The online racing simulator
See what US Army is really doing in Iraq
(151 posts, started )
The act was pretty despicable. But worse has happened unfortunately.

Cruelty to animals is the least of the Army's worries as of now. It seems that the military's psychological screening is not effective. But then again, psychology was always hard to pin down

Quote from Hankstar :Never fear. Puppies aside, there are plenty of civilians being tortured and killed in the world to upset people like me. Over 1.1 million Iraqis dead at last count (yeah, and I bet every last one was a turrist) and hell knows how many being shocked, drowned and beaten at Camp X-Ray, Bagram or Abu Ghraib. I wonder how many others are just rotting away in secret jails in Turkey, Egypt or another torture-friendly ally after having been rendered there?

Dont forget vise versa

It's not like the terrorists were angels
Quote from Gabkicks :yup lol there's genocides going on every day, but some loser tosses a puppy down a ravine and THAT gets people up in arms.

Sure poeple get shot in war. People can think and react on it and trying to devend themselfs. Puppy`s not.

This rant against americans isnt the way the go. Sure those guys were americans but for sure others will do something similar aswell. Keep in mind the are in war and it does propably weird thing sto the mind. But that isnt a freenote to go ahead with animal cruelty
Quote from mcintyrej :I find it sick.

They're put out there to do a job, not to harm innocent puppys and then think its totally hilarious.

These guys should experience what they do to puppys. Example - They should be thrown off cliffs, and blown up.

Idiots.

I agree with you in every single way, I think they should be kicked out the army.
I think this is why our army setup this.
#80 - Jakg
Quote from Jakg :Remind me again how conflicts in places such as Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (or, to make me sound less "US Bashing") or the Falklands are "fighting for my right to wear a shirt".

... Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghan can be compaired, but the Falklands? That is something totally different.

The first three they were/are trying to keep the countries democratic so people have the same rights we do so they can wear anti govt t-shirts and not get killed for it.

The Falklands was us not wanting to give up a little bit of land.
Quote from P5YcHoM4N :
The Falklands was us not wanting to give up a little bit of land.

The Falklands was us repelling an invasion force...They started it, we finished it.
Quote from Bean0 :The Falklands was us repelling an invasion force...They started it, we finished it.

Right, like I said, us not wanting to give up a little bit of land.

A totally different ballpark to the three other events mentioned.
#84 - Jakg
Quote from P5YcHoM4N :... Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghan can be compaired, but the Falklands? That is something totally different.

The first three they were/are trying to keep the countries democratic so people have the same rights we do so they can wear anti govt t-shirts and not get killed for it.

The Falklands was us not wanting to give up a little bit of land.

What i mean is that part of that document was saying that those soldiers are "fighting for our rights to wear a shirt" (which is bs, but anyway...).

If we (or the US) hadn't fought in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or the Falklands do you think we'd be under some crazy society where we had no right to wear shirts? No. Perhaps small things might be different but frankly theres bugger all Argentina could do the UK, besides try and take a tiny Island that never meant that much in the first place.

EDIT - My point is that while Soldiers are fighting for people's rights (and other motivations), most modern combat situations between rich western countries won't be for the direct benefit of the rights of the people in their own country.
Quote from Jakg :What i mean is that part of that document was saying that those soldiers are "fighting for our rights to wear a shirt" (which is bs, but anyway...).

If we (or the US) hadn't fought in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or the Falklands do you think we'd be under some crazy society where we had no right to wear shirts? No. Perhaps small things might be different but frankly theres bugger all Argentina could do the UK, besides try and take a tiny Island that never meant that much in the first place.

EDIT - My point is that while Soldiers are fighting for people's rights (and other motivations), most modern combat situations between rich western countries won't be for the direct benefit of the rights of the people in their own country.

No you're right, it doesn't directly affect us as such, but it is the general overview that if we let them get away with terrorism and the like they will do bigger and bigger events, though there is the other side of the coin which says they are only blowing up our buildings, buses, trains because we are over there.

But the fact is, we only have the rights to slam the govt, military, and whatever else we like because of our armed forces. Agreed, the current guys haven't really had any real evil foes to deal with, but if we didn't have a military we'd have been over thrown by now.

It is like these hippies who are campaigning for us to drop the nuke subs, but the best offence is the best defence. No one will really attack us because we have the ability to drop a nuke on them. Which is something no country wants. So it keeps us safe.
Quote from Kajojek(PL) :To all those "anti-war" people...
http://www.redshirtfridays.org/PDFs/What_He_Does.pdf

I will not criticize the soldiers, but the ones that sen them there to gather some oil.

The soldiers are human, they get up every morning without knowing if it will be the last, so I understand some minds get twisted and do those things.

Irak didn't need a war.
Quote from P5YcHoM4N :It is like these hippies who are campaigning for us to drop the nuke subs, but the best offence is the best defence. No one will really attack us because we have the ability to drop a nuke on them. Which is something no country wants. So it keeps us safe.

extending that same logic with some logic from the gun thread we had a while ago
why dont you walk down the street with a gun to keep yourself safe every day?
Quote from Kajojek(PL) :To all those "anti-war" people...
.... What_He_Does.pdf

Ha ha ha... What a load of mewling, sentimental tripe. *He* is a professional, paid to do a job *he* chose as a career. That *his* office happens to be subsidised by the honest work of others is a privilege that *he* should be grateful for.

We don't owe *him* anything.

And by the way, there are women in the armed forces too, or perhaps Susan Faludi is right to suggest that a certain sector of American society has revelled in the so-called 'terror', creating "an exaltation of American masculinity".
4th video looks kind of fake, dog isnt moving or breathing at all. Maybe because it was dead already?
Quote from Hankstar :What a complete piece of guilt-mongering bullshit propaganda. Being opposed to war doesn't mean you hate soldiers or that you don't appreciate the hell they go through - that's a ridiculous, simplistic & childish canard (look it up) used by warhawks across the globe. My grandfather and two great-uncles served my country in WW2 and my uncle served in Vietnam. I marched with my grandfather on ANZAC Day in my teens when I was a RAAF cadet and I never felt prouder of him for the sacrifices he made as a young man.

The thing is - soldiers don't start wars, politicians do. It's the politicians who start wars I have a problem with. Sometimes there's no choice but to fight, as with WW2. Sometimes there is a choice, as with Vietnam and the current Iraq farce. In both those latter cases, people were lied to blatantly in order to start wars that didn't need to be started. I'll never blame a soldier for fighting for his country, especially if he is lied to by the powerful in order to make him do it. Soldiers trust their leaders to tell them the right things and leaders who take advantage of that trust to further shady ends are the worst kinds of traitors there are. You want to support the troops? Don't lie to them. Don't tell them Saddam has WMD. Don't tell them he colluded with Osama. Don't tell them you're getting revenge for 9/11 when you're doing nothing of the sort.

To many people, "support the troops" means "keep them the hell out of harm's way unless absolutely necessary". To halfwit right-wingers, "anti-war" means "pro-terrorist". Grow up.

By the way, I don't know where this PDF came from, but equating the average war opponent with those Westboro Baptist bastards (with the fluoro signs in that pdf) is about as offensive as you can get. These are the people who believe God is killing US soldiers as punishment for America's tolerance of gay people. These are the people who picket US soldiers' funerals and spew hatred and bile and bigotry with their every breath. They are the people who don't support the troops, NOT the people who want the troops safe at home, away from the IEDs, away from sectarian madness, away from the insurgents & new terrorists that their masters created, away from this quagmire of idiocy and death that the Whitehouse has inflicted on Iraq, the US & the world.

Think before you post in future, because that cute little pdf of yours is really ****ing offensive, both to war opponents and to members of the serving military from all countries who are still in Iraq, mine included.

FAIL.

I agree with you. My post was just to make people think a little about the war (not saying the pdf is necessarly true) before they go and say "oooo aah the soldiers are psychos, torture those bastards!!!" etc. Maybe they are really doing something good too? But of course normal people never realize this and instead go bashing the military. And what if there were really WMD's? Not as many people would then go say the war was such a bad thing. We will never know... Also think about the innocent people living in Iraq when Saddam was in power. They were killed and tortured each day, remember how happy they were when US military took over Baghdad and they ruined his monument. But of course soldiers are psychopaths and kill all innocent people!!!
puppies (like pretty much every other animal that is brought up by its mother) stop moving if you lift them by the neck

Quote from Kajojek(PL) :Also think about the innocent people living in Iraq when Saddam was in power. They were killed and tortured each day, remember how happy they were when US military took over Baghdad and they ruined his monument. But of course soldiers are psychopaths and kill all innocent people!!! Its best to just bash them!

guess whos civilian death toll is higher in iraq saddams or bushs?
hint: its not saddams
Quote from Shotglass :extending that same logic with some logic from the gun thread we had a while ago
why dont you walk down the street with a gun to keep yourself safe every day?

So you're saying we should all move to America?

We have the armed forces to protect the country, and the police to protect the people. Agree the latter could be better at their jobs on occasions, but they are there so we don't need to walk around packing heat all the time.
#94 - th84
Quote from Shotglass :guess whos civilian death toll is higher in iraq saddams or bushs?
hint: its not saddams

You dont really believe that, do you?

I agree that Bush is a tool, but that statement is nonsense.
from the top of my head saddams genocide killed ~200.000 people and the most conservative estimate of the wars civilian death toll is at around 250.000 with numbers going up to 1.000.000 depending on who you choose to believe
These videos make me

F**ing morons
"vice" versa, lizard.

learn your latin.
#98 - MR_B
I'm sure BBC news would be interested in that.
*wipes hands in a "job done" motion*
Quote from DeadWolfBones :"vice" versa, lizard.

learn your latin.

WHOOPS!!! Thanks for the correction Wolf

Quote from Shotglass :from the top of my head saddams genocide killed ~200.000 people and the most conservative estimate of the wars civilian death toll is at around 250.000 with numbers going up to 1.000.000 depending on who you choose to believe

Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's good that the US Army is in Iraq. But when you have the other side hiding behind civilians and using them as shields, it's no wonder so many civilian deaths are tallied up. I personally like to think we've improved since the Vietnam.
@ Anyone raising his voice in anger about those poor dogs: Fine. Great. Have you asked yourself how the meat in this evening's meal was treated when it was a live animal?

(And yes, I think it's sick what they did in the videos. I'm sure those soldiers were nice, decent guys back at home. That's what a war does to people. It's sick, but not half as sick as Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, or My Lai, to name a few.)
Quote from Hankstar :The thing is - soldiers don't start wars, politicians do. It's the politicians who start wars I have a problem with.

It's not so much the politicians I have problems with. It's the mindless civilians who vote for them and go on bleating "support our troops". If they really care about those boys they should get them out of the war asap.

See what US Army is really doing in Iraq
(151 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG