Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/17/09 09:01 PM, Elfer wrote:

It's going to seem more bothersome when price level starts going up faster than wages.

A very true statement, especially since the military sector's pay usually has a lower raise in wages for inflation. Of course, I also have a chow hall to eat at and a barracks to live in, which is paid for. Makes me think when the dollar took a dip and the yen rose while I was stationed out in Japan. Exchange rate had been about 145 or so at one point, and then it was a little below a hundred. That is a big difference, trust me. Luckily, I am a cheap bastard any which way the economy goes.

The recession hardly bothers me at all. I can't get fired and my pay can't get cut. Definitely makes me glad to be in the military.

At 12/16/09 08:12 AM, Keven11Twenty7 wrote: I wish the war would just stop.
And get our friends back.
I have a good friend that was sent over.

How do your friends feel about that, because a lot of people I know want to go over, myself included.

At 12/15/09 10:50 PM, Elfer wrote: ...is like talking to a brick wall

I'll take that as my cue (murus=wall).

From my perspective on the world, here is how God works, or would work for you atheists and agnostics. If God is all powerful and was here before the creation of the universe, then he would have also existed before time, since, you know, we live in four dimensional space time. Therefore, God exists outside of time, so trying to say he created the universe and Earth in a certain amount of time is kind of absurd. Plus, the all powerful part, if he is omnipotent, then why would he need to rest, he is the alpha and omega, does he really need a nap time. Now, I still believe in the Bible, but as a learning tool, in which stories teach lessons, not history. Are some things in the Bible historical, yes they are, but so are some facts in the Illiad and Odyssey, doesn't make everything true. Religion has, and always will be, a means to explain that which we do not understand, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.

At 12/7/09 03:21 AM, tiendunn732 wrote: yeah...obama has sent thousands of troops again.... i dont understand....why dont they fiish all this at once...kill all the terrorists at a time...kill osama....al qaeda...n all the pakistanni terrorists ....wat say?

What you need to understand is terrorism and terrorist are very broad terms. What the President is trying to do is shrink the war on terror to a more realistic goal and give the military set tasks to accomplish. The current mission we are given is against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the Taliban are a target due to their being a base of support for Al Qaeda. One can not fight terrorism, there are terrorists in every country. We are not able to fight every terrorist organization, nor are we able to support countries with terrorist problems to a great extent. Look at the Philippines for example, the have a problem with the MILF (not a joke, it is an actual terror group). We support them to a small extent, such as bilateral training exercises and an occasional adviser. However, we do not conduct large scale anti-terror operations even though we consistently have military forces in the area.

I for one am glad of the troop increase for Afghanistan, and hope they let us accomplish our mission before withdrawing from the country.

It is difficult as to say whether or not the acts perpetrated by Hasan were acts of terror without having all of the information. I personally believe they were motivated to make a political or ideological statement and to possibly effect the processes of our government. If my own personal view is correct, then yes it would be considered an act of terror. The methodology behind an attack is what classifies it as terrorism, a lone man with no affiliations can be a terrorist, whatever race, religion, or background.

I am not entirely sped up on the details of the situation, but I do believe blame goes all around. Most sections of government like to do things their way, and do not appreciate others meddling in their affairs, which can make things difficult.

As for the perpetrator of these foul acts, it does not matter to me what his motivation was for committing these heinous acts, I just want him to recover as quickly as possible....so he can be put on trial and put down like the soulless being he is.

I strongly favor a biological weapon as the most dangerous threat. High yield nuclear weapons are certainly powerful, but it is unlikely that such weapons would be put into effect. On the other hand, a highly infectous and deadly disease with the right incubation time would have a much higher chance of being successful in not only taking out its intended targets, but a vast majority of bystanders.

Here is my limited opinion on US relations with Iran as a US Marine.
-We don't go to war with Iran, ok.
-We go to war with Iran, I am going to shoot Iranians.
-We go to war with Iran, but I'm not in the Corps, I can voice my opinion.

Actually, I could still say we did not have just cause to go to war with Iran while still in the Corps, but I would probably be saying it either before, during, or after I shoot an Iranian,

At 12/5/07 06:29 PM, Bolo wrote:

Another terrible shooting tragedy for the history books.
Is this becoming a trend in America, what with the recent V-Tech massacre, and other mass shootings in the last few years?

Such incidents are tragedies for those who have lost loved ones, but they are not massacres, merely crimes. If you want to understand what a mass shooting is, look at countries where genocides have been committed. Eight people dead is not some up in arms catastrophic event. People are murdered in the US quite often, and many of them are overlooked, because they are not an interesting news story. Something such as this incident is a cash cow for news programs to grasp the attention of the American public to further their own ratings.

Gun control, you eliminate guns, but the problem still remains. No matter the restrictions you put on the citizens of a country, the criminals and the mentally unbalanced will still find ways to accomplish their objectives. People get shot, you take away guns, stabbed, take away knives, and then what. People use improvised tools, devices, or their own hands to do the work for them. Violence is a part of human nature, and merely focusing on a tool as the problem only goes to fixating the disillusioned minds of the uniformed public to the fact that a tool is bad, that they have to worry about the tool, and not on how to identify troubled individuals for treatment or incarceration by authorities.

At 11/12/07 09:21 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 11/12/07 08:44 AM, BrickMurus wrote: I in no way believe it to be a group of evil baby killers and sadistic murders. Of course, being a Marine, one could say my view is biased.

;
In performing your job, have Marines ever killed babies?

I would not doubt it. Especially when you think of prior wars or conflicts where very indirect inaccurate weapons were used. Even currently, mistakes do happen, now, the killing of infants on purpose, is something that I highly doubt is done.

Would you know, or be able to answer ,do the Marines often kill noncombatants by mistake?

I would not say often, but it does happen. For instance, I had an instructor who told me how he once shot a boy. This very young boy had an AK that his father told him to take to the US Forces, because he believed they would not shoot him. The boy went and got closer and closer, and stopped at one point, and mistakenly opened fire when trying to get a better grip. My instructor's commander had told him to shoot the boy, but he refused. The boy started getting closer and closer, still with the weapon. Then the boy stopped, not to far from the perimeter, and pulled out a round object. After the previous incident, and the fact that the boy was now within grenade range, my instructor finally shot, and killed, the boy. That tragic incident is still with him to this day.

Do they target area's of noncombatants on purpose?

We are to engage only combatants, that is all. Do some Marines do wrong, yesm but the same can be said for any other branch.

When in doubt what is the usual way of dealing with those you are unsure of... attempting dialog or kill 'em first?

It depends on the units SOP and the situation. I am sure you remember when we went into Fallujah, and killed anyone left. The reason for that is we gave everyone ample time to leave and warned everyone that those who remained would be considered hostile. Oh, there is also the fact that about everyone over there owns a weapon. Now if someone has an AK slung on their back with no magazine, that is not percieved as hostile intent. On the other hand, if someone has a loaded AK and aiming it at you, that is pretty much hostile intent. Of course, that is not always enough to engage a target.

Why are slogans like "kill them all, Let God sort them out" used by marine units ?

Which Marine units do you refer to, and are those their official slogans. Now, I have heard many recruits and Marines say many things, just because we say such things, does not mean we do them. Plus, a lot of stuff you might hear comes from new Marines straight from training, and trust me, they say a lot of shit.

Try those for a start.

Will do/

I just want to know what thoughts the people of the NG Politics Forum had about the Marine Corps. If you think it is great or horrible. Their involvement in past military actions or their perfomance in the current stabilization of Iraq. I mean, I could try to start it off myself, but I already know what I am going to say. I personally love the Marine Corps, or at least the ideals of the Marine Corps, which many Marines try to personify. I in no way believe it to be a group of evil baby killers and sadistic murders. Of course, being a Marine, one could say my view is biased.

I am in a really moto mood right now, so I feel like discussing the United States Marine Corps, so please, I would like to know what some of you think, and by some of you, I mean the people who actually talk sense.

Hmmmm.....I would like to sign up to HQ.

A quick little blurb about possible reasons why people would want to send in military forces to Darfur and other similiar situations. There are those who believe that those who have the power for change, should use it for the betterment of others. Now whether this is the rich feeding the hungry or the strong protecting the weak, the principal stays the same. Unfortunately for these people, the majority of those who make decisions about who gets help do not think in such a manner and neither do most of those who they represent. Therefore, you get half-assed sanctions that don't really do anything while the matter gets reviewed before any further action can be taken.

I highly doubt that the child is fighting for his freedom. I do not mean to be offensive, but I highly doubt that at that age he would be fighting for his own personal reasons. Most likely, he is fighting for his life. Whether it be in his defense against someone, or his impressment into whatever militant faction he is a member of.

At 11/9/07 07:43 PM, Fear57 wrote: America has no freedom! I can't belive that Bush sends our troops over to die for freedoms and rights that we don't even have!

See, it is a very good thing that I can not personally interact with you. Now I am no big fan of Bush, but ohhh when someone talks about troops dieing and what they die for, that really gets me. I am trying to be as even tempered as I can, because I think my actions are a reflection of the military that I am part of. You have no idea what goes on, SO DO NOT PRESUME TO KNOW WHAT THEY DIE FOR!

The mind has certain ways of handling shocks to the system, whether they be physical or emotional. Such as when my Grandpa died a year ago, he had been in a bad state for years after a stroke he had and when he passed away, it was from another stroke. I was not to emotional at the time, I think because I had been expecting. Now about a month and a half ago, my Grandad died of cancer. I had not known that he had gotten that bad, and the moment I found out, I just went to tears. We all grieve in different ways, sometimes we look at ourselves and second guess our nature, but there are times in everyone's life when something happens when they are unable to cope with something or they just don't want to handle it, so it is suppressed and locked away. Eventually it will come out, in one form or another.

Fli, how does the lack of sexual intercourse with the opposite gender pertain to those who post on this forum?

At 8/26/07 08:51 PM, kojama wrote: My point is that the human rece is puting caution every wear.....in the stone age would have we survived with caution....no....we had to take chances......now in the 21st centary we sue everyone....we bring r selfs below what we are......in essencicne we are fucking retarded

Your point, have you ever made a point before? To make a point one would have to first have some idea of the topic they are discussing, and then have compiled copious amounts of data to support the point of view they have on the subject. I will agree with you though kojama, in essence, you are fucking retarded.

At 10/20/06 11:28 PM, JMHX wrote: I've got three words for you:
Please don't vote.

Oh I do vote, I look at the possibilities, and pick the canidates that I believe are most qualified. I personally like Lindsey Graham, Republican yes, but does a pretty good job. I don't really care about political parties, and neither did George Washington.

I have one word to describe what is wrong with political parties, and that will be all I have to say.

Politics

At 9/8/06 06:05 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: How about Lesser-Canada :-D

How about we get to be Greater America and Canada gets to be Lesser America.

I really don't get what the deal is about names. England= AngleLand(Anglo-Saxons), Scotland= Land filled with drunks, I mean Scots. France named for Franks, by the way, I think everytime you see a frenchman, you should call him Frank. Not exactly original names are they. When our country started out, we were a bunch of colonies/states. We started as a confederation, not really quite a country, no real federal government power you see. Then we have a constitution where are the states are combined, might even say united. So what do you call a collection of states with semi-diverse backgrounds on the continent of America, I don't know.

Ah, time travel, what a lovely topic.

Time travel has many theories and plausabilities and what not. You have your wormholes, faster than light travel, and your tachyons; as well as other things. For paradox many questions arise, such as do we have choice, if we go back in time, do we just cause something to happen. Of course you have your divergent timelines as several people have pointed out. Basically stating that there is a universe for every single choice, which would make the number of universes at an extremely large number. I personally am not going to discuss this further, because, well, I don't have all damn day.

I say religion is all three. It is the Good, the bad, and the ugly. And that is also a really good movie.

At 10/15/06 02:51 PM, Proteas wrote: And now the latest from Up Yours! writer, Chadwick....

Aren't you glad you're paying over thirty percent in taxes
out of every paycheck?

The taxes we pay are less than other countries, it really depends on what you would like. National health care, more taxes. The more a country leads to socialism, higher the taxes. Now, as for your complaing about how the money is being spent in these areas, who gives a shit, really. Millions, hell, billions of dollars of tax payer money are misappropriated all the time, so get use to it pal. I mean, if the best you can do is be annoyed at some stupid little programs, then I guess you don't have to many real problems, waste of my time.
Oh, and one more thing...

Will you shut up you pretentious prick. I fucking hate people like this, they have the solutions, they know what to do. Be a critic, go ahead, don't actually do anything, just bitch.

It is clear that some of you lack perspective of the bigger picture here. Americans of the Revolutionary War were tired of being treated as second-class citizens. To those back in the British Isles, the Americans were not thought of as equals. Ben Franklin, one of our forefathers, considered himself a British citizen. He certainly did change his mind when he was not given the treatment that a British born citizen would have. Taxation without representation is just a memorable phrase for the fact that what they really wanted was say in their government, which they really did not have. That is my two cents, or pence, or whatever.

I nominate Archimedes, who suggests that you take his screw, and well, you get where I am going don't you.

At 10/3/06 08:01 PM, fli wrote: She looks like she belongs to Lord of the Rings...

Strangers from distant lands, you have been called here to discuss, the hotness of females. If you can not complete this task, then surely, you are gay *cough* Sam *cough*.

At 10/3/06 04:47 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Pre-pubescent boys don't do it for me, sorry. =\

Well, I guess that means that you are neither the King of Pop, or a Republican Congressman.

At 10/3/06 12:22 PM, SirXVII wrote: Saying, "The Ladder" means basically two choices are given and picking the choice above.

Jesus Christ man, you are just continually digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper. It is "Latter", you get it, not 'ladder', a ladder is a tool used to get to high place so that you can then jump from it realizing what a fool you have been.

At 10/3/06 11:24 AM, wesdood wrote: Resolution - All illegal immigrants should be classified as “felons,” rounded up and deported.

I will try to give this a quick run through, as I can see you took a good hard 5 seconds to think this out. Rounding up the large number of illegal immigrants is an improbable if not impossible task. The sheer amount of time, money, and man power that would go into such an operation would require something along the lines of martial law or a strict dictatorship. Especially when you think that the current amount of law enforcement that we have would have to arrest, process, and transport them would cripple their ability to actually fight crime.

I say we just listen to Carlos Mencia, who says that Mexicans really hate other Mexicans, so we open the border, and then eventually they will realize that there are to many damn Mexicans in America, and then the will all go to Canada, where they will be called Frostbacks.