Debate and Discussion

When the troops return ...
bobhhh at 10:29AM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
I think taking a monolithic wiew of any group gets you into trouble. Some were heroes, some were scoundrels. Some saw the military as a calling, others as a way out of the cycle of poverty. Some feel they were doing the country's business, others felt they were doing the white house's dirty work.

Personally I feel that we were in no immediate danger, so going into Iraq was no heroic cause, but that doesn't mean the soldiers didn't put their ass on the line. Some made the ultimate sacrifice…life and or limb.

Let's hope they get the respect they deserve, and let's not forget their wasted sacrifice so we may never send our soldiers again into hell for the greedy desires of a priveliged few.

Bob

ps firefighters are true superheroes, and Rudy has done nothing but benefit from their sacrifice on the national stage. As a former New Yorker, I am daily appallled by his foregone status as a 9/11 hero, when all he did was get a little soot on his jacket and then ignore all those who made paid the real price…hey on second thought he might make a great president.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
SpANG at 10:38AM, Aug. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
TheMidge28
What do you mean? Can you clarify?
I guess you can start here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm
Washington Post
Bush was 12 days away from losing his student deferment from the draft at a time when Americans were dying in combat at the rate of 350 a week. The unit Bush wanted to join offered him the chance to fulfill his military commitment at a base in Texas. It was seen as an escape route from Vietnam by many men his age, and usually had a long waiting list.

Bush had scored only 25 percent on a “pilot aptitude” test, the lowest acceptable grade. But his father was then a congressman from Houston, and the commanders of the Texas Guard clearly had an appreciation of politics.

Bush was sworn in as an airman the same day he applied.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
TheMidge28 at 10:50AM, Aug. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,847
joined: 7-5-2007
SpANG
TheMidge28
What do you mean? Can you clarify?
I guess you can start here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm
Washington Post
Bush was 12 days away from losing his student deferment from the draft at a time when Americans were dying in combat at the rate of 350 a week. The unit Bush wanted to join offered him the chance to fulfill his military commitment at a base in Texas. It was seen as an escape route from Vietnam by many men his age, and usually had a long waiting list.

Bush had scored only 25 percent on a “pilot aptitude” test, the lowest acceptable grade. But his father was then a congressman from Houston, and the commanders of the Texas Guard clearly had an appreciation of politics.

Bush was sworn in as an airman the same day he applied.

no I am sorry…I wasn't clear…what did you mean by…
mapaghimagsik"
When the troops return, they're gonna need our help. National Guard members have lost their jobs over their commitment overseas.

your response
Which is just RIDICULOUS in my opinion. National Gaurd troops were put in to place to what class? Guard OUR NATION.

Not that Bush is the first prez to do this, but it's still idiotic.

Also a little hypritical, since Bush enrolled in the NG so that he DIDN'T need to go to Nam.

I understand Bush went into NG to avoid the draft but I don't understand you stating it in reposnse to what mapaghimagsik said…
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:21PM
SpANG at 11:25AM, Aug. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
TheMidge28
I understand Bush went into NG to avoid the draft but I don't understand you stating it in reposnse to what mapaghimagsik said…
The National Guard was made to have a military presence (if needed) on U.S. soil. People that join the NG figure this is a good way to serve their country without having to deploy overseas. But that's all out the window, now. If you join the NG, you should no longer have this assumption. Not only that but NG troops are not as heavily trained as regular infantry. At least that's how I understand it.

If you are asking about the "National Gaurd troops were put in to place to what class?" statement, I was being facetious, trying to speak like a teacher. :D
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
ozoneocean at 12:01PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
I'm pretty sure that US troops are perfectly allowed to disobey “illegal” orders, just like Australian, UK, Israeli, etc. In fact I think it's required that they DO NOT obey illegal orders. lol!
How that functions in practise I don't know but I think that came out of WW1 or something… Soldiers are thinking people, NOT automaton killing machines and the laws recognise that thank you!

Shooting disobedient soldiers on the battlefield went out with WW1 as well, a hangover from the 19thC, and even in WW1 there would be consequences! Maybe it continued and maybe it still happens but it's NOT a law (in the countries I've mentioned anyway) and you'd be court-martialed and jailed for doing it.

As for the remit of the US “National Guard”, I'm not sure, but I think that's just a name. They're actually some kind of semi-ready reserve force… I think. Why GWB jnr was able to use that as a get out of war free card during Vietnam was probably because it allowed him to avoid conscription to the regular forces and during that time the National Guard were probably largely being held in reserve on home soil in case of Soviet action somewhere else. It WAS during the cold war afterall - and back then they had conscripts to throw into the meat grinder.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
Shar at 1:03PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
warren
Shar
warren
Perhaps we should just classify any politically motivated attacks (including simple assault) on returning troops as hate crimes. It certainly would meet the criteria.

The law is supposed to treat everyone equal. Who is to say wheter a attack was politically charged or simple anger.
The law is supposed to be equal. However, it has been decided to be more equal in the case of attacks motivated by race or sexual preference. Why should it be any different for political reasons?

You can't have it both ways. Either hate crime legislation should be abolished altogether, or it should be broadened to protect anyone who is attacked for specific reasons of hatred.

Are you in favor of abolishing all hate crime legislation?

Yes i am actually.

I would be glad to take it into a new thread to debate it with you since this is kind of offtopic though.

But i'll try to explain my position on it atleast.

I don't believe in judging a crime by why it was commited. A act is a act.

Saying that someone who attacked a person should serve less or more time simply due to the reason they attacked is irrevelant.

I killed a black person. But i didn't do it because i hate black people or carry ill will towards them: Less time.

I killed a black person. I did it because i hate black people and carry ill will towards them: More time.

How does this change what the person did ?
People should be judged by their actions alone. Not their opinions. A opinion of someone has never hurt anyone. Actively discriminating them or attacking them due to the opinion has. But the opinion in itself is not the crime commited.

And to remove any silly racist innuendos i'll come out and say im mixed race with a mother from Mauritius and a father from Estonia. My complexion is a light brown shade.
*Cough* Single *Cough*
I'm With Shar.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
Hawk at 3:27PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
Shar
People should be judged by their actions alone. Not their opinions. A opinion of someone has never hurt anyone. Actively discriminating them or attacking them due to the opinion has. But the opinion in itself is not the crime commited.

I fully agree with that.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
mapaghimagsik at 4:27PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
I don't disagree that people should be tried on their actions. I also agree that you should be allowed to have whatever opinions you do.

I have no problem with hate crimes as they stand because the fact of the matter is that there aren't roving gangs of homosexuals killing straight people.

There are straight people killing people simply because they're gay. Murder should be punished severely, and I have no problem with additional penalties being applied for being a racist.

The reason I think this way is because hate crimes are not exactly like any other crime. If someone gets assaulted, its a crime against that person. Hate crimes attack a group of people, and are designed to send a message. They are meant to drive a whole class of people, based on color or sexual orientation away. A murder is terrible, and should be punished by the fullest extent of the law. A lynching is designed to send a message to the whole neighborhood to say “you're next.”

No one is saying murder or assault shouldn't be punished. Frankly, murder and assault with the intent to spread terror to a class of citizenry based on color, race, gender or sexual preference could easily be considered a form of domestic terrorism.

So that's why I think adding additional time for hate crimes makes sense.

But anyway, back to the topic at hand.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
bobhhh at 5:25PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
ozoneocean
I'm pretty sure that US troops are perfectly allowed to disobey “illegal” orders, just like Australian, UK, Israeli, etc. In fact I think it's required that they DO NOT obey illegal orders. lol!

You forget how soldiers are trained, unless there is mass mutiny, comrades will always err on the side of supporting the unit. That's why you have people who are NOT in favor of this war reenlisting. The spectre of not being there to support their mates is a huge motivator.

It's sad but the Bush administration is taking advantage of the soldiers' core traits: duty, unit cohesion and valor.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Jeegoo at 6:03PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 26
joined: 8-18-2007
ozoneocean
I'm pretty sure that US troops are perfectly allowed to disobey “illegal” orders, just like Australian, UK, Israeli, etc. In fact I think it's required that they DO NOT obey illegal orders. lol!

My dad was told to walk through a minefield in Vietnam by his CO.

It was a legal order.

He told his CO “no” in a rather colourful way >__>;
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:07PM
Shar at 6:08PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
mapaghimagsik
I don't disagree that people should be tried on their actions. I also agree that you should be allowed to have whatever opinions you do.

I have no problem with hate crimes as they stand because the fact of the matter is that there aren't roving gangs of homosexuals killing straight people.

There are straight people killing people simply because they're gay. Murder should be punished severely, and I have no problem with additional penalties being applied for being a racist.

The reason I think this way is because hate crimes are not exactly like any other crime. If someone gets assaulted, its a crime against that person. Hate crimes attack a group of people, and are designed to send a message. They are meant to drive a whole class of people, based on color or sexual orientation away. A murder is terrible, and should be punished by the fullest extent of the law. A lynching is designed to send a message to the whole neighborhood to say “you're next.”

No one is saying murder or assault shouldn't be punished. Frankly, murder and assault with the intent to spread terror to a class of citizenry based on color, race, gender or sexual preference could easily be considered a form of domestic terrorism.

So that's why I think adding additional time for hate crimes makes sense.

But anyway, back to the topic at hand.

The law still acts on the crime the person commits. Not the fear of additional crimes the person might commit onto others.

And i don't see how hate crimes are inherent different from normal crimes in anyway. The base crime is still the same. If you lynch people you are attacking a group of people. A group of people will therefore be afraid. Regardless of what your motivation is. If you kill a person based on their sexual preference you are still killing them. The reason behind your killing should have no effect on the punishment. Saying it does leads us to the fact that if your opinion is right your killing would be justified.

And who is to say what a persons intent are. I doubt someone who is in court and isen't a complete jackass (Read rascist) is gonna start proffessing his fascist beliefs.

And there are surely groups of homosexuals who believe straight people are the spawn of satan himself. That's kind of hypocritical. Saying that the reason we have laws that infer harsher punishment on people with a certain agenda is because the people targeted by it doesn't have a agenda of their own. You should not make blanket statements about people like that.

Again i say punishments should not be harsher or milder based on the opinions of the perpetrator.
I'm With Shar.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
mapaghimagsik at 8:36PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Shar
The law still acts on the crime the person commits. Not the fear of additional crimes the person might commit onto others.

That's not the crime as I decsribed it. Are you deliberately misreading?

And i don't see how hate crimes are inherent different from normal crimes in anyway. The base crime is still the same. If you lynch people you are attacking a group of people. A group of people will therefore be afraid. Regardless of what your motivation is. If you kill a person based on their sexual preference you are still killing them. The reason behind your killing should have no effect on the punishment. Saying it does leads us to the fact that if your opinion is right your killing would be justified.


Again, I think you're misreading. Murder is murder, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The additional crime is using murder to terrorize a group of people based on their color, sex, or sexual preference.


And who is to say what a persons intent are. I doubt someone who is in court and isen't a complete jackass (Read rascist) is gonna start proffessing his fascist beliefs.

Lawyers? The law? If a black man is killed by a group of thugs in white hoods who burn a cross in his front yard. “Could” that crime be racially motivated? Not every crime against black people is necessarily a hate crime, but a provable hate crime is an act of terror against a community.

And there are surely groups of homosexuals who believe straight people are the spawn of satan himself. That's kind of hypocritical. Saying that the reason we have laws that infer harsher punishment on people with a certain agenda is because the people targeted by it doesn't have a agenda of their own. You should not make blanket statements about people like that.

If there was a group of homosexuals who were killing off straight people to drive them away, *of course* that would be a hate crime. Just as if it were a group of blacks doing it to drive whites out of their neighborhood. But lets be real. That's not happening. But if it was, that would be just as much a hate crime.

Again i say punishments should not be harsher or milder based on the opinions of the perpetrator.

I disagree with your logic, because under what you say, assault with intent to commit murder is just assault. You'd also do away with “attempted murder” because they didn't succeed? I guess genocide is just murder then.

You don't have to explain though. I think I understand where you're coming from, which probably has nothing to do with crimes and appropriate punishment.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Shar at 9:37PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
Someone
That's not the crime as I decsribed it. Are you deliberately misreading?

I wasen't talking about the crime you mentioned. It was a general statement about what i saw your position to be.

Someone
Again, I think you're misreading. Murder is murder, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The additional crime is using murder to terrorize a group of people based on their color, sex, or sexual preference.

Let me rephrase.
The act is the crime. not the reason it is commited for. The fact that the person does it to scare people shouldn't change the punishment more than any other reason for doing the crime.

Someone
Lawyers? The law? If a black man is killed by a group of thugs in white hoods who burn a cross in his front yard. “Could” that crime be racially motivated? Not every crime against black people is necessarily a hate crime, but a provable hate crime is an act of terror against a community.

It still is the same crime. What it is motivated by shouldn't have a effect on what the punishment is. And as far as i know scaring people isen't a crime. Threatening them directly on the other hand there are laws against.

Someone
If there was a group of homosexuals who were killing off straight people to drive them away, *of course* that would be a hate crime. Just as if it were a group of blacks doing it to drive whites out of their neighborhood. But lets be real. That's not happening. But if it was, that would be just as much a hate crime.

So you agree with me ?

Someone
I disagree with your logic, because under what you say, assault with intent to commit murder is just assault. You'd also do away with “attempted murder” because they didn't succeed? I guess genocide is just murder then.

Opinion and reason for commiting something doesn't equal intent.

Someone
You don't have to explain though. I think I understand where you're coming from, which probably has nothing to do with crimes and appropriate punishment.

Exactly what are you insinuating. Explain yourself.
I'm With Shar.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
mapaghimagsik at 9:53PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Shar
Someone
That's not the crime as I decsribed it. Are you deliberately misreading?

I wasen't talking about the crime you mentioned. It was a general statement about what i saw your position to be.


Please reread my post. You're not getting my point at all, which is that in addition to murder, a hate crime is an additional crime to the murder.

Someone
Again, I think you're misreading. Murder is murder, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The additional crime is using murder to terrorize a group of people based on their color, sex, or sexual preference.

Let me rephrase.
The act is the crime. not the reason it is commited for. The fact that the person does it to scare people shouldn't change the punishment more than any other reason for doing the crime.

This is more than reason. This is intent. The intent of planting the bomb was to kill a lot of people. The bomb doesn't go off. Is the person just guilty of having explosives? Or was that attempted murder?

Someone
Lawyers? The law? If a black man is killed by a group of thugs in white hoods who burn a cross in his front yard. “Could” that crime be racially motivated? Not every crime against black people is necessarily a hate crime, but a provable hate crime is an act of terror against a community.

It still is the same crime. What it is motivated by shouldn't have a effect on what the punishment is. And as far as i know scaring people isen't a crime. Threatening them directly on the other hand there are laws against.

Someone
If there was a group of homosexuals who were killing off straight people to drive them away, *of course* that would be a hate crime. Just as if it were a group of blacks doing it to drive whites out of their neighborhood. But lets be real. That's not happening. But if it was, that would be just as much a hate crime.

So you agree with me ?

No. I'm saying both are hate crimes, and would be punished as a hate crime in addition to the other charges. At this point, I'm wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse, because my meaning was crytal clear.
Someone
I disagree with your logic, because under what you say, assault with intent to commit murder is just assault. You'd also do away with “attempted murder” because they didn't succeed? I guess genocide is just murder then.

Opinion and reason for commiting something doesn't equal intent.

You're still being obtuse. The intent *is* the hate crime, since the intent is to terrorize a group based on race, gender, or sexual preference.



Someone
You don't have to explain though. I think I understand where you're coming from, which probably has nothing to do with crimes and appropriate punishment.

Exactly what are you insinuating. Explain yourself.

Explain *yourself*. Is attempted murder a crime? Or, since no one was killed, was no crime committed?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Shar at 9:56PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
Let's continue this in the other thread.
I'm With Shar.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
imshard at 2:10PM, Sept. 6, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
To hark back to the thread subject….
I'd support a celebration of a mass return but that's unlikely with today's society.
Most friends and families meet their soldiers as they disembark, greet them warmly and have a small welcome home party waiting for them nearby. I've done this myself.
When it come to 2 certain guardsmen I know, we'll all meet at the airport and promptly start a 72 hour long drinking and partying marathon like we agreed to on the day they left. Afterwards when we've sobered up a little we'd visit the graves of 3 other friends who came back early.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:57PM
TnTComic at 4:27AM, Sept. 7, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
imshard
To hark back to the thread subject….
I'd support a celebration of a mass return but that's unlikely with today's society.

What's unlikely? The celebration, or the mass return?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
imshard at 5:58AM, Sept. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
TnTComic
imshard
To hark back to the thread subject….
I'd support a celebration of a mass return but that's unlikely with today's society.

What's unlikely? The celebration, or the mass return?

pick one.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:57PM
Priest_Revan at 8:10AM, Sept. 7, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,339
joined: 12-31-2006
Vindibudd
Priest_Revan
I'll treat them the same way I treat everyone. No one gets special treatment.

You don't believe that veterans have done anything worthy of special treatment?

Whether or not they did something special for this country doesn't mean alot to me. I really only respect those who died or who where seriously injured.
Updates Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday's (depends).

7/0

Offering Project Wonderful Ad space on my website.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:48PM
TnTComic at 8:30AM, Sept. 7, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
I have a hard time buying that a mass return would go uncelebrated.


Priest_Revan
Whether or not they did something special for this country doesn't mean alot to me. I really only respect those who died or who where seriously injured.

That's pretty harsh, Revan. I take umbrage with people that call every soldier a hero, but I certainly respect those who serve. Especially on a voluntary basis.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
kyupol at 11:25AM, Sept. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
Its not the soldiers fault.

DO NOT SPIT ON THEM!!!

It is the people at the top who only care about profit. The soldiers are just victims. Do not blame the victims.
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
mapaghimagsik at 11:32AM, Sept. 7, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
kyupol
Its not the soldiers fault.

DO NOT SPIT ON THEM!!!

It is the people at the top who only care about profit. The soldiers are just victims. Do not blame the victims.

I think we can agree not to spit on them. Try telling to the Korean Vets who spit on Vietnam Vets.

But, I don't think I'd go as far as to say they are victims. Especially in a volunteer force.

Civilian leadership has an obligation to use the military when appropriate, and not act like they are life size toy soldiers
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
TnTComic at 11:48AM, Sept. 7, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
kyupol
Its not the soldiers fault.

DO NOT SPIT ON THEM!!!


Alot of people forget that the protestors who were jerks to the soldiers were their own special group. There were plenty of anti-vietnam protestors who did things the right way. And then there were the fringe groups that made all protestors out to be soldier-hating pricks. The 60's were a very strange time. But really, that was nearly 50 years ago, the whole “spit on them” thing was unique and I don't recall it being repeated since the 'nam days. Probably something to do with acid…
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Priest_Revan at 2:43PM, Sept. 7, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,339
joined: 12-31-2006
TnTComic
I have a hard time buying that a mass return would go uncelebrated.


Priest_Revan
Whether or not they did something special for this country doesn't mean alot to me. I really only respect those who died or who where seriously injured.

That's pretty harsh, Revan. I take umbrage with people that call every soldier a hero, but I certainly respect those who serve. Especially on a voluntary basis.

It's harsh, but that's what it is.
Updates Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday's (depends).

7/0

Offering Project Wonderful Ad space on my website.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:48PM
Hawk at 7:09PM, Sept. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
I think this is one point where I'd agree with TnTComic… Sticking your neck out like that deserves some form of respect. Maybe not a medal, but at least my respect and thanks.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
bobhhh at 9:01PM, Sept. 7, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Hawk
I think this is one point where I'd agree with TnTComic… Sticking your neck out like that deserves some form of respect. Maybe not a medal, but at least my respect and thanks.
No doubt. Serving your country in the armed services deserves respect. In fact I feel people who love their country owe a debt to the young people who lay their as on the line.

I am troubled by the notion that our kids will be ridiculed and spit on. Although I oppose this war, I fault the politicians and the commanders for screwing things up.

It's sad that, although the hippies did good by helping to end Vietnam, progressives and liberals who ar anti-war will forever be stuck with the stigma of spitting at returning soldiers. If that ever happened, and I believe people can be that stupid, then it was just damn ugly and wrong.

I think we have learned many lessons from Vietnam and I seriously don't believe we will be anything but grateful and relieved when the troops finally come home.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
mapaghimagsik at 11:08AM, Sept. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Do you think every soldier is joining up because they believe in honor, justice, and the American way? If I understand right, recruiters are offering rather generous enlistment bonuses, including citizenship.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
TnTComic at 11:10AM, Sept. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
And lets not forget the ones who want to travel, shoot people, and blow shit up.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
mapaghimagsik at 11:28AM, Sept. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
TnTComic
And lets not forget the ones who want to travel, shoot people, and blow shit up.

Lets call that an extremely small percentage, if only because now all the “lets pin a medal on each and every one of them” crowd is going to point to your comment as “you hate the troops” and my question will never get answered.

Purely selfish motives, here.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
bobhhh at 11:36AM, Sept. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
mapaghimagsik
TnTComic
And lets not forget the ones who want to travel, shoot people, and blow shit up.

Lets call that an extremely small percentage, if only because now all the “lets pin a medal on each and every one of them” crowd is going to point to your comment as “you hate the troops” and my question will never get answered.

Purely selfish motives, here.


No, no you have a point, but I guess I will err on the side of giving a majority of our soldiers credit for loving their country.

I give you more credit than to think you believe we should try to single out the ones who joined for the bonuses and remove them from the homecoming parade, or worse.

One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, girl. ;)
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved