At 6/2/10 11:16 AM, jacobmorris92 wrote:
I meant what makes you significant and why you believe I am out to get you.
Well you clearly had a problem with the contrast in our beliefs in the last topic we debated in about the army, and couldn't help but throw in a few insults.
And which topic was that? I am never the first to throw out insults, unless it is calling them ignorant or mindless.
first thing, it never used to be - the US only ended conscription because they had to (pressure from anti-Vietnam protesters, etc). Second, the means of recruiting doesn't justify the means used to complete operations and the motives behind them - it's not a substantial reason to respect the armed forces.
First thing, I wasn't alive then and I said I support our troops, I am not talking about ex-wars, I am talking current. Secondly, our current operations have good intentions behind them (THE WARS FOR OIL LOLOLO), and I will respect the people who fight for their country and the safety and well being of people instead of the idiot behind his computer monitor who thinks all war is bad and our troops are murderers.
That is actually a scandalous lie, it's only ever about defending the plutocracy that is the government and keeping the USA the most powerful nation on the planet.
Really? I could of sworn that we are there to remove a dictatorship and establish a democracy while simultaneously routing out terrorists who execute innocents.
The intentions of the UK army is practically the same as the US army, as they're both owned by imperialist/capitalist states. Oh, and the wave of tabloid-fueled nationalism that eggs the army on is also the same here too.
I like how you use imperialist and capitalist interchangeably. Also, we are in no way an imperialistic society, or else we wouldn't be training an Iraqi force so they can self-govern, and there are no countries that are completely dependent on us that we put there.