Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sturm on April 27, 2001, 08:23:00 AM
-
just curious but I guarantee the vast majority have never served in the military and really do not understand the word freedom. It really ticks me off to see these rallies or speeches garnering the military as murderers or waste of tax dollars. How soon we forget why we have such freedoms and at what cost it took to get them. Shame on those that publicly deface the military and for what it has done for us.
I cannot stand the Hanoi Jane types or the wanna be GI Joes. So my question to you is, what do you think freedom is, what is your respect to freedom, and how did it come about in your country? To me pacifists seem a little light in the loafers as well but that is my opinion.
------------------
-
The draft needs to be reimplemented so US citizens can have a better understanding of what the military is. Nothing like an up-close personal experience to focus the true meaning of the job of the military.
We need leadership that understands that the military is no place to experiment with social engineering!!
The military should only be used to kill people and break things of our enemies. There is no other reason to have a military!!
-
Two very different questions here. Sart with the simple one.
Military is a means for a nation to apply violence if needed. Many people through ignorance and/or wishfull thinking do not believe there is or will be a need for violence.
Freedom. Come to think of it - it is simple too. When you have freedom you have opportunity to do certain things and you have responcibility for many things as a tradeoff.
Responcibility applies to everyone and is very burdensome.
Opportunity is of use only to a very limited minority of people - those with intelligence and motivation.
Of course when such people prosper, the rest of the population prosper as well in a free market society, but since the link is indirect, you need intelligence, education and foresight to understand it. Those qualities majority of people lack. What they do not lack is envy to someone who is doing better then themselves.
miko
-
If you are talking about a National service type thing, it ended over here, because the military was not too keen on training tens of thousands of kids above its normal recruitment needs.
Expensive and not particularly useful.
Sturm - if people want to be pacifists, then why should you disagree with that? Just because you do not share such a belief, there is no need to belittle it.
I don't want to think you are an idiot, but from your deroguetory comment, it's hard not to. Perhaps you ought to look into history next time, and (this is only a suggestion) apply some cognitive function.
I happen to think its a very honourable thing to be. For instance, Conscientious objectors in WW2 were often ambulance drivers right at the front - they were as brave as the soldiers they were saving.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 04-27-2001).]
-
The draft needs to be reimplemented so US citizens can have a better understanding of what the military is.
AMEN!
It would also teach a lot of young Americans something they didn't learn from their parents - DISCIPLINE!
There is no experience as life changing as stepping off the bus at basic training.
"YOU HAVE 10 SECONDS TO GET OFF THAT BUS - AND GOD HELP THE LAST ONE!"
The 1st words I heard when I arrived for basic training/MP school at Ft McClellan,AL 1981. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by 1776:
The draft needs to be reimplemented so US citizens can have a better understanding of what the military is. Nothing like an up-close personal experience to focus the true meaning of the job of the military.
I somewhat agree that the draft should be reimplemented, but for different reasons. I was in the military... I looked for the meaning of the job and had a difficult time finding it. Therefore, I got out. But... I do think the draft is necessary. One of these days, we are going to get into another costly conflict and someone is bound to look up and notice that the only boys dying are poor and underprivileged. It may be a gross generalization but it seems to me that the majority of the military is made up of people who enjoy the least of what a free country has to offer.
We need leadership that understands that the military is no place to experiment with social engineering!!
It's not a social experiment. The military absolutely must evolve along with the society it is meant to protect. Otherwise, the only people suited for military service would be neanderthals that can't cope in the real world. The military should not be a refuge for people that think harassing women and homosexuals is okay.
The military should only be used to kill people and break things of our enemies. There is no other reason to have a military!!
Nope... read your textbooks, young soldiers. One of the primary purposes of the military is simply as a show of strength. You can accomplish quite a bit without ever having exchanged blows. Read some Sun Tzu.
Originally posted by jihad:
It would also teach a lot of young Americans something they didn't learn from their parents - DISCIPLINE!
...which highlights the worst part about being a supervisor in the military. One of the first things I had to teach almost every FNG was, "I am not your mother."
------------------
cheers,
sand
screamin blue messiahs (http://www.screaminbluemessiahs.org)
The SBM's are hiring! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum11/HTML/000263.html)
[This message has been edited by Sandman_SBM (edited 04-27-2001).]
-
Sturm - if people want to be pacifists, then why should you disagree with that? Just because you do not share such a belief, there is no need to belittle it.
I don't want to think you are an idiot, but from your deroguetory comment, it's hard not to. Pot calling Kettle black wouldn't ya say?
Perhaps you ought to look into history next time, and (this is only a suggestion) apply some cognitive function.
I study history as a past time, fire away.
I happen to think its a very honourable thing to be.
[So is dousing ones self in a square with gasoline. lol At any rate I don't think you got the jist of what i was saying. If you think it is honorable to go around bashing the military and then turn your tail and run when the heat is on, I have no respect for you and would offer you to teh enemy in a heart beat. Your kind are what we defended for and kept your hopes alive and well. I find that repulsive. If you don't like it thats fine, don't say watermelon about what they are doing then.
For instance, Conscientious objectors in WW2 were often ambulance drivers right at the front - they were as brave as the soldiers they were saving.
Just to let ya know they didn't have ambulances at the front there. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) You have been watching way to many war movies, ambulances are kept in rear areas, most of the victims being moved by stretcher or jeep to evacuation points for the injured.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
But... I do think the draft is necessary. One of these days, we are going to get into another costly conflict and someone is bound to look up and notice that the only boys dying are poor and underprivileged. It may be a gross generalization but it seems to me that the majority of the military is made up of people who enjoy the least of what a free country has to offer.
Could it be that people are poor and underprivileged because they are less capable to succeed for inherent reasons, like intelligence? That doesn't mean they cannot be good soldiers and being a soldier in US is a decent occupation.
How does that relate to draft? If you think that even with draft the wealthy will avoid military service and screw up the poor, it means a society has a problem. If some are allowed to screw up others, they will do it - draft or no draft.
Nope... read your textbooks, young soldiers. One of the primary purposes of the military is simply as a show of strength. You can accomplish quite a bit without ever having exchanged blows. Read some Sun Tzu.
Read your textbooks. An army created for the show of strength usually has no strength other then for show.
I am sure 1776 did not mean that our military should be engaged full-time. He could have said "The military should only be used to kill people and break things of our enemies if needed." but you should have understood it yourself.
miko
-
why are there so many people against war...?
wha?
-
Could it be that people are poor and underprivileged because they are less capable to succeed for inherent reasons, like intelligence? That doesn't mean they cannot be good soldiers and being a soldier in US is a decent occupation.
Ya know... one could read this and then draw the conclusion that soldiers are somehow less intelligence than civilians. Nope... not even going to touch that one. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
An army created for the show of strength usually has no strength other then for show.
Hehe... we're dancing around semantics. Let's just say that the threat of a competent army is often enough to discourage conflict. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
"the draft should be re-implimented"
Christ, some of you guys really worry me. It IS possible to appreciate our country and the freedoms that we have AND not serve in the military.
SOB
-
Originally posted by SOB:
"the draft should be re-implimented"
Christ, some of you guys really worry me. It IS possible to appreciate our country and the freedoms that we have AND not serve in the military.
SOB
SOB, I believe that this thread is speaking of the preservation of our country and the freedoms that we have...that would include having a draft. After all, a country prepared is a country not invaded. (Forget who said that, but, having a big ocean on either side helps too!)
-
Originally posted by SOB:
"the draft should be re-implimented"
Christ, some of you guys really worry me. It IS possible to appreciate our country and the freedoms that we have AND not serve in the military.
SOB
Is it possible? Maybe but not for the tree huggers.
Can we still look at you with respect? We will let you know later.
Is it happy hour yet? toejam yeah it is off to get a few down the hatch
And I am kidding everyone gets there panties all ruffled up to easy sometimes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
SOB, I believe that this thread is speaking of the preservation of our country and the freedoms that we have...that would include having a draft. After all, a country prepared is a country not invaded. (Forget who said that, but, having a big ocean on either side helps too!)
That's great...so you think the current state of our military, without a draft, is inviting invation of our borders?
So which country is it that you think is going to risk invading the US and going to war with us, Britain & our other allies?
SOB
-
Originally posted by SOB:
That's great...so you think the current state of our military, without a draft, is inviting invation of our borders?
So which country is it that you think is going to risk invading the US and going to war with us, Britain & our other allies?
SOB
Sorry but teh UK can't take us either,they had a hard enough time with argentina.
We are bad
We are good
we got 2 oceans
While canucks chop wood.
-
I think the idea of requiring a bunch of people to join the military means you are going to get a bunch of people that don't want to be there... with no war to take their attention off of things.
AKDejaVu
-
quote:
-------------------------------------------
SOB, I believe that this thread is speaking of the preservation of our country and the freedoms that we have...that would include having a draft. After all, a country prepared is a country not invaded. (Forget who said that, but, having a big ocean on either side helps too!)
--------------------------------------------
end quote
Last time i looked, western "freedom" was not really being threatened that much.
True we see a few small isolated groups of people burning flags.. waving signs and lighting things on fire in their own country.
And occassionally one of these individuals straps a bomb to mimself or a car etc.. and blows it up in a terrorist act. I still dont see where your freedom, "democracy," and the like is being threatened.
I see nothing wrong with miliatry service or the military itself. But at the same time i dont think that they protect "freedom."
To me the milatry performs a few simple functions:
-means of employment ( and this goes from slackjawed idiot to a potential nuclear technician.)
-provides discipline and structure to the lives of people... if not because the person needs it, then because it is neccessary for the unit to function as a whole.
-an essential source of economic support.
(be it raw materials, manufacturing, contracting...you get the picture.)
okay so that's i my thoughts on why there is a military. I feel that the military is there to resolve things once the minds and imaginations (and tempers) of our leaders give out.
now for the last part of my boring argument:
the functions of jails and in turn criminals in or society:
-means of employment. (countless numbers of correctional officers, janitors,lawyers, judges, police officers, ballifs, guards, and yes even prisoners are employed as a result of criminals and the prison system...im not going to bother researching the numbers...but i bet eveyone knows at least one person either employed in the prison system, or working withing it as an inmate.)
-provides discipline and structure to the lives of people... if not because the person needs it, then because it is neccessary for the unit to function as a whole.
(notice it iis exactly the same as above.)
-an essential source of economic support.
(be it through the billions in insurance dollars that change hands because of theft, vandalism..., the countless dollars in materials consumed by prisoners in the prison system...)
now absolutley no one would argue that citizens should be drafted into criminal behavior.
now dont go all flame on me guys... im not saying people in the military are criminals nor are they really related, however i will say that there is a correllation between the two groups in regards to the functions they perform for society as a whole
p.s. to anyone who has every been victim of a crime or criminal activity, i am not meaning to invalidate your experience or sluff it off as a point of conversation only.
-
The good saying is "Any country has an army - either it's own or somebody else's".
loser,
In US the army is not providing any of the unctions you've mentioned.
Our army is small, our unemployment is smaller and there is a considerable screening to make sure that people that "need structure" do not get into the Army.
Any area of human occupation has effects you've mentioned - there is structure and janitors in a potatohouse.
Army is there to provide apply force if needed - hopefully to protect our interests.
miko
-
We are bad
We are good
we got 2 oceans
While canucks chop wood.
-Sturm
Nice little poem... but wtf is that supposed to mean?
-
No state has an inherent right to survive through conscript troops and in the long run, no state ever has. Roman matrons used to say to their sons, 'Come back with your shield, or on it.' Later on, this custom declined. So did Rome.
- Robert A. Heinlein
------------------
Col Dune
C.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona
-
I'll just say that freedom means being able to do as you wish. So, I wish to be a pacifist.
As far as fighting goes, I'll fight for this country if it means protecting its citizens from unwarranted outside aggression, but not if it means keeping Dupont or 3M in business. Multinationals can fund their own mercenary army if they want to.
-
"The draft needs to be reimplemented so US citizens can have a better understanding of what the military is.
Nothing like an up-close personal experience to focus the true meaning of the job of the military.
We need leadership that understands that the military is no place to experiment with social engineering!!"
ROFL, what is this you're suggesting? SOCIAL ENGINEERING.
ROFL, couldn't pass on this one. Too ironic (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://stsantas.tripod.com/stsanta.jpg)
-
Oh, btw, we have a conscription army here.
And, i must tell you, this idea I find lacking.
Basically, your pro freedom government is forcing you, under threat of punishment, to serve the armed forces for a very low sum of money, well below the minimum wage you'd get from other kinds of work for working 24h hours a day. For 9-12 months or so.
Doesn't this sit poorly in the freedom loving American minds? To have a GOVERNMENT use FORCE if necessary to essentially get it's citizens...no SUBJECTS, to work as (let's face it) slaves?
This is the essence of it.
I got lucky. because the Danish armed forces do not need every abled body man, only part of the draftees actually do military service. And, it's decided by lottery. I just had to do some medic stuff and, unless there's a war within the next 10 years, that's the last I hear from them.
A professional army is to prefer over a forced slave army consisting of unmotivated *men* (sexist, why only men eh?), who might get their fellow soldiers killed due to their attitude to the whole thing.
So, you really have to make up your minds. I see a lot of inconsistencies here from the freedom loving individuals. You want the government to use you at will as slave labourers or not? you want personal freedoms and respect of the constitution or not?
I may be wrong, but at least I am consistently so (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://stsantas.tripod.com/stsanta.jpg)
-
Originally posted by leonid:
I'll just say that freedom means being able to do as you wish. So, I wish to be a pacifist.
As far as fighting goes, I'll fight for this country if it means protecting its citizens from unwarranted outside aggression, but not if it means keeping Dupont or 3M in business. Multinationals can fund their own mercenary army if they want to.
EXACTLY!
-
So your saying the israelis are slaves in their army? I did my time in the USAF and the pay was not as bad as many might think, if you ever get the luxury stop by a air base and look at the parking lot. Almost all the cars are brand new, I was never hurting except for the first few months I was in.
Once I made a couple ranks money was not an issue, with the tax breaks you recieve it is great. At any rate what the air force did for me was give me a skill once I left the usaf so that I can go out in the civilian world and apply it to a well paying job. I have been out for almost a year I more then doubled my 24,000 pay "equates to over 35K a year with tax breaks".
I would highly recommend the air force to anyone, you get what you put in it IMO.
-
Whats freedom? Freedom is anarchy and anarchy is self-destructive, so what i believe were talking about is freedom over your own body and mind.
That kind of freedom is for instance, that i can go out and smoke a big fat joint without fear of becoming arrested. Am i able to do that? NO.
Other instance is, that i am able to participate in put-up votes of things, that im interested (example: voting for Finnish EU membership related things). Am i able to do that. NO.
So if im going to defend something (ive been in finnish army), im not doing that to defend my freedom (which i dont currently have like i should have), but to defend myself from enemy tyranny, which he would do if he could decide it.
If i were US citizen, i would never go in US army, because it has fighted many overseas figths with absolutely unjustified reasons, like in Vietnam. And they will fight again with stupid reasons, because when theres no real threats, they have to be made up to "justify" the huge budget of the US army. US would be cheap to _defend_, but thats not apparently enough for them.
Btw did you know, that Bush has family business in major jail food kitchens. Do Bush think about hes stock shares, when hes making decicions? Nooo noo that couldnt be possible, hes a HONOURABLE man with BIG LOVING HEARTH.
-
Smacks Tuomio around a bit. WTF are you talking about? Are you on crack?
That kind of freedom is for instance, that i can go out and smoke a big fat joint without fear of becoming arrested. Am i able to do that? NO.
You just have to no where to go and not get caught. Therefore there is no fear. Duh!
I am thinking you have way to much bong resin stuck upstairs to think clearly. Everything is good to do in moderation but going thru a half O a day will make ya loopy. Sit back enjoy the ride and quit thinking polotics you need some schooling there big time.
-
Sturm wrote:
I study history as a past time, fire away.
The he wrote:
Sorry but teh UK can't take us either,they had a hard enough time with argentina.
Err.. check your history books... we didn't invade Argentina, we sailed the length of an ocean to defend an island from a country, who was only a few dozen miles from said island.
And at least we completed our objectives. Enough said.
At any rate I don't think you got the jist of what i was saying.
Err... this is what you said:
Shame on those that publicly deface the military and for what it has done for us.
And this:
To me pacifists seem a little light in the loafers as well but that is my opinion.
So you believe that public criticism of the armed forces is a 'shameful' act, and furthermore, pacifists are weak and cowardly?
It seems to me you don't understand 'freedom' at all, despite what you might say. Freedom is to publically, peacefully, disagree with anything in the establishment. And that includes the military.
I positively encourage anyone to do so; I might not agree with them, but I respect their right to demonstrate their dissent. Even anti-abortionists. The day peaceful demonstrations dissapear from my streets, I will know democracy is dead in my country.
To your slur on pacifists; how is going into no-man's-land unarmed to stretcher away the wounded, all the time being sniped at by the other side, a cowardly act? Because that is exactly what many pacifists did in WW1. Pacifist medics in WW2 were close enough to the front line to be shelled, strafed etc. Yet they did their jobs and saved lives, even if they did not agree with the war itself.
I regard them as highly as those that carried a gun.
If you think it is honorable to go around bashing the military and then turn your tail and run when the heat is on, I have no respect for you and would offer you to teh enemy in a heart beat.
Oh, you are the hard man, aren't you? Who are you trying to kid?
'Offer you to the enemy in a heart beat' - lol
To yourself, 'freedom' is the right to share your views. Which is a very sad thing indeed.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 04-28-2001).]
-
Heheh, smoke more dope and get in "in touch with your feminine side". That'll make a "pacifist" out of anyone.....
Cabby
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Sturm wrote:
Oh, you are the hard man, aren't you? Who are you trying to kid?
'Offer you to the enemy in a heart beat' - lol
To yourself, 'freedom' is the right to share your views. Which is a very sad thing indeed.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 04-28-2001).]
Whoo did I just piss off the brownies or what? As far as Argentina whoop dee frekin doo so you had to sail a few thousand miles. How many ships did you lose again? Pretty sad you have to use for your defense the ocean was the problem. Logistics is one thing proper planning is another. It was by shear stroke of luck you guys won down there.
Now run along before I put on my flaming suit just for you.
To your slur on pacifists; how is going into no-man's-land unarmed to stretcher away the wounded, all the time being sniped at by the other side, a cowardly act? Because that is exactly what many pacifists did in WW1. Pacifist medics in WW2 were close enough to the front line to be shelled, strafed etc. Yet they did their jobs and saved lives, even if they did not agree with the war itself.
And Sir Dingles when did I ever say anything bad about medics? Just because I stated that the ambulance drivers were not at the "front lines" as stated.
You have proven to me you can try and distort the truth, and my sayings. Nothing more. Run along Mrs Dowdfire.
------------------
(http://members.home.net/cgoolsby6/sachs.jpg)
[This message has been edited by AG Sachsenberg (edited 04-28-2001).]
-
Originally posted by cabby:
Heheh, smoke more dope and get in "in touch with your feminine side". That'll make a "pacifist" out of anyone.....
cabby's argument:
"being a pacifist is a bad thing"
rephrased by definition:
"being against war is a bad thing"
which makes the anticedent:
"being for war is a good thing."
so your position is that people who object to violence are weak and effeminate and people who endear violence are strong and masculine? interesting - primitive, but interesting.
-
Heheh, MrFish your logic is apalling. BTW, the best Defense is a good Offense.......
Cabby
-
Picture a world where everyone is a pacifist. I sure would rather live in that one.
-
Originally posted by cabby:
Heheh, MrFish your logic is apalling. BTW, the best Defense is a good Offense.......
Cabby
which part isnt supported by your statements? which part fails?
-
Smacks Tuomio around a bit. WTF are you talking about? Are you on crack?
No i dont use crack, because im interested of my future health.
You just have to no where to go and not get caught. Therefore there is no fear. Duh!
And i can drive without licence and not get caught in my lifetime. Hmm..Does that mean, that driving licence isnt needed, or that i just have luck not getting caught driving without it?
I am thinking you have way to much bong resin stuck upstairs to think clearly. Everything is good to do in moderation but going thru a half O a day will make ya loopy. Sit back enjoy the ride and quit thinking polotics you need some schooling there big time.
Its nice that you know what i use and how often i use it. You have good arguments there boy.
Now my grandfather has been in the war and last time he talked about it wasnt any glorious mambo youve been talking about. Maybe he just doesent know as good as you do..
Im not pacifist but that doesent mean i would love war somehow or that pacifists were wrong. Personal freedoms include freedom of speech and thats one thing that kinds of you dont like people to have.
edit: There were 5 million marijuana arrests made under Clintons(i didnt inhale) administration last YEAR so somebody IS getting caught and some of them get long prison sentences. I dont live in US, but basicly the same thing goes on in every country, except Spain, Holland and Switzerland, where they have defacto legalization of MJ.
[This message has been edited by Tuomio (edited 04-29-2001).]
-
Is it Sturm or this LW leutenant? It would have been nice if you could have come back on the majority of my post... but hey, no doubt being officer in the LW is very time consuming. What was the point of the name change and the use of the signature? Pretending to be a LW pilot in some online game won't buy you any credibility. I'm sorry, it just won't.
Many medics were pacifists, which is something you clearly cannot recognise (read my post again). You attack pacifists, many medics were pacifists, therefore you can't recognise the work that they did.
As for Argentina, the fact that reinforcements and supplies had to travel 8000 miles might have proved a problem to any army, nevermind one as small as Britain's. The whole battle was a 'close run thing', but it was not 'shear luck'. If you knew anything about military history, you'd know that a military campaign needs a little luck if it is to succeed.
This is an indication of how much luck it took:
Though outnumbered (2 to 1: 600 vs. over 1400), low on ammunition, lacking adequate fire support, fighting over open ground, and in daylight against prepared positions, the 2-para emerges as the winner in this first big and critical land battle. British 2-Para Lt. Col. "H" Jones dies in this battle and later awarded a Victoria Cross.[/i]
I'd say training, blood and sacrifice took Goose Green, 8000 miles from home, on an island just off the coast of Argentina. It's a shame you can't recognise that fact.
As I said before, they completed their objectives and liberated the Flaklands. The whole affair triggered a political uprising in Argentina - which was a good thing.
You have proven to me you can try and distort the truth, and my sayings.
I don't need to distort your 'sayings' - it's there in black and white.
'Run along Mrs. Dowdfire'? Is that really the best you can do?! I'll be honest - it means about 2 percent of nothing to me.
Run along tough guy, and when you see the enemy, offer me to him in a heartbeat. Thanks.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 04-29-2001).]
-
Heheh, MrFish your logic is apalling. BTW, the best Defense is a good Offense.......
And of course, the essence of offence is the element of surprise.
So, extending Cabby's logic, the best defence would be to launch a complete surprise attack on a potential aggressor, preferably before they even THOUGHT about becoming an aggressor (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Calm down Cabby.. just foolin' (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
HIt a soft spot there didn't I Dowdy? I am glad you can take such honor in the defeating of the argentinians. Tell me when does a WW2 cruiser pose a threat to a modern navy such as great Britains? Don't try and distort the facts of a few certain battles were the GB were outnumbered against the argentinians lol.
I am sorry if my post has offended you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) Do you even know the true meaning of a pacifists? Look it up and come back and talk.
Is it Sturm or this LW leutenant? It would have been nice if you could have come back on the majority of my post... but hey, no doubt being officer in the LW is very time consuming. What was the point of the name change and the use of the signature? Pretending to be a LW pilot in some online game won't buy you any credibility. I'm sorry, it just won't.
Dowdy I really do not want to waste my time writing more then I have to towards your responses. As far as the name change I did that a week ago. Most who know me I go by those two nicks. Any rate my LW rank has nothing to do with this conversation, piss poor attempt at a flame there.
A pacifist is and always will run from the action, I am sorry if survival doesn't inherently stick in their heads. If I have to fight to save my family or country I will. I think being a pacifist is rather selfish in the sense you are thinking of yourself more then the well being of others.
Watching your family being butchered because your thoughts on picking up a gun interfered or your feelings toward violence. So how do you defend yourself or your family from an intruder? Call the police and hope they get there in time?
My question to everyone what made you a pacifist?
------------------
(http://members.home.net/cgoolsby6/sachs.jpg)
[This message has been edited by AG Sachsenberg (edited 04-29-2001).]
[This message has been edited by AG Sachsenberg (edited 04-29-2001).]
-
'Distort the facts'?
Yet again, I find I must point out what exactly are the facts. The British were outnumbered at every major engagement they entered into. They faced troops that had been entrenched on hill-sides for weeks (including highly trained mercenaries and Special Forces). They had to carry EVERYTHING from the beach-head to the front-line, because the Atlantic Conveyor had been sunk (it carried the Chinooks).
They then carried out an assault knowing that there was no reserve and the only ammo they had, was the ammo they carried.
So, tough guy, don't take anything away from their efforts.
As for the Belgrano - it was a legitimate target. Not a troop ship or passenger liner or hospital ship, but a battleship. Who cares if it was sailing away or towards the Falklands, if the Argentinian Junta didn't want it to be sunk, why did they even bother having it near the warzone and why did they invade the Falklands in the first place?
BTW, it isn't a 'soft spot'. I wasn't there and I don't know how you can 'take honour' from anything. I think you mean 'take pride'.
What's this about a 'flame'? No I'm just pointing out how ignorant you are considering you purport to be an amateur historian. In case you didn't know, watching the history channel does not really count.
And again, you fail to see how pacifists have helped many, many people in times of war.
You wrote:
Do you even know the true meaning of a pacifists? Look it up and come back and talk.
Then you wrote:
I think being a pacifist is rather selfish in the sense you are thinking of yourself more then the well being of others.
I suggest it is YOU who should examine a dictionary.
-
Geesh a pacifist can be merely a person who refuse to bear arms due to moral or religious reasons.
A pacifist CAN have an active role in a war, and there are several examples and roles a pacifist can play.
------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://stsantas.tripod.com/stsanta.jpg)
-
A pacifist is just someone who does not like confrontation.
-
Dowding I knew you weren't there, you clearly showed us that.
British intelligence found out 4 days prior to the invasion it wasn't until the invasion did they sail a fleet there.
As for the Belgrano - it was a legitimate target. Not a troop ship or passenger liner or hospital ship, but a battleship. Who cares if it was sailing away or towards the Falklands, if the Argentinian Junta didn't want it to be sunk, why did they even bother having it near the warzone and why did they invade the Falklands in the first place?
Just to let ya know the Belgrano was not a battleship but a heavy cruiser, so don't try and make it look meaner and bigger then it actually was. I love how you make the Argentinians out to be a ruthless impressive military. There pilots yes were top notched, but everything you have written I believe you just went out thru the net and cut and pasted. Your knowledge of this war is from the internet, do you even know why this started?
Ever heard of these? Mount Tumbledown and Wireless Ridge, wasn't it your foreign minister rejecting the claim of sending a SSN off the coast to patrol? Falklands could have been prevented and the loss of ships that britain sustained were irreplaceable. If this is wrong in your eyes then you honestly do not know this engagement.
Loyalist hit it on the spot.
------------------
(http://members.home.net/cgoolsby6/sachs1.jpg)
[This message has been edited by AG Sachsenberg (edited 04-29-2001).]
[This message has been edited by AG Sachsenberg (edited 04-29-2001).]
-
Hossa sturm,
was never in the army, hate the situation when some1 gives me orders (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Did civilservice instead & had some fun with this blind guy i worked for (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
That's okay for me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Greets blitz
Btw. If you studied history & read some newspapers y'll know that the very most of all wars were't fought because of freedom but in the name of it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Prost Blitz!
For one thing I am not against those that have not served in the military but those that do not feel bearing arms to defend ones country and ones freedom is right. These are the individuals I am pointing at, the ones that will let others die so they can remain at peace at home.
Taking orders is one thing, but doing it to preserve my family I will rightly do. Waiting for Dowding to come back and publish his simplistic whines I mean views.
------------------
(http://members.home.net/cgoolsby6/sachs1.jpg)
[This message has been edited by AG Sachsenberg (edited 04-29-2001).]
-
British intelligence found out 4 days prior to the invasion it wasn't until the invasion did they sail a fleet there.
For someone who is supposed to 'study history as a passtime' I'm surprised at this comment. But then again, maybe I'm not.
How long do you think it takes to mobilize a self-sustaining army equipped with the logistics to pursue a campaign in the field for an unknown length of time? Twenty minutes before breakfast?
So they had 4 days notice before the invasion took place? So what? That's practically nothing at all. It took more than four days just to start to get the people together just to plan an operation. Here's a timesline for you:
April 2nd, 1982 Argentinians land on the Falklands and within days they have 10,000 troops stationed there
April 25th The Taskforce is on its way - a journey of 8000 miles.
In the mean time there were all sorts of diplomatic efforts to reach an agreement. The US, the UN and Peru all tried to get the Argentinians to withdraw. There is also the retaking of Georgia island by British forces.
The British taskforce made a landing near Port San Carlos on May 21st.
Just to let ya know the Belgrano was not a battleship but a heavy cruiser...
A point based on pedantics - it was a vessel of war and that is the essential truth.
I love how you make the Argentinians out to be a ruthless impressive military.
I never said that. But elemets were very well trained and equipped, including Special Forces and mercenaries. They were also entrenched on a hill above open ground, with a large field of fire.
...but everything you have written I believe you just went out thru the net and cut and pasted. Your knowledge of this war is from the internet, do you even know why this started?
To your first point - bzzzzz, wrong! Being an historian you should know this, but quotes should be shown as just that - i.e. in quotation marks. For example the excerpt I included describing the Goose Green engagement.
Secondly, I've read several books on the Falklands, including first hand accounts. A good one is 'Excursion to Hell' by Vincent Bramley. He gives his version of the assault on Mount Longdon, and I'd recommend it to you as a good starting point for the building your knowledge on the war.
The internet is also a great tool for looking up information.
As for the origins of the conflict, where do you want to start? The initial disputes over its ownership between the colonial powers or Argentinas historical claim back in the 1800s? Or perhaps you want to start with the UN supported negociations between Britain and Argentina back in the 1960s?
That the Falkland's could have been avoided is a moot point - ALL conflicts can avoided if you go back far enough. As for the loss of shipping - the casualties were quite heavy. But not irreplacable - there has been a massive cut back in the number of merchant vessels available to the RN since 1982.