What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The fact that you can't see the problem speaks volumes about your state of mind. That's ever so chivalous of those gentlemen, to torment a single lady like that, don't you think?

She cast a lone vote of dissent. It meant nothing in the grand scheme of things, but people like you get frothing at the mouth and are willing to harrass a woman because she didn't do what the men told her to do. Stay classy, Old Pio.

So the "war on women" started back then? "What the men told her to do?" "Willing to harass?" Typical libt*ard bull..
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I'm not saying to punish the sons of those who disagree with me. I'm saying that if their sons were put on an equal footing as everybody else's, they probably wouldn't be beating the war drums.

And no I'm not a peacenik. I understand and will advocate the use of force in justifiable cases. This case, not being a justifiable one.

Uh, their sons are already on even par. We have an all volunteer military. The sons and daughters of hated Neocons are free to join up as they chose. What you and the other anti-war fascists are advocating is something much different.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

And that completely ignores the personal, psychological, and economic damage to those that serve. I really recommend for anyone who advocates ground troops in any conflict spend some time at the VA. I have spent a lot of time participating in packed group therapy sessions (with waiting lists, of course) at the VA and there is so much damage caused that average citizens and elected officials have no idea about. It is remarkable to see the stark contrast in the overall health of those patients at the VA vs other hospitals in the area.

I am sure there will be the argument that they are "learning skills to help them in the real world." In some cases, that may be true, but in my experience it is much more common that their health problems and psychological damage make them difficult to employ through absolutely no fault of their own.

I support their military service. VA patients are some of my favorite to work with but they are truly difficult to manage medically secondary to the co-morbidities related to military service. One of the MD generals I worked with said it well: "We can best honor veterans by trying hard to make no more of them."

Perhaps you're quoting the general incorrectly. Perhaps he's an idiot. It's hard to tell. "Making no more veterans" would mean eliminating the millions of opportunities taken advantage of by young people for generations to improve their educational and fiscal standards. Maybe he meant "combat" veterans. Maybe you don't know the difference. Maybe we should just do away the DOD altogether. That would certainly eliminate future PTSD and traumatic blast injury cases.

Peaceniks for years after Vietnam comforted themselves with the image of the "battle crazed, drafted, poor, probably minority" GI who couldn't cope after his service and turned instead to being some sort of sociopath. Hollywood cranked that bilge out endlessly. It was a silly generality, not based on hard data, but when you're dealing with peaceniks trying to justify their anti-American antics, that has never been a problem.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

This is the exact kind of stuff I was refering to about being glossed over. I don't work at a VA but even living in a place with a large military presence I've seen it. Suicides, drunk driving accidents, broken families, PTSD is real stuff. But the people beating the war drum don't think of * like that. I meant it when I said that a large portion of my generation is *ed up and has paid a heavy price because of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Be careful not to hurt your arm, patting yourself on the back.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Yup, clearly he has something against America appearing as being something other than homogenous of thought. Our mindful purity is of the utmost importance! Never mind that the nation's citizens weren't 100% in favor of war with them thar Japs, we had to make it look that way at least!

Fleshing out new frontiers in the definition of simpleton?
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Perhaps you're quoting the general incorrectly. Perhaps he's an idiot. It's hard to tell. "Making no more veterans" would mean eliminating the millions of opportunities taken advantage of by young people for generations to improve their educational and fiscal standards. Maybe he meant "combat" veterans. Maybe you don't know the difference. Maybe we should just do away the DOD altogether. That would certainly eliminate future PTSD and traumatic blast injury cases.

<IMG src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2025/2333751849_e0b89ea8e7.jpg">
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Peaceniks for years after Vietnam comforted themselves with the image of the "battle crazed, drafted, poor, probably minority" GI who couldn't cope after his service and turned instead to being some sort of sociopath. Hollywood cranked that bilge out endlessly. It was a silly generality, not based on hard data, but when you're dealing with peaceniks trying to justify their anti-American antics, that has never been a problem.


Of course, reports of soldiers having a hard time assimilating upon their return from Iraq and Afghanistan are more peacenik fantasy, right?

The suicide rates? The difficulty in finding employment? The rate of depression? The horribly maimed and injured?


All just Hollywood, no doubt.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Peaceniks for years after Vietnam comforted themselves with the image of the "battle crazed, drafted, poor, probably minority" GI who couldn't cope after his service and turned instead to being some sort of sociopath. Hollywood cranked that bilge out endlessly. It was a silly generality, not based on hard data, but when you're dealing with peaceniks trying to justify their anti-American antics, that has never been a problem.

Is "peacenik" the new "libstain"? If you throw it out there one more time, do you think it might actually become an insult?

As opposed to what you and the rest of the chickenhawks on Sunday talk shows seem to think, it is not "anti-American" to oppose the use of American troops in efforts to police the world. America has air superiority - ground operations should rarely be necessary going forward.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk


No ****. Did the government not see what would happen if yahoo called up the New York Times and told all?

There would be no way to collect that fine. Yahoo could have told them to fck off and nothing would have happened. The collective outrage would have been overwhelming. The left would have been p|ssed because of the encroachment on actual freedoms and the right would have seen a massive government overreach and attack on private property.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Yup, you nailed me. I'm a typical libtard.

Remember this is Pio...you are either with him or completely normal! ;)

You are a liberal just like I oppose Israel cause I hate Jews...dont tell my parents or I will be stuck going to Yom Kippur services to atone ;)
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The Secretary General of NATO weighs in:

With Russia, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has tried long and hard to build a partnership that respects Russia's security concerns and is based on international rules and norms. Regrettably, Russia has rejected our efforts to engage. Russia has trampled on all the rules and commitments that have kept peace in Europe and beyond since the end of the Cold War. It is now clear that Russia regards the West as an adversary, not a partner.

The terrorist threat is now growing in Syria and Iraq. The Islamic State terrorists are fueling the fire of sectarianism already burning across the Middle East and North Africa, with the risk rising that terror will be exported back to our shores.

We are confronted by forces of oppression that reject our liberal democracy and our liberal, rules-based international order. While their agendas and ideologies are different, they are virulently against the West and what we represent. They will grasp every opportunity to undermine our values of individual liberty, freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

In this age of unrest and revisionism, free societies must stand strong and united as a force for freedom. We must be prepared to act when we have to. We must work with like-minded nations. And we must show confidence in our own values.

That last sentence is an interesting addendum in this context. He doesn't stop here.

Europe and North America are at the core of the global community. Our strength does not come from military might alone, but from the strength of our democracies and our economies. We must strengthen our community of free nations by continuing to reach out to like-minded partners....Our liberal international order—embracing freedom, democracy, the market economy, common rules and norms, and renouncing territorial conquest—has brought unprecedented peace, progress and prosperity to billions of people. This has been an historic achievement. So we must stand up with greater confidence for our principles and our values.

There, he did it again in the last sentence....

These values are now under threat. They cannot be taken for granted. As we approach the end of over a decade of fighting in Afghanistan, there is a temptation to turn inward. But the world will not become less dangerous just because we wish it to be. Threats will not go away just because we want to look away. We must keep a global perspective and counter isolationism and retreat.

If we fail to defend democracy, forces of oppression will seize the opportunity. Because appeasement does not lead to peace. It just incites the tyrants. Failure to counter oppression will only invite further oppression. Military action will always be the last resort, but we must be able to use it when we need to. Not to wage war, but to build peace.

This is a time when our values are being challenged and our will is being tested. Keeping NATO strong and North America and Europe united has never been more important. It is the only way to preserve our freedom, protect our people, and promote our values.

hmm....
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The Secretary General of NATO weighs in:



That last sentence is an interesting addendum in this context. He doesn't stop here.



There, he did it again in the last sentence....



hmm....
Yes, he's lobbying to be a more important figure going forward. It's in his professional interest to not have us become any more reclusive than we are now. To do so could hem in his reach and influence.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Yes, he's lobbying to be a more important figure going forward. It's in his professional interest to not have us become any more reclusive than we are now. To do so could hem in his reach and influence.

Yes, there is lobbying and then there is being overly heavy-handed about it...."if you don't stand for something then you don't stand for anything" might have been a good post in the old Department of Redundancy Department thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top