrote: I believe we all agree that the Middle East police action was a mistake and at this point in the thread, really isn't the topic of discussion any longer.Then you'd agree that supporting people who volunteered to fight it is equal to supporting those who declared and managed it?

SnoozeAgain;1379668 wrote: I believe we all agree that the Middle East police action was a mistake and at this point in the thread, really isn't the topic of discussion any longer.
'Police action' ................................interesting discription Linky

Explains the acceptance of 'Police action' in the Homeland ?

Bruv;1379670 wrote: 'Police action' ................................interesting discription Linky

Explains the acceptance of 'Police action' in the Homeland ?


This might help clear up some confusion:



Examples of "police actions"

The 1948 annexation, by India, of Hyderabad State, code named Operation Polo, was referred to as a police action by the government.

The Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Kargil War were undeclared wars and hence are sometimes described as police actions.

The Soviet war in Afghanistan was an undeclared war and hence also could be described as a police action, especially since the initial troop deployments into Afghanistan were at the request of the Afghan government.

In other events, the Congress had not made a formal declaration of war, yet the President, as the commander-in-chief, has claimed authority to send in the armed forces when he deemed necessary, with or without the approval of Congress. The legal legitimacy of each of these actions was based upon declarations such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and Iraq Resolution by Congress and various United Nations resolutions. Nonetheless, Congressional approval has been asserted by means of funding appropriations or other authorizations.




If you're implying I'm trying to make it sound better than ''war', then you're wrong. I thought I made it very clear earlier in this thread that I was strongly against the US invading Iraq.

But hey, if you want to continue trying to make a point because of a word choice you wish to quibble over even though I think we're in agreement on the issue, then by all mean, have a blast.

Not having a pop at you, just the use of euphemisms to disguise or cloud the truth.

The list is long, doesn't make the affects any different.

One thing that has kept me sane in this life is realizing that you CAN NOT expect more from someone than they are capable of at the time. It's entirely unreasonable. Who has the right to condemn? Who has never done something they'd rather have done differently?

I'm against calling veterans heroes by reason of them having gone to war for a cause, because I'm hopeful that they learned some kinda **** from it to prevent it in the future. Nevertheless, they have to come to terms with how they've spent their time in this life. I have enough to work out from my own decisions. At least I don't have to deal with having killed someone. There are a few people I thought about ending. Ultimately, they have to live with their lives and I get to live with not having ended them. I feel for those who have killed another person. I'm very glad I'm not them.

There is a series being made to film right now called The Hunger Games. I recommend it as reading material to anyone who is eager to condemn those who live "below the line." We do what we think we have to. Some people are just really extreme in what they think they have to do.

Don't condemn them, yourself, or anyone else. Just hope for a better world in which we all wake the **** up.

koan;1379686 wrote: One thing that has kept me sane in this life is realizing that you CAN NOT expect more from someone than they are capable of at the time. It's entirely unreasonable. Who has the right to condemn? Who has never done something they'd rather have done differently?

I'm against calling veterans heroes by reason of them having gone to war for a cause, because I'm hopeful that they learned some kinda **** from it to prevent it in the future. Nevertheless, they have to come to terms with how they've spent their time in this life. I have enough to work out from my own decisions. At least I don't have to deal with having killed someone. There are a few people I thought about ending. Ultimately, they have to live with their lives and I get to live with not having ended them. I feel for those who have killed another person. I'm very glad I'm not them.

There is a series being made to film right now called The Hunger Games. I recommend it as reading material to anyone who is eager to condemn those who live "below the line." We do what we think we have to. Some people are just really extreme in what they think they have to do.

Don't condemn them, yourself, or anyone else. Just hope for a better world in which we all wake the **** up.That's all very true. The fact is though that this conversation needs to occur in the U.S.. Americans are very conditioned to the point that many have forgotten how to think, or perhaps never learned. Young people do much of what they do because they believe it's what the majority want from them, and as long as the majority condones wars that have no bearing on our own safety and are other than defensive from real threat young people will continue to volunteer to fight them. However, if the majority of the population make it crystal clear that they reject any other conflict and engage the youth with that in mind the youth will remain clear. If the military has no volunteers, they can't fight a war.

I believe you are stating in your own thesis that the young are being persuaded by their elders. So why blame the young? Part of this debate has to do with whether or not to honour the troops. If they did what they thought was right then should they bear the brunt of the disdain? You can't just pick one group of people to blame because they're easy targets and call it a day. Well... sure you can, but you'd be flawed.

koan;1379689 wrote: I believe you are stating in your own thesis that the young are being persuaded by their elders. So why blame the young? Part of this debate has to do with whether or not to honour the troops. If they did what they thought was right then should they bear the brunt of the disdain? You can't just pick one group of people to blame because they're easy targets and call it a day. Well... sure you can, but you'd be flawed.Blaming? I don't think I'm doing that. I expecting everyone to accept responsibility for their decisions and actions. The cycle must be interrupted somewhere and this group is as good as any to begin with.

Also, many of the people in the military are not young, including enlisted personnel. By youth I mean 17 to 20 years of age, perhaps 21. And again, the military claims that most of them are of a high IQ.

I don't believe any of these volunteers should be ostracized in any fashion after the fact but I also don't believed they should be praised either.

I agree on the lack of praise but you seemed to be going heavy for the ostracizing. Glad we cleared that up.

LarsMac;1379665 wrote: Think all you want, but the work still has to be done.


A nation of workers that doesn't think is easier to control. If you want to stay free make sure everybody gets a good education and learns to question authority if you want to lose freedom let everyone start to believe they have no right to protest.

maybe you would prefer it if you went back to the old style salute used at the pledge of allegiance.

The Official Pledge of Allegiance Salute Used to be a ‘Hitler Salute’

I can see the logic of an nation of immigrants being indoctrinated in loyalty to their new nation but out of curiosity what would happen nowadays if someone refuses to salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance?

All I ever said was that the men and women who did their duty when called deserve to be thanked for the sacrifices they made.

That does not translate into anything like supporting the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq.

Nor does it translate into support for suppression of human rights by my government, or any other.

LarsMac;1379806 wrote: All I ever said was that the men and women who did their duty when called deserve to be thanked for the sacrifices they made.

That does not translate into anything like supporting the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq.

Nor does it translate into support for suppression of human rights by my government, or any other.


OK I see where you are coming from I think I've been misunderstanding you. Americans seem to glorify their military and warfare far more than we do banging the patriotic drum ad nauseam. Sadly your government doesn;'t seem to share that respect for the lives of it's soldiers, they're just cannon fodder in the great corporate wars of the 21st century. At least i think that;s how history will look at it because when you look for a reason the only one that makes any sense is warfare on behalf of oil companies. Mark used to argue that all wars have an economic reason at the heart of them.

The various wars have had the effect of politicising the younger generation here - attending the funerals of people you went to school with can have that affect. We've also had the poppy fascist springing up - the whole point of the poppy was to remember the waste of war it's not a patriotic nationalist symbol but our govt seems to have lost that perspective.

You folks are just full of crap on this.


That's just the response that makes people despise the USA.

God, you don't need enemies, you do it to yourselves. It's like watching us British 100 years ago. The same arrogance...

gmc;1379807 wrote: OK I see where you are coming from I think I've been misunderstanding you. Americans seem to glorify their military and warfare far more than we do banging the patriotic drum ad nauseam. Sadly your government doesn;'t seem to share that respect for the lives of it's soldiers, they're just cannon fodder in the great corporate wars of the 21st century. At least i think that;s how history will look at it because when you look for a reason the only one that makes any sense is warfare on behalf of oil companies. Mark used to argue that all wars have an economic reason at the heart of them.

The various wars have had the effect of politicising the younger generation here - attending the funerals of people you went to school with can have that affect. We've also had the poppy fascist springing up - the whole point of the poppy was to remember the waste of war it's not a patriotic nationalist symbol but our govt seems to have lost that perspective.
The gummint seldom follows through with real support for those who served, other than to patch up the wounded before sending them back to their homes.

I have seen the same thing on the poppies. Originally intended to remember the dead from WWI, And even more specifically those who died at Ypres, they have now become another symbol of "patriotism"

and here we go again

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/W ... l-Oil.html

Yup. People are using that to support their opinion that the US Navy is the only possible way to keep WWIII from happening, as if we're the only navy in the world.

Trouble is the US has been rattling sabres at both russia and china I don't think either of them want a war but an increasingly militant and aggressive US has got to have them worried.

That video I've recently found out on a personal level is very very true. and if there are any ex combat Vets on this site I would very much like to hear from you I need your help please.

fuzzywuzzy;1379994 wrote: That video I've recently found out on a personal level is very very true. and if there are any ex combat Vets on this site I would very much like to hear from you I need your help please.
I was lucky. Almost 21 years and I never saw combat. Never even saw Sandland. :yh_sweat