Put on your tinfoil hats, folks

KNYTE said:
:rolleyes:, K that's a lovely opinion and all, but as Chikken said it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Reservists take an oath to defend the country and follow orders from up the chain, not to let their personal views and BS political agendas determine whether or not they stay and fight or walk out like a pansy.
Click to expand...

as pointed out to burger and chikken, how is this NOT relevant?? again, if you enlisted and they started bbq'ing people, would you blindly follow along because you signed some stupid piece of paper?
 
why_ask_why said:
as pointed out to burger and chikken, how is this NOT relevant?? again, if you enlisted and they started bbq'ing people, would you blindly follow along because you signed some stupid piece of paper?
Click to expand...

I was pointing out the opposite, actually. If you enlist in the army, then you're agreeing to fight for said army and country. If you don't like their reasons, then vote for the other guy, write a letter to your congressperson, whatever. But that doesn't give you the right to pretend a contract doesn't exist.
 
Fat Burger said:
We also declared the war of 1812 without being attacked first.
Click to expand...

I thought the war of 1812 was principally a response to the British Navy's practice of boarding US flagged ships at sea and pressing their crews into service on Royal Navy ships.
 
why_ask_why said:
it's true...the scale, resources, and manpower are vastly different
Click to expand...

And what the hell does that have to do with anything? If I walked past you on the street and tripped you for no reason, then kicked you while you're down and stole your wallet, that's wrong, right? But if I had only tripped you and kicked you, that's somehow justified?
 
itburnswhenipee said:
I thought the war of 1812 was principally a response to the British Navy's practice of boarding US flagged ships at sea and pressing their crews into service on Royal Navy ships.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and they burned down the White House, it was pink back then, true story.
 
itburnswhenipee said:
I thought the war of 1812 was principally a response to the British Navy's practice of boarding US flagged ships at sea and pressing their crews into service on Royal Navy ships.
Click to expand...

The US decided that it was our right to control all of North America, and decided to liberate Canada. Also:

Meanwhile, the United States had grievances against Great Britain for sovereignty violations in three areas:

1. Britain's refusal to surrender western forts promised to the United States in the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which ended the American War of Independence, together with allegations that Britain was arming North American Indians fighting against them on the western frontier;
2. The stopping of American ships by the Royal Navy on the high seas to search for deserters, and the impressment of seamen who had been born as British subjects but later naturalized as American citizens; and
3. The trade embargos by France and Britain during the Napoleonic Wars, which resulted in the seizing of hundreds of American merchant ships.
Click to expand...



My point is that there is a broad spectrum of reasons the US has gone to war. The current one is not so different.
 
ChikkenNoodul said:
I seriously don't understand how that can be so hard to comprehend, sorry w_a_w :eek:
Click to expand...

To even further simplify your comparison from earlier:

If you buy a house and sign a contract to pay for it, then you find out the lending firm eats babies, regardless of how you view the baby-eating issue you are still obligated to pay for the house, or they take it away from you.

Now do the following...
1) Replace "house" with "ARMY".
2) Replace "eats babies" with "omg the war is over oil, Hippy love forever!"
3) Replace "pay for the house" with "serve your country as you agreed to do"
4) Replace "take it away from you" with "Go to a Fed/.gov PMITA Prison for a lot of years"
 
Last edited:
KNYTE said:
To even further simplify your comparison from earlier:

If you buy a house and sign a contract to pay for it, then you find out the lending firm eats babies, regardless of how you view the baby-eating issue you are still obligated to pay for the house, or they take it away from you.
Click to expand...
So, uh, *cough* would you happen to, you know, have the uh, name of this said baby-eating company?
 
ChikkenNoodul said:
Nope, I don't think everyone does, nor am I surprised that there are desertions.

Nevertheless, I have no sympathy and think people should be responsible for the path they've chosen.


You're awfully testy today there cheif :D
Click to expand...


It dawned on me a minute ago that you might think I'm referring to you as being stupid here. I'm not. I'm more referring to the administration. They have basically created a giant scheme to lure people into their programs knowing that they have complete legal authority over them. Funny thing is, they are acting all hurt and surprised that people would desert on them. Fucking morons. (Or lying bastards, take your pick)

And I was more just addressing the question of "why would people desert." Not "should I have pity on them?" The first question is easily answered and quite objective. The second is a completely subjective point and determined almost entirely by history. (As has been pointed out, not many people are lacking in sympathy for Nazi deserters.)

And going after old deserters that basically succeeded at it years ago is just dumb. That would be similar to prosecuting someone today for all of the music the "pirated" in college 10 years ago. Provided they did not cause the direct death of anyone, all you are succeeding at is getting a negative image and spending money.
 
KNYTE said:
If you buy a house and sign a contract to pay for it, then you find out the lending firm eats babies, regardless of how you view the baby-eating issue you are still obligated to pay for the house, or they take it away from you.
Click to expand...

A better example would be that you found out your money was being used in a way you didn't like, e.g. you like meat and they're donating some of the money you paid them to PETA. That doesn't give you a right to suddenly stop giving them your money.
 
KNYTE said:
To even further simplify your comparison from earlier:

If you buy a house and sign a contract to pay for it, then you find out the lending firm eats babies, regardless of how you view the baby-eating issue you are still obligated to pay for the house, or they take it away from you.
Click to expand...

Your analogy isn't quite right. It'd be more like if the lending company not only ate babies, but also stopped taking payment in curency and instead demanded payment in live infants.
 
KNYTE said:
To even further simplify your comparison from earlier:

If you buy a house and sign a contract to pay for it, then you find out the lending firm eats babies, regardless of how you view the baby-eating issue you are still obligated to pay for the house, or they take it away from you.

Now do the following...
1) Replace "house" with "ARMY".
2) Replace "eats babies" with "omg the war is over oil, Hippy love forever!"
3) Replace "pay for the house" with "serve your country as you agreed to do"
4) Replace "take it away from you" with "Go to a Fed/.gov PMITA Prison for a lot of years"
Click to expand...

You would actually defend the funding of baby eaters? Because... you know.... that is exactly what you just did.
 
KNYTE said:
To even further simplify your comparison from earlier:

If you buy a house and sign a contract to pay for it, then you find out the lending firm eats babies, regardless of how you view the baby-eating issue you are still obligated to pay for the house, or they take it away from you.

Now do the following...
1) Replace "house" with "ARMY".
2) Replace "eats babies" with "omg the war is over oil, Hippy love forever!"
3) Replace "pay for the house" with "serve your country as you agreed to do"
4) Replace "take it away from you" with "Go to a Fed/.gov PMITA Prison for a lot of years"
Click to expand...

bad bad example

it's more like this:
said loan company makes YOU eat babies when you were only supposed to be in for a loan
 
why_ask_why said:
as pointed out to burger and chikken, how is this NOT relevant?? again, if you enlisted and they started bbq'ing people, would you blindly follow along because you signed some stupid piece of paper?
Click to expand...
US Troops are obligated not to follow unlawful orders. 'BBQ-ing' people would definitely fall within that scope.

The fact is we arent BBQ-ing people. This war is like every other one, the reasons are shady, underhanded and misleading. We are killing alot of bad guys in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is helping, and you are more likely to be killed driving on an american highway than buying a farm in Iraq.

You may not like it, but that doesnt matter. If you read the news articles above only ONE person deserted because of political objections. Most of them probably realised that their free ride wasnt so free anymore and making poor descisions (just like the one that led them to be enlisted) they made a run for it.

Mostly what it shows to me is that social parasites are just worse than they ever were before. The article didnt mention their MOS's but I suspect most werent even in combat arms. Personally I think it's a good thing they ran, because all they are doing is putting people who man up in harms way by not following orders. That doesnt mean they should be exempt from the consequences though.

Congratulations, you made it out of the .mil . Now you get a permanent mark with a dishonorable discharge so that anyone who ever runs a background check on you in the future knows exactly what kind of person you are deep down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back