Page 45 of 48 FirstFirst ... 354344454647 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 450 of 475

Thread: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanistan

  1. #441
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    I could prove you wrong but it would probably get me in trouble. PM me if you REALLY care, because I save my PMs for just such occasions.
    Yeah, as much as we dislike each other, please take this to heart...don't go discussing mod action in public because it can get you into serious trouble. A 6A infraction leads to an automatic suspension.

  2. #442
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,044

    Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    I get a kick out of you, the way you turn every comment from a Dem re: support for the military, for YOU, into a bash on the Dems. I know you're out in the sun a lot but seriously, do you really believe Democrats don't want the best for our troops, for YOU?!?!?!
    I know a Democrat and a Republican will care about the troop when it suits their politicial agenda. For example...did Republicans care how much damage they were doing to our defense by buying into the "utopia" idea after the Cold War by crushing the numbers in the military? Do you think Democrats cared when they continued this path while riding the backs of the under trained, ill equipped, and worn out military throughout the 90s from one crisis to the next? Did Democrats care to acknowledge the state the military was in come 2003 when Army soldiers were deploying to Iraq with duct tape on their NBC suits? But all of a sudden they cared about the troop when it came to the spectacular realization that the troops have never had body armor ever didn't they? Of course...they care because of "Iraq." They didn't care to worry over Afghsniatn, Bosnia, Somalia, Gulf War, etc. The truth is that if Iraq was the "people's" war, our politicians would not have cared what they could use to against other politicians.

    Show me a politician who cares and I'll show you a politician full of ****. Or I'll a show you a politician who cares, but is completely too ignorant of military affairs to understand where his critiques and care should be focused.

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    You're probably also one of those jar/block heads...
    This right here is exactly what I'm talking about. You behave childishly and insultingly post after post, then try to turn it around and accuse others because they defend themselves with a degree of greater decorum. Is this where I get to call you names? Maybe a "block head?" Of course, then it's all about how I'm supposed to be "setting the example" as you turn into the victim, right?
    Last edited by MSgt; 06-04-09 at 02:09 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #443
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,044

    Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    If you waterboard someone will you or will you not be prosecuted for it by either the military or the federal government?
    I did answer and I did not dodge. Perhaps I need to be simpler. "I am in the military." This means that I am held to certain rules, which would see me prosecuted for such acts. "The CIA can do whatever it wants." This means that they are obligated to perfome certain acts beyond what the military man can do. And I know the argument you are attempting to make, which is why I moved on from it. But since you insist....just because the military can be prosecuted for it, doesn't mean the CIA can. The military can be prosecuted for adultery.....was Clinton?

    This is the world we live in. Cold War spies and agents were interrogated which was above what the military can do. The roles are clear. The military is supposed to be the squeeky clean destroyer and killer with manners. The CIA is the spook world where spies, agents, and shadows are the necesary tools. In fact, when it came to interrogating some Somali thugs caught in a fight or while smuggling arms into the city, we handed them off to a European nation because they could do what we could not.



    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    Really? That's how you view the laws we help write, agree to and become signatories to? So is it only our country that doesn't need to worry about international laws or are there others, in your opinion?
    Well, I tend to read a lot of such things. And I constantly come to realizations that our international systems are outdated and inadequate for this time period. Some people simply don't know what they support as they jump to support whatever "their guy" in a business suit tells them.

    It is entirely against the law to do anything to stop genocide in a "soveriegn" nation unless the UN approves it. However, it is also a matter of law that once the UN declares a genocide the international community is required to act. And of all the nations on earth, The U.S., along with the other Western Security members, is mentioned specifically as an obligatory duty. Therefore, when it came to genocide in Europe (Bosnia), the UN gave the Western powers permission to save people through force. When it came to genocide in Africa, the UN looked away.

    But the internaitonal governing body called the UN is full of BS. "Clinton's war" in Kosovo was labeled illegal by the UN, despite the attempt to stop further genocide, because the UN didn't give permission.

    Soveriegnty is also a con game. America is criticized for our dictator support during the Cold War, yet the UN and others looked away as we maintained a dictator in Iraq for twelve years while his people suffered UN sanctions. This was "legal." Despite flying our jets over his land, being deployed in "Kurdistan," and dictating his comings and goings, the idea of "soveriegnty" took on a special overlooked meaining as people looked away. Of course, when it came to Haiti's soveriegnty, the UN gave permission to ther U.S. to invade and re-establish that government after the people couped against their president. But "soveriegnty" as a matter of law mattered when it came time for America to be fed up with the UN containment mission of Saddam Hussien.

    This leads to the question...."What is soveriegn, the nation or the individual?" According to the time period such laws were created, it was the king, czar, or kaiser that was ultimately placed above all else and protected. Their laws had everything to do with protecting the individual's right to do as he pleases to whoever he wants as long as he oppresses, tortures, or murders his own kind. Today, we live in a changed world where the people are soveriegn in most places, which lends to the credence that soveriegn attaches to borders. Yet, we also live in a world where tribes have been torn apart by unnatural borders and the European created third world borders are becoming more and more grey (Kurdistan, Somaliland, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.) Of course, even with this changed world, some people choose to make the soveriegn the dictator as if we still live in the 18th century all in a case to avoid responsibility and the right thing.

    So what we have here is are international laws "legally" shoved aside when it comes to immediate security of American (Haiti) and European (Yugoslavia) vicinities, but "legal" strict adherence to code and law when it comes to Africa and the Middle East.

    And torture? it was the West who decided what torture was to be defined as after the German scourge was slapped down. However, like so many international laws, re-interpretation as the scenarios change in an ever changing world is necessary. The fact that waterboarding is considered "torture" is a joke. The idea that our men will be treated better if we only butler our prisoners of war is a joke. We do not electrocute, bludgeon, drag, behead, or whip anybody. Yet our men, since we made "the" rules, have been subjected to such things from one culture or nation to another. Even when it came to waterboarding or slapping or pro-longed standing or sleep deprivation and any other nothing of a tactic, we introduced paperwork to declare openly these tactics to define perameters. I am so sick of seeing people whiine and complain about this crap as if we have beome the new Nazi human body burning scourge of the earth.

    I find it pathetic how Americans jump on this global bandwagon specifically. With Germans burning and gassing millions of Europeans...the French publicly and brutally torturing hundreds of thousands of Algerians a decade later.....they assume to lead the voice of conscience for dimwitted Americans who want a few waterboarding cases to define us as torturous monsters.

    Internaitonal laws is a matter of convenience. Always has been. With advances in science, we change the way we perform medically and mechanically. With advances in religious thought, we change our beliefs and tame our religions. With society's acceptances, we change social behavior. But when it comes to an ever changing world where borders are in question, governmental roles change, and enemy tactics change....this world is supposed to be stuck with the same 17th century laws when it suits the need of the apathetic and the irresponsible. It's like arguing that despite advances in the operating room, the techniques of our great grandfathers are best.

    So, you ask me my opinion, which is always a mistake if you really don't want it, but it's merely an opinion that attempts to shove off the BS that covers the reality of our world. What is your opinion? To follow the favored politician's opinion or to see this world for what it is and stop using the media and other such BS story telling platforms to define reality?
    Last edited by MSgt; 06-04-09 at 02:07 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #444
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,601

    Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    Well, I tend to read a lot of such things. And I constantly come to realizations that our international systems are outdated and inadequate for this time period. Some people simply don't know what they support as they jump to support whatever "their guy" in a business suit tells them.

    It is entirely against the law to do anything to stop genocide in a "soveriegn" nation unless the UN approves it. However, it is also a matter of law that once the UN declares a genocide the international community is required to act. And of all the nations on earth, The U.S., along with the other Western Security members, is mentioned specifically as an obligatory duty. Therefore, when it came to genocide in Europe (Bosnia), the UN gave the Western powers permission to save people through force. When it came to genocide in Africa, the UN looked away.

    But the internaitonal governing body called the UN is full of BS. "Clinton's war" in Kosovo was labeled illegal by the UN, despite the attempt to stop further genocide, because the UN didn't give permission.

    Soveriegnty is also a con game. America is criticized for our dictator support during the Cold War, yet the UN and others looked away as we maintained a dictator in Iraq for twelve years while his people suffered UN sanctions. This was "legal." Despite flying our jets over his land, being deployed in "Kurdistan," and dictating his comings and goings, the idea of "soveriegnty" took on a special overlooked meaining as people looked away. Of course, when it came to Haiti's soveriegnty, the UN gave permission to ther U.S. to invade and re-establish that government after the people couped against their president. But "soveriegnty" as a matter of law mattered when it came time for America to be fed up with the UN containment mission of Saddam Hussien.

    This leads to the question...."What is soveriegn, the nation or the individual?" According to the time period such laws were created, it was the king, czar, or kaiser that was ultimately placed above all else and protected. Their laws had everything to do with protecting the individual's right to do as he pleases to whoever he wants as long as he oppresses, tortures, or murders his own kind. Today, we live in a changed world where the people are soveriegn in most places, which lends to the credence that soveriegn attaches to borders. Yet, we also live in a world where tribes have been torn apart by unnatural borders and the European created third world borders are becoming more and more grey (Kurdistan, Somaliland, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.) Of course, even with this changed world, some people choose to make the soveriegn the dictator as if we still live in the 18th century all in a case to avoid responsibility and the right thing.

    So what we have here is are international laws "legally" shoved aside when it comes to immediate security of American (Haiti) and European (Yugoslavia) vicinities, but "legal" strict adherence to code and law when it comes to Africa and the Middle East.

    And torture? it was the West who decided what torture was to be defined as after the German scourge was slapped down. However, like so many international laws, re-interpretation as the scenarios change in an ever changing world is necessary. The fact that waterboarding is considered "torture" is a joke. The idea that our men will be treated better if we only butler our prisoners of war is a joke. We do not electrocute, bludgeon, drag, behead, or whip anybody. Yet our men, since we made "the" rules, have been subjected to such things from one culture or nation to another. Even when it came to waterboarding or slapping or pro-longed standing or sleep deprivation and any other nothing of a tactic, we introduced paperwork to declare openly these tactics to define perameters. I am so sick of seeing people whiine and complain about this crap as if we have beome the new Nazi human body burning scourge of the earth.

    I find it pathetic how Americans jump on this global bandwagon specifically. With Germans burning and gassing millions of Europeans...the French publicly and brutally torturing hundreds of thousands of Algerians a decade later.....they assume to lead the voice of conscience for dimwitted Americans who want a few waterboarding cases to define us as torturous monsters.

    Internaitonal laws is a matter of convenience. Always has been. With advances in science, we change the way we perform medically and mechanically. With advances in religious thought, we change our beliefs and tame our religions. With society's acceptances, we change social behavior. But when it comes to an ever changing world where borders are in question, governmental roles change, and enemy tactics change....this world is supposed to be stuck with the same 17th century laws when it suits the need of the apathetic and the irresponsible. It's like arguing that despite advances in the operating room, the techniques of our great grandfathers are best.

    So, you ask me my opinion, which is always a mistake if you really don't want it, but it's merely an opinion that attempts to shove off the BS that covers the reality of our world. What is your opinion? To follow the favored politician's opinion or to see this world for what it is and stop using the media and other such BS story telling platforms to define reality?
    Very well-said.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  5. #445
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,044

    Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Very well-said.
    It's never well enough for some. For some, the need to argue trumps actual discussion. ...but thanks for the compliment.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  6. #446
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,044

    Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    Not really up on military nick names, ehh?

    "Jar head" is a term of endearment used between Marines. Civillians haven't the right and often enough use it as insult. However, "block head" is not a matter of Marine nick name lore and is purely meant as insult. You may as well call me an idiot.
    Last edited by MSgt; 06-04-09 at 02:18 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  7. #447
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,044

    Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    It seems to me that you can't stand being challenged ......
    I don't like condescending, provoking, and blatantly insultive indivuduals. You are all three.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  8. #448
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,044

    Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    Right, because you have access to the truth while the media is just making **** up.
    No. I have access to what everybody has access to....books. But most choose the media to mold and deliver their opinions for them.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  9. #449
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    I did answer and I did not dodge. Perhaps I need to be simpler. "I am in the military." This means that I am held to certain rules, which would see me prosecuted for such acts. "The CIA can do whatever it wants." This means that they are obligated to perfome certain acts beyond what the military man can do. And I know the argument you are attempting to make, which is why I moved on from it. But since you insist....just because the military can be prosecuted for it, doesn't mean the CIA can. The military can be prosecuted for adultery.....was Clinton?

    This is the world we live in. Cold War spies and agents were interrogated which was above what the military can do. The roles are clear. The military is supposed to be the squeeky clean destroyer and killer with manners. The CIA is the spook world where spies, agents, and shadows are the necesary tools. In fact, when it came to interrogating some Somali thugs caught in a fight or while smuggling arms into the city, we handed them off to a European nation because they could do what we could not.





    Well, I tend to read a lot of such things. And I constantly come to realizations that our international systems are outdated and inadequate for this time period. Some people simply don't know what they support as they jump to support whatever "their guy" in a business suit tells them.

    It is entirely against the law to do anything to stop genocide in a "soveriegn" nation unless the UN approves it. However, it is also a matter of law that once the UN declares a genocide the international community is required to act. And of all the nations on earth, The U.S., along with the other Western Security members, is mentioned specifically as an obligatory duty. Therefore, when it came to genocide in Europe (Bosnia), the UN gave the Western powers permission to save people through force. When it came to genocide in Africa, the UN looked away.

    But the internaitonal governing body called the UN is full of BS. "Clinton's war" in Kosovo was labeled illegal by the UN, despite the attempt to stop further genocide, because the UN didn't give permission.

    Soveriegnty is also a con game. America is criticized for our dictator support during the Cold War, yet the UN and others looked away as we maintained a dictator in Iraq for twelve years while his people suffered UN sanctions. This was "legal." Despite flying our jets over his land, being deployed in "Kurdistan," and dictating his comings and goings, the idea of "soveriegnty" took on a special overlooked meaining as people looked away. Of course, when it came to Haiti's soveriegnty, the UN gave permission to ther U.S. to invade and re-establish that government after the people couped against their president. But "soveriegnty" as a matter of law mattered when it came time for America to be fed up with the UN containment mission of Saddam Hussien.

    This leads to the question...."What is soveriegn, the nation or the individual?" According to the time period such laws were created, it was the king, czar, or kaiser that was ultimately placed above all else and protected. Their laws had everything to do with protecting the individual's right to do as he pleases to whoever he wants as long as he oppresses, tortures, or murders his own kind. Today, we live in a changed world where the people are soveriegn in most places, which lends to the credence that soveriegn attaches to borders. Yet, we also live in a world where tribes have been torn apart by unnatural borders and the European created third world borders are becoming more and more grey (Kurdistan, Somaliland, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.) Of course, even with this changed world, some people choose to make the soveriegn the dictator as if we still live in the 18th century all in a case to avoid responsibility and the right thing.

    So what we have here is are international laws "legally" shoved aside when it comes to immediate security of American (Haiti) and European (Yugoslavia) vicinities, but "legal" strict adherence to code and law when it comes to Africa and the Middle East.

    And torture? it was the West who decided what torture was to be defined as after the German scourge was slapped down. However, like so many international laws, re-interpretation as the scenarios change in an ever changing world is necessary. The fact that waterboarding is considered "torture" is a joke. The idea that our men will be treated better if we only butler our prisoners of war is a joke. We do not electrocute, bludgeon, drag, behead, or whip anybody. Yet our men, since we made "the" rules, have been subjected to such things from one culture or nation to another. Even when it came to waterboarding or slapping or pro-longed standing or sleep deprivation and any other nothing of a tactic, we introduced paperwork to declare openly these tactics to define perameters. I am so sick of seeing people whiine and complain about this crap as if we have beome the new Nazi human body burning scourge of the earth.

    I find it pathetic how Americans jump on this global bandwagon specifically. With Germans burning and gassing millions of Europeans...the French publicly and brutally torturing hundreds of thousands of Algerians a decade later.....they assume to lead the voice of conscience for dimwitted Americans who want a few waterboarding cases to define us as torturous monsters.

    Internaitonal laws is a matter of convenience. Always has been. With advances in science, we change the way we perform medically and mechanically. With advances in religious thought, we change our beliefs and tame our religions. With society's acceptances, we change social behavior. But when it comes to an ever changing world where borders are in question, governmental roles change, and enemy tactics change....this world is supposed to be stuck with the same 17th century laws when it suits the need of the apathetic and the irresponsible. It's like arguing that despite advances in the operating room, the techniques of our great grandfathers are best.

    So, you ask me my opinion, which is always a mistake if you really don't want it, but it's merely an opinion that attempts to shove off the BS that covers the reality of our world. What is your opinion? To follow the favored politician's opinion or to see this world for what it is and stop using the media and other such BS story telling platforms to define reality?
    What a long winded and completely ignorant view of the world not to mention the myriad of specious arguments and sophistries proffered therein. Your view of the world is typical neocon. The biggest and baddest mother trucker on the block gets to set the rules and change them at a whim. There is no discussion to be had with you because you are incapable of looking at the world in any manner other than through the mind of a bully. The world is not black and white, good and evil. The world is shades and cracking skulls to get whatever you want is neanderthal at best.

    But, let me say that I would rather have your type in subservient positions in the military where you can't do much harm, than to have you in a position to advance your barbaric view of the world. The military needs pitbulls and you couldn't do your job if you had a modern mentality. Semper Fi.

  10. #450
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    What a long winded and completely ignorant view of the world not to mention the myriad of specious arguments and sophistries proffered therein. Your view of the world is typical neocon. The biggest and baddest mother trucker on the block gets to set the rules and change them at a whim. There is no discussion to be had with you because you are incapable of looking at the world in any manner other than through the mind of a bully. The world is not black and white, good and evil. The world is shades and cracking skulls to get whatever you want is neanderthal at best.

    But, let me say that I would rather have your type in subservient positions in the military where you can't do much harm, than to have you in a position to advance your barbaric view of the world. The military needs pitbulls and you couldn't do your job if you had a modern mentality. Semper Fi.
    How dare you? That was a pretty despicable thing to say. Just when I thought my opinion of you could not get any lower.

    But did you have anything to say about the points he made in his post or was this just a chance for you to ad hom the thread to death?

Page 45 of 48 FirstFirst ... 354344454647 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •