Bleeding Heart Conservatives, and other such buzzwords.

[Mott1]

deleted. sorry

 

[Leatherneck]

It isn't foolish to be killed, it is very foolish to kill.

That's just foolish.

 

[Mott1]

Originally Posted by greenpeace
I would rather have a terroist blow me to pieces than have that terroist killed.

It isn't foolish to be killed, it is very foolish to kill.

Anyways, that by definition makes you a defeatist.

 

[greenpeace]

no because I'm not admitting defeat when I say that.

 

[Rambuchan]

That's all fine and good and I feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but somehow I doubt a suicide bomber would give a rats butt if you were there to give him/her a hug right before they blew you, your freinds and family up. I'm just not seeing them break down in a emotional revolation of their evil ways and getting in touch with there sensitive side. Nope just not seeing it happen.

Some people go and seek out, and create, suicide bombers. Others don't.

A pacifistic Marine is not a Marine. If you know any wayward Marines that are Pacifist, please have them contact me so that I my save them before it's too late. Aside from John Murtha D-PA who has been disowned by the Corps, I know of none and if there are any others they have dishonored their oath, dishonored their brothers and dishoroned the Corps. Now I'm going to have to go kill something and slice off it's head to get that poison thought out of my mind. ( That last line was a joke son, or was it?)

Here's the subtext in your post: Once you become a marine, you no longer are a human being and you cannot revoke your "marinedom", ever.

No I think it was that he realized he was a pacifist and did the only honorable thing he could do and it was to end the suffering.

See what I mean. It works in reverse too, in your mind.

Pacifists are good-hearted?

Looks like there's another one here.

So Marines are terrorist? We run into buildings and kill civilians with bombs strapped to our bodies dying for Allah? We hijack planes and fly them into building killing 1000's of unarmed noncombatant people? You shoot ramdomly into civilian areas.
It's so sad of just how many Marines have fought and died for you to be so free to do, say and be anything you want and ever so ignorant at the same time. I'm not mad at you for your ignorants, I'm sad for you. You have no idea the price so many Marines, Sailors, Airmen and Army have paid for you to be so clueless. Just how long do you think this country would last without a military? Instead of calling them terrorist run, don't walk to the nearest VFW and say THANK YOU, THANK YOU SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE A MORON!

Just remember, it's the "bleeding heart conservatives" I mentioned that send you to war. Not the pacifists. Is that not plain for you to see? You only have yourself to thank. You will get it from few else.

Last thing first, I said you should go to VFW and tell them you are one, I never called you one. Read carefully and correctly thank you. However for the record, you are one, but that doesn't make me angry or mad. I have other words for that, remember I'm a Terro ... I mean Marine and I know quit a few words.
Your idealic, utopian society idea would last about oohh hmmm 2 seconds. As soon as one side disarms and destroys all there weapons the other side will start making weapons and say "What you gonna do, you got no gun?" It's insaine it could never work, as man does not operate like that.
Even though you can me a terrorist, which I don't much care for mind you. It's your right that people like me gave you and perserve for you and we would never take that away for you as foolish and misguided as your words may be.
And to answer you question about taking someone freedom. Well in a philosophical way we are giving them their freedom, freedom from their earthly bonds, freedom from opression, freedom from evil, freedom that is eternal. No man ever won a war for dying for their country, they won by making some other poor SOB die for their. (Thank George S Patton for that one)
Clearly you are very young and you have a lot to learn, please do. Please learn that pacisfist have won battles, but they have never won a war. You're living in a bubble my naive misguided pacisfist, but the years ahead of you will prove that better than I can here. Write it down.

This is most likely the biggest load of bollocks I have ever read on these forums. Thanks for arriving at CFC.

FYI: What I just did was flame you. It's what you have been doing to others in this thread. That is against the forum rules and a reportable offense. Are you going to exercise your reporting rights on me, as I have just done on you, for the same reasons?

Thats great and I admire your optimism, however realistically war and violent conflicts do exist today. So your optimism for world peace does not exclude you as being a defeatist.

You too should realise that it is your own that create and send you to war that make this a reality. Not people like greenpeace.

Let me ask this, are you willing to fight for your beliefs? or will you admit defeat to forsake any violence and live in subjugation to an ideology that opposes your belifs?

You should take a read of Bozo's thread about "what do you believe in". Your question is answered by me and others there.

 

[.Shane.]

It's your right that people like me gave you and perserve for you

Sorry, but I have to ROFL at that. You didn't give me anything, nor do you preserve anything for me. You can believe that line all you like. I realize its good for recruitment, morale, and your conscience, but its 100% BS.

 

[Veritass]

It isn't foolish to be killed, it is very foolish to kill.

Perhaps that is why the world seems to be run by the surviving fools, and not the wise but dead people.

 

[Mott1]

You too should realise that it is your own that create and send you to war that make this a reality. Not people like greenpeace.

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "it is my own" who create and send me to war?

I do not condemn greenpeace's pacifist and defeatist position, however if the U.S. were to adopt his political stance, there would no longer be a U.S. to speak of. Maybe you are willing to give that up to aviod violence at all cost, but I will never give up on the spirit of democracy. The preservation of my freedom, Human rights, and freedom of speech are things that I profoundly cherish.

 

[Rambuchan]

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "it is my own" who create and send me to war?

See the thread title for that please. It's who you came out in defence of, so sorry for being presumptuous if that isn't the tin foil hat you're wearing.

I do not condemn greenpeace's pacifist and defeatist position, however if the U.S. were to adopt his political stance, there would no longer be a U.S. to speak of.

You have made two statements here. You've got to decide. Which do you side with? They are quite contradictory.

Maybe you are willing to give that up to aviod violence at all cost, but I will never give up on the spirit of democracy. The preservation of my freedom, Human rights, and freedom of speech are things that I profoundly cherish.

Yes, you're right. I am very willing to give up a contraction and meaningless rhetoric.

 

[Mott1]

See the thread title for that please. It's who you came out in defence of, so sorry for being presumptuous if that isn't the tin foil hat you're wearing.

Listen , I am not a conservative or a liberal. My political stance is niether right nor left. If the political spectrum was laid out on a football field where one end zone is right and the opposite was left, I would be at the fifty yard line.
My support for those in the military does not make me some neo-con far right warhawk, there is no defined "us" and "them" in your twisted fascist view of the political Arena in democracy.

You have made two statements here. You've got to decide. Which do you side with? They are quite contradictory.

I don't have to decide on anything, I do not condemn greepeace's political stance because he has the right to believe what he wants, however I do not agree with him. Condemning and disagreeing are two different terms.

Yes, you're right. I am very willing to give up a contraction and meaningless rhetoric.

You find democracy meaningless and I cherish it, that is the crux of our disagreement. Lets leave it at that.

 

[Leatherneck]

FYI: What I just did was flame you. It's what you have been doing to others in this thread. That is against the forum rules and a reportable offense. Are you going to exercise your reporting rights on me, as I have just done on you, for the same reasons?

No I'm not a baby that has to go run and tell. Change your huggies I can smell them from here.

 

[Rambuchan]

Listen , I am not a conservative or a liberal. My political stance is niether right nor left. If the political spectrum was laid out on a football field where one end zone is right and the opposite was left, I would be at the fifty yard line.

I'm sorry for pigeon-holing you.

My support for those in the military does not make me some neo-con far right warhawk, there is no defined "us" and "them" in your twisted fascist view of the political Arena in democracy.

What is so fascistic and twisted about pointing out - hawks are currently supporting military action at the expense of their basic democratic principles?

I don't have to decide on anything, I do not condemn greepeace's political stance because he has the right to believe what he wants, however I do not agree with him. Condemning and disagreeing are two different terms.

I am saying that you are condemning and disagreeing in equal measures with the post I refered to. Check and see if I am right or not. Then see if your opening comments I've quoted are entirely honest. I reckon you're a few drives up the field.

You find democracy meaningless and I cherish it, that is the crux of our disagreement. Lets leave it at that.

Thanks for pigeon-holing me, you've quite a talent for that I see. Allow me to clarify:

I find correlating military causes necessarily with "the spirit of democracy" meaningless. "The spirit of democracy" is itself an empty phrase here. Whatever do you mean by that?

Again, that Bozo thread questions these assumptions being made.

 

[Rambuchan]

No I'm not a baby that has to go run and tell. Change your huggies I can smell them from here.

This is nice debating. Top quality in fact. What about the rest of my points to you?

 

[greenpeace]

After some deep thought and meditation I have come up with this:
One who is a marine is no longer a sane human, however he/she has the potential to become a sane human again. It is hard to beleive but is true that a true marine thinks that it is a honorable, diginfied thing to kill a person, rip the persons family apart, and cause grief and depression. A marine only does what he or she does because they are controlled by hate, propaganda, and nationalism. Marines are more like zombies controlled by these evil things. As leatherneck has said before, "I'm a marine I don't have feelings". Marines are however, humans and they can become good humans yet again. How, you may ask. Well, honestly I do not know, but I still have faith that marines can become good loving people. I love everyone and that includes marines and I think that it is important that we help out our fellow brothers and sisters and therfore we should help out people like leatherneck who have no feelings for they have been taken away by other people who have no feelings.

 

[Mott1]

What is so fascistic and twisted about pointing out - hawks are currently supporting military action at the expense of their basic democratic principles?

Well that is probably because not everyone that supports military action is a warhawk maybe?
Do you describe the people that supported the American military in WWII warhawks? were their actions opposed to the democratic principles or were they defending them?

I am saying that you are condemning and disagreeing in equal measures with the post I refered to. Check and see if I am right or not. Then see if your opening comments I've quoted are entirely honest. I reckon you're a few drives up the field.

True in this particular case I am closer to the "right" endzone, however there are many occassions where I find myself leaning to the left. The bottom line is that I am not embedded in either camp.

Thanks for pigeon-holing me, you've quite a talent for that I see. Allow me to clarify:

Sorry, it was not my intention. Just misunderstood you is all.

I find correlating military causes necessarily with "the spirit of democracy" meaningless. "The spirit of democracy" is itself an empty phrase here. Whatever do you mean by that?

Fine, how does universalism, equality, freedom, freedom of speech, human rights...etc. Basically every principle that democracy represents. Are those worth fighting for?

 

[greenpeace]

Fine, how does universalism, equality, freedom, freedom of speech, human rights...etc. Basically every principle that democracy represents. Are those worth fighting for?

They are defenetly worth non-violently fighting for. There is no reason to use violence to support those things. It is in fact very foolish to use violence since it goes against all those principles

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I feel like I am saying the same things over and over again but...

Fine, how does universalism, equality, freedom, freedom of speech, human rights...etc. Basically every principle that democracy represents. Are those worth fighting for?

Democracy does not represent equality, freedom, freedom of speech, human rights, etc. You can have a democracy but lack these things (you agreed with me on this on another thread).

They are defenetly worth non-violently fighting for. There is no reason to use violence to support those things.

I agree with you in that if you can get freedom, rights, etc. without violence then you shouldn't use violence. The reason why M. L. King and Ghandi were successful because the powers that be had the ability to listen to non-violent protests. Yet in some societies this is impossible. For example, look how far appeasement got with Hitler. In cases like this, it is worth fighting and shedding blood.

 

[greenpeace]

there is no case in which we should shed blood not even in the case of Hitler. We could have helped him through non-violence, to many of us were just to ignorant to do so(as is today).

 

[Mott1]

Democracy does not represent equality, freedom, freedom of speech, human rights, etc. You can have a democracy but lack these things (you agreed with me on this on another thread).

I'm pretty sure you understand the democracy I speak of when I include those principles. Does Liberal democracy sound better to you?



I

 

[Leatherneck]

Just for the record we have Republic here in the State ... there is a little difference. Not much, but a little.