But I have lost respect for many of them; the lack of response towards those of
their own religion who are murdering hundreds of innocent people daily as
opposed to the outcry whenever somebody steps on their Islamic toes is
disgusting.
One would think they would be more against the Islamic terrorists-- instead,
they turn a blind eye.
Until I see a greater reaction from the Muslim community, I'm very weary of
them.
Shinsen, if your thoughts are unneeded, why put them there in the first place?
And if Bush truly didn't care about bin Laden, we wouldn't have troops combing
Afghanistan and intelligence agents combing the world for him.
There's similarities between Osama and Hitler-- hatred of a race (or
nationality), their charisma that brings them followers, power... but I'm not
too fond of comparing people. Each individual is their own individual.
leonardo
I do agree with you about the different "military model". It draws on
what I said before, about this being a different type of war. The US military
has already drawn on a new model-- hence some of the specialized troops
(intelligence agents and special forces) over in Afghanistan.
But remember that while we have military technology, so does Al Qaida. The plot
in Britain was to ignite explosives using i-Pods and cellphones. It's amazing
that they can do that with simple technology, and it shows that they have a lot
of masterminds working behind them. Not to mention they have billions of dollars
funneling in to support them. I think it's a lot easier for them to do their job
than it is for us to do ours.
Also, when you say "good to read from you, men"... I'm a female
^_^;
----
Liger: I love how Britain is less
concerned about privacy and more concerned about safety. I can't vouch much for
the US on that. Our wiretapping program has caused problems all across the
nation, and if (more like "when") we detain people without officially
charging them, the ACLU is right there to tear into us.
Quote by LigerZSchnider
You are right. No war is an "easy" war. But regardless how far any
countries' technology is advanced, there is always a "low tech" way to
undermine it. Terrorist exploit this to the letter. What Arinami meant by an
"easy" war was the fact that there is a "known" enemy, with
their own set of objectives. Here we are fighting a terrorist organization; no
real command structure, no banner to stand for, no country to fight for. All
there is for them is an ideal. And as you can see, every time you kill one,
another takes his place.
Yep, that's what I meant. Thank you.
Leonardo:
I really don't believe there is an international effort against terrorism. The
biggest dogs in this fight are the US and the UK-- most of Europe looks the
other way when faced with terrorism. Look at Spain, who was attacked; what was
their response? They didn't have one. France is more worried about quelling its
domestic problems and Germany and Italy say nothing about it. It's a non-issue
for them.
Truthfully, Europe has its head so far up its ass that it can't see the light of
day anymore. Its countries have not contributed to the international effort in
the least bit. They are not outspoken about terrorism, they don't make an
attempt to stop terrorism, and throwing in a handful of soldiers and calling
that "support" does not mean crap. That's pathetic of them, and
extremely arrogant.
Include most of South America, and most of Asia-- almost the entire world in
that, too.
Maybe it's because none of these countries have been affected by terrorism yet,
and that's to blame for their blatant blind eye towards such a serious problem.
But it's only a matter of time before these countries are attacked with the
severity of what the US felt back on 9/11 and the UK felt back in '05.
Until then, they're safe in their own little bubble, and that's all that
matters.
Our president is dumb though( sorry bush followers)
Staying in Iraq is not solving anything, I don't think it is anyways.
Sorry but I don't think they're gonna do anything else I mean all we're doing is
killing more and more innocent people. I'm sure YOU wouldn't like it if we were
gettin killed for OUR leaders stupid mistakes
I don't see most people here as being more intelligent than Bush.
We'renot "killing" more and more innocent people. Most are
dying because of the insurgency. That problem will not eliminate itself if we
withdraw.
MY people are getting killed-- I am in the military.
merged: 08-18-2006 ~ 06:24am
Quote by leonardobarbaNo, Arinami.
I read the news in United Kingdom. The fact they stopped one more terrorist plan
is a real victory. I apologize. 'I pray for you, USA people. I'm not the only
one.' In fact, all my family pray for USA people, because we've relatives who
were in Second World War, so we don't want to see other people in same
situation; part of my family lives in USA, and we're equally concerned about our
relatives; and we really like USA the same way we like Brazil.
Thanks for praying for Brazil, Arinami. We need. Organized crime is almost
taking over Brazil. One people per hour is shot dead in Rio de Janeiro and Sao
Paulo. There's even more... Our government is corrupt to the point our president
confessed to be corrupt in television and he said 'it's common.' Common? Our
president tells the world Brazil is very well, thanks. We're almost in war. A
different kind of war. You're right. I'm easily seated here in Brazil and I
cannot judge USA people. I'm sorry, Arinami.
I think if someone wants to make a movie about 9/11, do it serious and with
respect. A lot of people died, Brazilians included, and I think the minds behind
the plan must be arrested and judged in a trial like Nuremberg. All of them. I
want to know your opinion, Arinami.
I think the latest 9/11 film was tactfully done. I don't see it as exploiting
the tragedy, just drawing on the heroics of two people involved with the rescue
operation. But I do think all of the proceeds should go to some of the numerous
9/11 funds out there, especially for the children who lost one or more of their
parents.
The thing about Nuremburg is that it was an international effort. The world
convened to try those responsible for the war. But WWII is much different than
the war on terror; back then we had country against country, and that was, in my
book, an easier war to fight. This time, we have splinter cells and
organizations across the globe to fight, and it's impossible to track them all
down. If we could catch every single member of the militant groups out there and
try them, it'd be terrific, but logically, that's impossible.
Quote by SupermilkchanChiibut
if we attack THEM like they did us then that won't solve anything, two wrongs
don't make a right....
We didn't attack them like they did us-- we didn't hijack planes and crash them
into buildings. We initially bombed them, then sent our troops in to get rid of
the Taliban in Afghanistan, and now we are following through with the latter
while hosting a manhunt for bin Laden and Al-Qaida.
If you have a better plan, I encourage you to join the military or run for
office.
After all, I'm sure you know what to do
better than a bunch of experts who have decades upon decades of experience
racked up.
Don't be naive.
merged: 08-17-2006 ~ 09:03am
Quote by
a123321there are also a
chance of all the new busted plot are being made up to stop people from talking
about the US being behind 9/11
So, a123321, I guess Canada also made up its latest terrorist bust?
You're clueless, leonardo, aren't you? Just last week the British disrupted a
terrorist plot to blow up a bunch of commercial planes heading into the US. Back
in July, they were numerous bombings inside England. The US DOD has busted
numerous plots within the US itself.
There only reason why there won't be another 9/11 is because there's no WTC to
crash into.
But the terrorist plots and attacks have only multiplied. The only way America
can protect its people is by attacking those responsible for 9/11 and those who
are still plotting against us today. Nothing we can do will change their minds
and no course of action will ever satisfy Al Qaida and the radical-Islamic
hatred of us. It's rooted far deeper than what you think.
And I pray for YOU, and your country, that you never have to deal with any of
this. It's easy for you to sit back and ramble off comments about what America
should and shouldn't do, but if Brazil was facing the same situation, you'd see
a similar course of action, and you'd know where I'm coming from.
-----
Super: I think there's still too much sensitivity over 9/11. It's taboo to make
a joke about it, or dare bring it up. After 5 years, I think we have to move on
to an extent. BUT, there is still a war going on against the people responsible
for it and there's a danger of more attacks against us. We can't put it out of
our minds just yet.
We do everything we can for them here in America. But in the end, whether or not
a beggar is a beggar is up to the beggar. There's unemployment programs to help
feed people and find them jobs, there's shelters, and that's not even touching
the private foundations out to help them.
There's little excuse for being homeless these days besides personal choice and
general laziness.
Shinsengumi is correct-- incest between family members can lead to deformities
of any offspring produced. Morally, it's incorrect.
Many states within the US have varying rules on this, although the average is
that you can marry your third cousin, or fourth cousin, and so on after that.
1.)To see anybody get shot up on the battlefield would be a morale killer Male
or Female what if its your Comrade in your infantry squadron would you not stand
up and try and act like a hero to them without thinking straight? Of course! Its
a Morale killer seeing people get shot up and killed who I don't even know on
the news everyday which is exactly why I am getting a desk job in the
USAF.
If it was such a morale killer, we would've lost the war in Iraq already. It
hurts, but to a soldier, it's part of the game. There's been people who have
lost best friends out of the field but they don't let it affect them to the
point where the mission is compromised.
Quote by zeroenna57
2.) I AM IN NO WAY SAYING THAT WOMEN ARE EMOTIONALLY OR PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF
COMBAT MOS's. If you are capable of doing that job perfectly whether Male or
Female or any other difference you have then you should be allowed to do that
particular job. To keep someone from doing that is slowing down the progress of
man/womankind. but Our Society will not accept that for some reason which is
where stereotypes like Women are too emotional and unable to do a man's
work.
You said, and I quote: "it is a fact
that you will never ever see a Female Sniper in Iraq or fighting on the front
lines because they are not physically or emotionally suited for
it".
Are you a hypocrite, or do you not understand your own argument? You say that
women are "not physically or emotionally suited for it" and then say
that anybody capable of doing the job perfect, regardless of gender, should have
that job.
Make up your mind-- which is it?
Quote by zeroenna57
3.) I seriously doubt that the people posting in this thread would sit idly by
as their country gets invaded by a foreign threat and if they do then as you
said. "may God have mercy on your pathetic little soul." The issue is
whether they will be drafted into a war that many American's don't believe in
which is just like the Vietnam War that war was pointless (I'm not saying the
peoples lives were wasted) but our country was trying to expand its power in
that war and we lost because our ego as the most powerful nation in the world
got the best of us. The Iraq war is another example of this but can we leave it
in the state it's in now no not for the next 10 years or until order is
restored, but that doesnt mean we should get Americans who don't want anything
to do with it to get involved in it.
Thats all i have to say at the moment.
If you read through some of the posts in this thread, many people have stated
such antics, that they will not ever allow themselves to be drafted. Whether
they are putting on a front or being honest is beyond any of us.
The issue is whether or not people will accept a draft. The OP never stated any
specifics to this argument. Thus, it can go either way; for a war such as Iraq,
or an attack on your homeland.
merged: 08-04-2006 ~ 11:18am
Quote by
Phoegon
Oh I am serious, sugar. What's military jail when compared with a soldier's life
expectancy on the battlefield?
What's jail time when it doesn't exist? The military is perfectly capable of
skipping jail time and placing you onto the battlefield with a gun in your hand.
You will either fight, or be killed.
Try not to be so smug. The military will always one-up you.
Quote by silentdestroyer101democrat
here too.. but there havent been any good candidates for a while.. *cough cough
bush who started the iraq war when we should have attacked afghanistan instead
and captured freaking osama bin laden and stopped that major threat rather than
a dictator from a country who had less of a connection to the 9/11 attacks et
cedera cough* and first post too, yay!
Not too smart, are you? We attacked Afghanistan shortly after 9/11, which was
back in 2001. The Iraq war didn't start until 2003. Furthermore, it's not like
bin Laden stays in one place.
Quote by zeroenna57the problem is that
our society does not hold women to equal standards in the military it is a fact
that you will never ever see a Female Sniper in Iraq or fighting on the front
lines because they are not physically or emotionally suited for it (if any of
you feminist people pm me or comment on me being sexist I will come back at you
with extreme anger I am stating what i have heard from various military
recruiter's infantrymen and Retired People You have been warned) Which is why I
doubt they will be included.
I am in the US Army and all of what you are saying is bullshit.
First off, there are no defineable "front lines" in Iraq or
Afghanistan. This isn't back in the day when the two sides charged at each other
in full-out war. The front line is where ever the next battle breaks out, and
that means that MANY women have served on the "front lines". Because
street shoot-outs are rather common, anybody can wind up in a gun battle.
Secondly, women are not allowed to take certain combat-related MOS not because
they are not physically/emotionally capable of doing so, but because the MEN,
yes, YOU, will do stupid things. It is a morale-killer to see a female get shot
up, and seeing a female soldier in danger will make the men try to play hero and
save her, possibly leading to more losses. Tactically, this is not a smart move.
There are many women in the military who are as strong or stronger than most
men. In fact, unless you're dealing with special cases (i.e., special forces)
chances are males and females in general will be equally matched. Men might have
more strength, but women are natural marksmen and best them there. Each gender
has its own faults and perks.
Emotionally, anybody who is placed directly into a war zone without any prior
military experience will react the same way. We go through basic training to
learn how to handle stress, so any woman placed in a combat areas shouldn't have
any emotional problems. And besides that, PTSD and many other war-zone syndromes
don't discriminate. Both males and females can end up with them.
So I don't care what you were told. I am in the military and I come from a
military family. There is always debate over whether or not females should be
allowed in infantry and similar positions and the reasons you stated are
incorrect. Whomever you spoke to must have been very arrogant or shielded to not
know the real reasons.
---
In response to the OP, obviously I'm already in the military so a draft wouldn't
affect me. However, I've read a lot of insane responses in this thread and I
must address them.
When you live in a country, it is your responsibility to protect and defend that
country should it come under fire. That said, if any of you won't step up to
fight if you country gets invaded, then I feel sorry that your country is
currently protecting such a cowardly individual like yourself. This isn't about
morals, this is about protecting you and the ones around you-- your brothers,
sisters, parents, grandparents, and friends. If you won't pick up a gun and
fight in order to protect them and the life you currently live, then may God
have mercy on your pathetic little soul.
I understand that some people don't want to be drafted and end up in Iraq, but
if your country was invaded, would you step up to fight? If your country
attacked another country as to stop that country from attacking yours, would you
step up to fight?
I certainly hope you would, lest I'm going to start losing faith in humanity.
Contrary to what someone replied here earlier that the story is all fiction. I
beg to disagree. Why?
The Dossiers Secrets, the organization Opus Dei, the existence of a child Sara
and the military arm Knights Templar did exist. However, it is the possible
connection of all this to the idea that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene did have
a child may be false. It is how Dan Brown has portrayed this connection in such
a convincing manner with sources that has made his book a so popular.
The existence of Opus Dei/Knights Templar and the works do not make the work any
less fictious, especially when all parties involved in the book are
exaggerrated. Opus Dei does not have monks as members, let alone ones that work
as assassins. The chances of the Knights Templar still being active are slim to
none.
Thus, regardless of how many real organizations it plays on, it is still
fiction.
His convincing manner is not convincing to people who look at it from a distance
instead of falling into the trap he created as a clever author.
The movie was excellent. You really should have read the book before seeing the
movie, because there's a lot of things explained in the book that you'll need
for the movie, and then the movie goes on to explain a lot of things in the
book. Both are amazing though.
(CAUTION: Spoilers!)
For those who don't understand it, the book circles around the idea that Jesus
and Mary Magdalene had a child together named Sarah. It also claims the
"Holy Grail" we've heard about is literally Mary Magdalene and the
secret about her pregnancy and the child, protected by the Knights Templar. The
Knights Templar was a major factor in the victory of the Crusades and they were
treated like royalty by the Church after their return. However, they became far
too powerful --that and the secrecy of their organization-- led to an order by
the Church to persecute all members of the Templar. Da Vinci Code believes that the Templar was protecting the secret
of Jesus' bloodline.
In the movie, Sophie's grandfather, who is the grandmaster of the Knights
Templar, is hunted by the assassin for Opus Dei, the Catholic organization that
knows about Jesus' heiress and is trying to cover it up. Women back during the
time of Christ were persecuted, and the mere thought of a female being Jesus'
decendent would shake the foundation of their religion. So Silas, the crazed
monk, is recruited and shoots Sohpie's grandfather, but not before the man
manages to leave various clues to help Sophie and Robert figure out who was
behind the murder. This leads into everything else-- the involvement of Opus
Dei, the police being after Robert and Sophie, the Knights Templar, the quest
for the Holy Grail (Mary Magdalene), and the truth about Sophie's past.
In the end, Sophie is found to be related to Mary Magdalene. However, this is where the gap in the book is
found. Robert does figures out where Mary's body is, which he can prove
that Sophie was related to Mary through DNA testing but not to Jesus-- there are no samples of his DNA. True, Mary was
pregnant at the time of his death, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was
HIS child. Just be aware of that gap.
Sophie's family were "killed" in a car accident, or so she was lead to
believe by her "grandfather". Her grandfather was not actually related
to her, he was just the grandmaster of the Templar and took Sophie in and raised
her. It was reported that ALL members in the accident died --including Sophie--
when in reality she was just taken away from the scene, given a new last name,
and raised under the belief that the grandmaster was her grandfather.
I think that just about sums it up. In finito, Sophie is supposedly the
decendent of Jesus and Mary, who supposedly had a child together. The whole
thing was covered up by the Knights Templar in order to protect the heiress from
the Church, who certainly would've had her killed.
If anybody has any questions, feel free to ask away.
You don't commit suicide if you're at risk of becoming a POW. If anything, you
go out in a blaze of glory and take out as many as you can. Die a hero, not a
coward.
HAH! She's going to be eating those words. I have a hard enough time watching my
niece for a few hours-- I don't know how my sister does it 24/7.
Babies are extremely hard to raise. They wear you down physically and mentally
and become the focal point of your life. That little brat in the article has no
idea what she's getting into.
Smoking can harm babies. What the hell is the education system teaching kids
nowadays?
I hate to say it, but I hope the girl dies while in labor. That poor baby stands
no chance with such an incompetent and young mother.
Quote by LigerZSchnider
I was going to hack this post up but you covered many things I posted earlier,
so I'll go back to the pregnancy issue:
Like I said before, pregnancy IS frowned upon by the Army......IF you are single
a lower enlisted, and pregnant! However, the females who serve and are married
is a different case altogether; they have a support structure in place so the
the Army will not have to exhaust their resources for. Case in point; I am in a
Cavalry unit. There is a Cavalry support element in our unit in which females
serve. This is closest to infantry
female will get to. (Frysan, there was a female commander in this support
unit a while ago too) Two females came into the unit while the unit was deployed
in Iraq; both were lower enlisted (a private and a private first class) and both
have got pregnant. One was discharged in two months, and the other is currently
out processing, she stayed in long enough to have her baby.
Now here is the other side of this issue........
There is a Staff Sergeant who lives above me, who isn't part of the Cavalry unit
(she is a cook) who Has a child and is single! The child is about 4 and I don't
think she is getting out of the military anytime soon, she had just came back
from Advance Non-commissioned Officer Course.
What I am trying to say is that there isn't a problem with females serving their
country, that is their choice if they want to. They will never serve in combat
arms (armor, infantry, and artillery). I put it like this:
Women wants to be treated as equals. I absolutely have no problem with that.
However, they also want to be treated as "ladies". You can't have that
in our jobs. That is a conflict of issue with me. If women want to "pound
the ground" with me, then they will have to take ridicule, jokes, ass
whippings, and praises just like I do, without me fearing that what I say will
offend the women in the group. It is hard enough for us guys to watch what we
say in the company of women (when out in the field, we pretty much cut loose),
but to have them as part of a squad-based element will be hard on us, unless she
can take it as well as she can dish it.
I understand about the pregnancy ordeal (for the lower enlisted whores). I don't
understand why females join the military and then get pregnant. It's a huge risk
and I'm ashamed of the ones that do. The military isn't a dating service nor a
sex club.
I agree with you on the last paragraph. If you're going to be in infantry,
expect infantry. With that comes a lot of battles besides the ones that will
send bullets flying your way. If any female ever expects some sort of special
treatment she should get her ass whipped even harder. There are some females who
want to serve in infantry just for the sake of being able to say they served in
infantry, and these are the ones who will be like that. They will undoubtly end
up copping out. But on the other hand, there are a lot of women who can take to
being "one of the guys" and will fit right in without any complaint.
If they can do this, good for them.
I won't probably see females serving in any infantry position during my service
and might not live to see it, but I think it'll eventually happen someday.
Women in the military don't scream, and PTSD doesn't discriminate between
genders.
I'm also in the military, and I support women being allowed in infantry. The
lack of defined front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that women are
capable of handling themselves.
HOWEVER, what women must realize is that infantry jobs are crummy, dirty, and
far more dangerous than typical MOS. There's a lack of general hygiene and
they'll be put into situations where they must change/go to the bathroom in
front of men. They might not be able to shower for weeks or even months and they
have to deal with pigheaded commentary. The training and experience will be
grueling, and I firmly believe that if any female wants to be in infantry, she
MUST compare to the same standards as the men.
In response to some other posts, Liger pointed out the pregancy, however, not
every female will get pregnant while in the military. Not to mention females
now, regardless of MOS, have been deployed while their have small children at
home. It's a life military moms have to get used to.
To thorncarver, anybody can be trained to be a "professional" killer.
If you go through basic training, which everybody --both male and female-- do,
you're a "professional" killer. And if women can do anything men can,
then they should also be allowed in infantry. You're being a hypocrite by
telling them to do something else.
Fysan, you're going to be under female commanders at one point so get over it.
That's incredibly disrespectful to generalize all females and you're going to
wind up with a boot in your ass one day with that attitude. It's not gender that
makes a good commander, it's how well they were trained and their natural
ability to use logic and leadership together. I hope in due time you'll realize
this.
Myself, personally, has little ambition to be a grunt. I respect any man who
does infantry but it's not my forte. If any female wants to do the same, more
power to her-- but I expect her to be as good or better than her male
counterparts and not expect any sort of special treatment.
The title of war hero and war criminal aren't just handed out to anybody. A war
hero is a distinguished service man or woman who did something honorable,
courageous, and probably downright stupid. A war criminal is somebody who
committed acts of inhumanity that generally go against the rules of war.
I don't think its vengeance though. Considering what took place during WWII, I
think it's only fair to bring the Nazi leaders accountable. I see it more as
being just plain 'ole justice then any
nation trying to get vengeance-- they got their vengeance by winning the war.
I don't think all Islamic folks are terrorists.
But I have lost respect for many of them; the lack of response towards those of their own religion who are murdering hundreds of innocent people daily as opposed to the outcry whenever somebody steps on their Islamic toes is disgusting.
One would think they would be more against the Islamic terrorists-- instead, they turn a blind eye.
Until I see a greater reaction from the Muslim community, I'm very weary of them.
Shinsen, if your thoughts are unneeded, why put them there in the first place?
And if Bush truly didn't care about bin Laden, we wouldn't have troops combing Afghanistan and intelligence agents combing the world for him.
There's similarities between Osama and Hitler-- hatred of a race (or nationality), their charisma that brings them followers, power... but I'm not too fond of comparing people. Each individual is their own individual.
Osama is very dangerous. Do not be naive.
leonardo
I do agree with you about the different "military model". It draws on what I said before, about this being a different type of war. The US military has already drawn on a new model-- hence some of the specialized troops (intelligence agents and special forces) over in Afghanistan.
But remember that while we have military technology, so does Al Qaida. The plot in Britain was to ignite explosives using i-Pods and cellphones. It's amazing that they can do that with simple technology, and it shows that they have a lot of masterminds working behind them. Not to mention they have billions of dollars funneling in to support them. I think it's a lot easier for them to do their job than it is for us to do ours.
Also, when you say "good to read from you, men"... I'm a female ^_^;
----
Liger: I love how Britain is less concerned about privacy and more concerned about safety. I can't vouch much for the US on that. Our wiretapping program has caused problems all across the nation, and if (more like "when") we detain people without officially charging them, the ACLU is right there to tear into us.
Because, you know, terrorists have rights too.
Yep, that's what I meant. Thank you.
Leonardo:
I really don't believe there is an international effort against terrorism. The biggest dogs in this fight are the US and the UK-- most of Europe looks the other way when faced with terrorism. Look at Spain, who was attacked; what was their response? They didn't have one. France is more worried about quelling its domestic problems and Germany and Italy say nothing about it. It's a non-issue for them.
Truthfully, Europe has its head so far up its ass that it can't see the light of day anymore. Its countries have not contributed to the international effort in the least bit. They are not outspoken about terrorism, they don't make an attempt to stop terrorism, and throwing in a handful of soldiers and calling that "support" does not mean crap. That's pathetic of them, and extremely arrogant.
Include most of South America, and most of Asia-- almost the entire world in that, too.
Maybe it's because none of these countries have been affected by terrorism yet, and that's to blame for their blatant blind eye towards such a serious problem.
But it's only a matter of time before these countries are attacked with the severity of what the US felt back on 9/11 and the UK felt back in '05.
Until then, they're safe in their own little bubble, and that's all that matters.
I don't see most people here as being more intelligent than Bush.
We're not "killing" more and more innocent people. Most are dying because of the insurgency. That problem will not eliminate itself if we withdraw.
MY people are getting killed-- I am in the military.
merged: 08-18-2006 ~ 06:24am
I think the latest 9/11 film was tactfully done. I don't see it as exploiting the tragedy, just drawing on the heroics of two people involved with the rescue operation. But I do think all of the proceeds should go to some of the numerous 9/11 funds out there, especially for the children who lost one or more of their parents.
The thing about Nuremburg is that it was an international effort. The world convened to try those responsible for the war. But WWII is much different than the war on terror; back then we had country against country, and that was, in my book, an easier war to fight. This time, we have splinter cells and organizations across the globe to fight, and it's impossible to track them all down. If we could catch every single member of the militant groups out there and try them, it'd be terrific, but logically, that's impossible.
Best of luck with Brazil. Stay safe.
We didn't attack them like they did us-- we didn't hijack planes and crash them into buildings. We initially bombed them, then sent our troops in to get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and now we are following through with the latter while hosting a manhunt for bin Laden and Al-Qaida.
If you have a better plan, I encourage you to join the military or run for office.
After all, I'm sure you know what to do better than a bunch of experts who have decades upon decades of experience racked up.
Don't be naive.
merged: 08-17-2006 ~ 09:03am
So, a123321, I guess Canada also made up its latest terrorist bust?
You're clueless, leonardo, aren't you? Just last week the British disrupted a terrorist plot to blow up a bunch of commercial planes heading into the US. Back in July, they were numerous bombings inside England. The US DOD has busted numerous plots within the US itself.
There only reason why there won't be another 9/11 is because there's no WTC to crash into.
But the terrorist plots and attacks have only multiplied. The only way America can protect its people is by attacking those responsible for 9/11 and those who are still plotting against us today. Nothing we can do will change their minds and no course of action will ever satisfy Al Qaida and the radical-Islamic hatred of us. It's rooted far deeper than what you think.
And I pray for YOU, and your country, that you never have to deal with any of this. It's easy for you to sit back and ramble off comments about what America should and shouldn't do, but if Brazil was facing the same situation, you'd see a similar course of action, and you'd know where I'm coming from.
-----
Super: I think there's still too much sensitivity over 9/11. It's taboo to make a joke about it, or dare bring it up. After 5 years, I think we have to move on to an extent. BUT, there is still a war going on against the people responsible for it and there's a danger of more attacks against us. We can't put it out of our minds just yet.
We do everything we can for them here in America. But in the end, whether or not a beggar is a beggar is up to the beggar. There's unemployment programs to help feed people and find them jobs, there's shelters, and that's not even touching the private foundations out to help them.
There's little excuse for being homeless these days besides personal choice and general laziness.
McDonald's is always hiring.
Shinsengumi is correct-- incest between family members can lead to deformities of any offspring produced. Morally, it's incorrect.
Many states within the US have varying rules on this, although the average is that you can marry your third cousin, or fourth cousin, and so on after that.
If it was such a morale killer, we would've lost the war in Iraq already. It hurts, but to a soldier, it's part of the game. There's been people who have lost best friends out of the field but they don't let it affect them to the point where the mission is compromised.
You said, and I quote: "it is a fact that you will never ever see a Female Sniper in Iraq or fighting on the front lines because they are not physically or emotionally suited for it".
Are you a hypocrite, or do you not understand your own argument? You say that women are "not physically or emotionally suited for it" and then say that anybody capable of doing the job perfect, regardless of gender, should have that job.
Make up your mind-- which is it?
If you read through some of the posts in this thread, many people have stated such antics, that they will not ever allow themselves to be drafted. Whether they are putting on a front or being honest is beyond any of us.
The issue is whether or not people will accept a draft. The OP never stated any specifics to this argument. Thus, it can go either way; for a war such as Iraq, or an attack on your homeland.
merged: 08-04-2006 ~ 11:18am
What's jail time when it doesn't exist? The military is perfectly capable of skipping jail time and placing you onto the battlefield with a gun in your hand. You will either fight, or be killed.
Try not to be so smug. The military will always one-up you.
Not too smart, are you? We attacked Afghanistan shortly after 9/11, which was back in 2001. The Iraq war didn't start until 2003. Furthermore, it's not like bin Laden stays in one place.
Registered Republican.
I am in the US Army and all of what you are saying is bullshit.
First off, there are no defineable "front lines" in Iraq or Afghanistan. This isn't back in the day when the two sides charged at each other in full-out war. The front line is where ever the next battle breaks out, and that means that MANY women have served on the "front lines". Because street shoot-outs are rather common, anybody can wind up in a gun battle.
Secondly, women are not allowed to take certain combat-related MOS not because they are not physically/emotionally capable of doing so, but because the MEN, yes, YOU, will do stupid things. It is a morale-killer to see a female get shot up, and seeing a female soldier in danger will make the men try to play hero and save her, possibly leading to more losses. Tactically, this is not a smart move.
There are many women in the military who are as strong or stronger than most men. In fact, unless you're dealing with special cases (i.e., special forces) chances are males and females in general will be equally matched. Men might have more strength, but women are natural marksmen and best them there. Each gender has its own faults and perks.
Emotionally, anybody who is placed directly into a war zone without any prior military experience will react the same way. We go through basic training to learn how to handle stress, so any woman placed in a combat areas shouldn't have any emotional problems. And besides that, PTSD and many other war-zone syndromes don't discriminate. Both males and females can end up with them.
So I don't care what you were told. I am in the military and I come from a military family. There is always debate over whether or not females should be allowed in infantry and similar positions and the reasons you stated are incorrect. Whomever you spoke to must have been very arrogant or shielded to not know the real reasons.
---
In response to the OP, obviously I'm already in the military so a draft wouldn't affect me. However, I've read a lot of insane responses in this thread and I must address them.
When you live in a country, it is your responsibility to protect and defend that country should it come under fire. That said, if any of you won't step up to fight if you country gets invaded, then I feel sorry that your country is currently protecting such a cowardly individual like yourself. This isn't about morals, this is about protecting you and the ones around you-- your brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents, and friends. If you won't pick up a gun and fight in order to protect them and the life you currently live, then may God have mercy on your pathetic little soul.
I understand that some people don't want to be drafted and end up in Iraq, but if your country was invaded, would you step up to fight? If your country attacked another country as to stop that country from attacking yours, would you step up to fight?
I certainly hope you would, lest I'm going to start losing faith in humanity.
Why would a handful of doctors/nurses ruin your whole outlook on them? Are all soldiers murderers because of a handful that go haywire, too?
Rice said that she has no interest in running. Hillary herself hasn't made any public notion of her running.
But between the two, I'd pick Rice in a heartbeat.
I'm Republican and I'll remain Republican. The general discourse with the president IS Iraq. Otherwise, this country is actually doing pretty good.
Capitalism with government intervention is better than unrestricted capitalism.
The existence of Opus Dei/Knights Templar and the works do not make the work any less fictious, especially when all parties involved in the book are exaggerrated. Opus Dei does not have monks as members, let alone ones that work as assassins. The chances of the Knights Templar still being active are slim to none.
Thus, regardless of how many real organizations it plays on, it is still fiction.
His convincing manner is not convincing to people who look at it from a distance instead of falling into the trap he created as a clever author.
The movie was excellent. You really should have read the book before seeing the movie, because there's a lot of things explained in the book that you'll need for the movie, and then the movie goes on to explain a lot of things in the book. Both are amazing though.
(CAUTION: Spoilers!)
For those who don't understand it, the book circles around the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child together named Sarah. It also claims the "Holy Grail" we've heard about is literally Mary Magdalene and the secret about her pregnancy and the child, protected by the Knights Templar. The Knights Templar was a major factor in the victory of the Crusades and they were treated like royalty by the Church after their return. However, they became far too powerful --that and the secrecy of their organization-- led to an order by the Church to persecute all members of the Templar. Da Vinci Code believes that the Templar was protecting the secret of Jesus' bloodline.
In the movie, Sophie's grandfather, who is the grandmaster of the Knights Templar, is hunted by the assassin for Opus Dei, the Catholic organization that knows about Jesus' heiress and is trying to cover it up. Women back during the time of Christ were persecuted, and the mere thought of a female being Jesus' decendent would shake the foundation of their religion. So Silas, the crazed monk, is recruited and shoots Sohpie's grandfather, but not before the man manages to leave various clues to help Sophie and Robert figure out who was behind the murder. This leads into everything else-- the involvement of Opus Dei, the police being after Robert and Sophie, the Knights Templar, the quest for the Holy Grail (Mary Magdalene), and the truth about Sophie's past.
In the end, Sophie is found to be related to Mary Magdalene. However, this is where the gap in the book is found. Robert does figures out where Mary's body is, which he can prove that Sophie was related to Mary through DNA testing but not to Jesus-- there are no samples of his DNA. True, Mary was pregnant at the time of his death, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was HIS child. Just be aware of that gap.
Sophie's family were "killed" in a car accident, or so she was lead to believe by her "grandfather". Her grandfather was not actually related to her, he was just the grandmaster of the Templar and took Sophie in and raised her. It was reported that ALL members in the accident died --including Sophie-- when in reality she was just taken away from the scene, given a new last name, and raised under the belief that the grandmaster was her grandfather.
I think that just about sums it up. In finito, Sophie is supposedly the decendent of Jesus and Mary, who supposedly had a child together. The whole thing was covered up by the Knights Templar in order to protect the heiress from the Church, who certainly would've had her killed.
If anybody has any questions, feel free to ask away.
Just remember, this is all fiction.
You don't commit suicide if you're at risk of becoming a POW. If anything, you go out in a blaze of glory and take out as many as you can. Die a hero, not a coward.
HAH! She's going to be eating those words. I have a hard enough time watching my niece for a few hours-- I don't know how my sister does it 24/7.
Babies are extremely hard to raise. They wear you down physically and mentally and become the focal point of your life. That little brat in the article has no idea what she's getting into.
Smoking can harm babies. What the hell is the education system teaching kids nowadays?
I hate to say it, but I hope the girl dies while in labor. That poor baby stands no chance with such an incompetent and young mother.
Jesus Christ. There's always some movement to impeach the president-- with Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., and so on.
And guess what? It never works.
Hell, Clinton's impeachment got more support than Bush's.
And do you really want Cheney as the president?
I understand about the pregnancy ordeal (for the lower enlisted whores). I don't understand why females join the military and then get pregnant. It's a huge risk and I'm ashamed of the ones that do. The military isn't a dating service nor a sex club.
I agree with you on the last paragraph. If you're going to be in infantry, expect infantry. With that comes a lot of battles besides the ones that will send bullets flying your way. If any female ever expects some sort of special treatment she should get her ass whipped even harder. There are some females who want to serve in infantry just for the sake of being able to say they served in infantry, and these are the ones who will be like that. They will undoubtly end up copping out. But on the other hand, there are a lot of women who can take to being "one of the guys" and will fit right in without any complaint. If they can do this, good for them.
I won't probably see females serving in any infantry position during my service and might not live to see it, but I think it'll eventually happen someday.
Women in the military don't scream, and PTSD doesn't discriminate between genders.
I'm also in the military, and I support women being allowed in infantry. The lack of defined front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that women are capable of handling themselves.
HOWEVER, what women must realize is that infantry jobs are crummy, dirty, and far more dangerous than typical MOS. There's a lack of general hygiene and they'll be put into situations where they must change/go to the bathroom in front of men. They might not be able to shower for weeks or even months and they have to deal with pigheaded commentary. The training and experience will be grueling, and I firmly believe that if any female wants to be in infantry, she MUST compare to the same standards as the men.
In response to some other posts, Liger pointed out the pregancy, however, not every female will get pregnant while in the military. Not to mention females now, regardless of MOS, have been deployed while their have small children at home. It's a life military moms have to get used to.
To thorncarver, anybody can be trained to be a "professional" killer. If you go through basic training, which everybody --both male and female-- do, you're a "professional" killer. And if women can do anything men can, then they should also be allowed in infantry. You're being a hypocrite by telling them to do something else.
Fysan, you're going to be under female commanders at one point so get over it. That's incredibly disrespectful to generalize all females and you're going to wind up with a boot in your ass one day with that attitude. It's not gender that makes a good commander, it's how well they were trained and their natural ability to use logic and leadership together. I hope in due time you'll realize this.
Myself, personally, has little ambition to be a grunt. I respect any man who does infantry but it's not my forte. If any female wants to do the same, more power to her-- but I expect her to be as good or better than her male counterparts and not expect any sort of special treatment.
The title of war hero and war criminal aren't just handed out to anybody. A war hero is a distinguished service man or woman who did something honorable, courageous, and probably downright stupid. A war criminal is somebody who committed acts of inhumanity that generally go against the rules of war.
I don't think its vengeance though. Considering what took place during WWII, I think it's only fair to bring the Nazi leaders accountable. I see it more as being just plain 'ole justice then any nation trying to get vengeance-- they got their vengeance by winning the war.