I don't understand these non-combat Military/Vets and Wannabes

[Type Username Here]

Here's my question and this is strictly hypothetical even if some of the description may sound familiar....

There are two people, one is a hawkish Oxford scholar who's studied the mid-east region for over two decades, considered an expert on the matter yet has never seen combat. The other is an anti-war log cabin tin foiler who's seen combat.

Based on that description, disregard the message, just focus on the messenger. Who holds more credibility in your eyes?

I''ll give you my answer - the messenger means squat to me. The message and it's logic and reasoning does.

How about you make the people of equal credibility?

Also, Bush graduated from Yale, he had vast experiences in dealing with the Middle East due to his family's Oil Connections. He also asked his daddy to put him in the National Guard to avoid Combat duties in Vietnam.

Would you trust him over someone like Oliver Stone, "an anti-way log cabin" person who has actually been in a war?

What a stupid analogy you made. Taking the extremes.

 

[88m3]

Here's my question and this is strictly hypothetical even if some of the description may sound familiar....

There are two people, one is a hawkish Oxford scholar who's studied the mid-east region for over two decades, considered an expert on the matter yet has never seen combat. The other is an anti-war log cabin tin foiler who's seen combat.

Based on that description, disregard the message, just focus on the messenger. Who holds more credibility in your eyes?

I''ll give you my answer - the messenger means squat to me. The message and it's logic and reasoning does.

Well if you were to look at the sources a lot of the Dr.'s use here you'll have your answer.

 

[Gallo]

How about you make the people of equal credibility?

Also, Bush graduated from Yale, he had vast experiences in dealing with the Middle East due to his family's Oil Connections. He also asked his daddy to put him in the National Guard to avoid Combat duties in Vietnam.

Would you trust him over someone like Oliver Stone, "an anti-way log cabin" person who has actually been in a war?

What a stupid analogy you made. Taking the extremes.

The point is that the messenger is of little import. They could both be equally wrong or equally right. You have to weight the message on it's own merits. The two best cases for war in Iraq and hawkishnes in the middle east I've read were from Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harrris. Two people who have never seen combat or experienced what it's like to be in a fox hole. You can believe combat experience gives one greater edification and special jurisdiction on matters of war and peace. I say that's of little value compared to substance of the message. Your approach just stifles debate and contrary opinion.

 

[daze23]

Thanks friend

but seriously TUH, what is the point of this thread?

I would hope a military person would be able to appreciate the importance of all the pieces of infrastructure. I mean those pencil-pushers were working hard to make sure you got paid for killing innocent civilians

 

[Type Username Here]

but seriously TUH, what is the point of this thread?

I would hope a military person would be able to appreciate the importance of all the pieces of infrastructure. I mean those pencil-pushers were working hard to make sure you got paid for killing innocent civilians

Plenty of people here understood the thread. Only you seemed to have missed the point and it somehow has made you emotional.

I plainly stated in the OP that I respect their jobs and support, I don't respect people that took the easy way out yet pretend to be the most gung ho for violence and war when they almost surely had the opportunity to fight.

Were you a pencil pusher or something? I appreciate the checks.

Dumb c*nt.

 

[daze23]

Plenty of people here understood the thread. Only you seemed to have missed the point and it somehow has made you emotional.

I plainly stated in the OP that I respect their jobs and support, I don't respect people that took the easy way out yet pretend to be the most gung ho for violence and war when they almost surely had the opportunity to fight.

Were you a pencil pusher or something? I appreciate the checks.

Dumb c*nt.

nah, I have nothing to do with the military. nor am I a native american, jew, homo, hipster, non-stem major, or whatever else I'm assumed to be defending because of some personal agenda...

let me put it this way: maybe you've heard the phrase "there are no females on the internet". now that phrase can mean a few things, but I'm gonna use it to mean that the internet is supposed to be a level playing field for exchanging opinions. when a poster reveals they're a female, it becomes something else, with white-knights, woman-haters, self-proclaimed pimps, etc. it muddies the conversation. not to mention the inherent issue of not being able to confirm people's personal claims

I respect the fact you are a combat veteran. but in no way does it make you the only one allowed to have an opinion on combat situations. in fact, you could argue that your personal experience makes your opinion biased

(and lol @ saying I'm getting emotional and then calling me a "dumb c*nt")

 

[Type Username Here]

nah, I have nothing to do with the military. nor am I a native american, jew, homo, hipster, non-stem major, or whatever else I'm assumed to be defending because of some personal agenda...

let me put it this way: maybe you've heard the phrase "there are no females on the internet". now that phrase can mean a few things, but I'm gonna use it to mean that the internet is supposed to be a level playing field for exchanging opinions. when a poster reveals they're a female, it becomes something else, with white-knights, woman-haters, self-proclaimed pimps, etc. it muddies the conversation. not to mention the inherent issue of not being able to confirm people's personal claims

I respect the fact you are a combat veteran. but in no way does it make you the only one allowed to have an opinion on combat situations. in fact, you could argue that your personal experience makes your opinion biased

You missed the point twice.

There is a difference between having an opinion about political policy and bloodlust. These people have a bloodlust. Hannity, Rush, and people like them have a bloodlust but never ever had the balls to sign up themselves to satisfy their bloodlust. I can't respect that. I won't respect that.

And how am I biased? I'm biased because I saw the absolute destruction of human life and am hesitant to repeat it at a whim? I'm not a pacifist by any means, but to use your analogy, this isn't a chess game. People get hurt, die, tortured, or are displaced in war.

Me personally? I don't think a politician should be allowed to vote for war or command troops if they never served in the infantry or special ops or if their children aren't serving in a combat role. They don't know the cost of such decisions. It's all numbers to them and dollar signs.

We'd have a lot less stupid wars if by voting "yes" for war, their children would automatically be sent to the front lines to fight.

 

[Broke Wave]

How about you make the people of equal credibility?

Also, Bush graduated from Yale, he had vast experiences in dealing with the Middle East due to his family's Oil Connections. He also asked his daddy to put him in the National Guard to avoid Combat duties in Vietnam.

Would you trust him over someone like Oliver Stone, "an anti-way log cabin" person who has actually been in a war?

What a stupid analogy you made. Taking the extremes.

People sleep on Oliver Stone This nikka was wounded in Vietnam during the height of the War. Great director too no lie.

 

[daze23]

You missed the point twice.

There is a difference between having an opinion about political policy and bloodlust. These people have a bloodlust. Hannity, Rush, and people like them have a bloodlust but never ever had the balls to sign up themselves to satisfy their bloodlust. I can't respect that. I won't respect that.

now your moving the bar to "journalists". particularly journalists that have shown themselves to have an agenda. I thought this was about posters like RealRapTalkNY and your "Marine friend who did Admin shyt"

and a honest question: who chooses what roles people fall into in the military?

And how am I biased? I'm biased because I saw the absolute destruction of human life and am hesitant to repeat it at a whim? I'm not a pacifist by any means, but to use your analogy, this isn't a chess game. People get hurt, die, tortured, or are displaced in war.

I don't think the bias is hard to understand. hard to admit maybe, but we're all biased. it's like trying get on a jury in a rape trial when your daughter was raped a few years prior

Me personally? I don't think a politician should be allowed to vote for war or command troops if they never served in the infantry or special ops or if their children aren't serving in a combat role. They don't know the cost of such decisions. It's all numbers to them and dollar signs.

that's ridiculous TUH. it's just not practical for many reasons

 

[Mr. Somebody]

They get their dikk so hard and clit all wet over war and killing, yet didn't have the balls to sign up and fight.

RealRapTalkNY is one. Dude is always on here beating his chest while he fills paperwork for logistics and shyt in the Air Force. Happened today at school too with a Marine friend who did Admin shyt. Now, they play vital roles in keeping the military machine going, and I don't have a problem with that they do/did, but stop with the romanticizing combat.

People who have never had to squeeze a trigger and shoot a human being, see friends hurt or dead, or children dead. Don't know what its like to stare at pieces of flesh that was once a child because some a$$hole decided to blow himself up in a car near a market.

Yet they are always the one foaming at the mouth and beating the war drums.

Sean Hannity type motherfukkers.

I don't get it man.

"In Haig's presence, Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as 'dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy'.

 

[Type Username Here]

"In Haig's presence, Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as 'dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy'.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[usopp]

They get their dikk so hard and clit all wet over war and killing, yet didn't have the balls to sign up and fight.

RealRapTalkNY is one. Dude is always on here beating his chest while he fills paperwork for logistics and shyt in the Air Force. Happened today at school too with a Marine friend who did Admin shyt. Now, they play vital roles in keeping the military machine going, and I don't have a problem with that they do/did, but stop with the romanticizing combat.

People who have never had to squeeze a trigger and shoot a human being, see friends hurt or dead, or children dead. Don't know what its like to stare at pieces of flesh that was once a child because some a$$hole decided to blow himself up in a car near a market.

Yet they are always the one foaming at the mouth and beating the war drums.

Sean Hannity type motherfukkers.

I don't get it man.

how many people you kill??
a family member of mine was ordered to shoot children who were helping the north vietnamese, and he practically went nutty.

 

[The War Report]

I did 8 tours during the 60's and 70's. I wish I could have been there when we went into Afghanistan and Iraq.

how many people you kill??
a family member of mine was ordered to shoot children who were helping the north vietnamese, and he practically went nutty.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

What does that have to do with anything?

They dont mind being non-combat wannabes and beating war drums because ultimately they view soldiers as pushers of an ideal or thought. A way to fix a problem and get their way.