• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Prince Harry off to Iraq

You admire his spunk, huh? I don't admire your level of worshipping violence and your blindness to the impact or war, to call going off to kill 'spunk'.

And as for Fox, their Stalinist-level propaganda gets old. It's suicide bomber, not homicide bomber. What, the ones who bomb and don't get killed, say by setting off IED's, are not "homicide bombers"? I'd say they are - they kill (homicide) with bombs (bombers). Suicide bombers distinguish between them and those who blow themselves up.

Fox: Truthicide media.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
You admire his spunk, huh? I don't admire your level of worshipping violence and your blindness to the impact or war, to call going off to kill 'spunk'.

And as for Fox, their Stalinist-level propaganda gets old. It's suicide bomber, not homicide bomber. What, the ones who bomb and don't get killed, say by setting off IED's, are not "homicide bombers"? I'd say they are - they kill (homicide) with bombs (bombers). Suicide bombers distinguish between them and those who blow themselves up.

Fox: Truthicide media.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
What a great story - based off the U.K. rag "The Sun"

LONDON ? Prince Harry's lover Chelsy Davy is to travel the world after telling pals: "Haz is off to war."

Her remark is the strongest hint yet that the 22-year-old Royal will see action in Iraq .

Chelsy, 21, hopes her trip will keep her mind off her fears while cavalryman Harry joins comrades for a dangerous tour of duty.

Accompanied by elder brother Shaun, 24, she will kick off the adventure by jetting to the U.S. casino city of Reno, Nevada, before heading for a spell in Rio de Janeiro.
One of Chelsy's close friends told The Sun: "She revealed her plans at a pal's wedding two weeks ago. She is keen to find something to take her mind off Harry while he is busy with his regiment
...............


If this is Harry's choice then so be it....
 
The Sun?:laugh:😀:laugh:. That article must be correct. I'm sure the National Enquirer will confirm everything.

She's flying from London to Reno to Rio? What is she... retarded?
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
You admire his spunk, huh? I don't admire your level of worshipping violence and your blindness to the impact or war, to call going off to kill 'spunk'.

And as for Fox, their Stalinist-level propaganda gets old. It's suicide bomber, not homicide bomber. What, the ones who bomb and don't get killed, say by setting off IED's, are not "homicide bombers"? I'd say they are - they kill (homicide) with bombs (bombers). Suicide bombers distinguish between them and those who blow themselves up.

Fox: Truthicide media.
Click to expand...

A worm like you wouldn't begin to understand that kind of courage.
Go find another thread to troll in.
 
Oh, I understand 'courage', daniel; more important is the moral awareness to know when to not commit violence, and it takes greater courage to stand up for right against the pressure to kill; but people like you tend to worship courage to make up for your own deficiencies, as if you can have some rub off if you are enough of a military sycophant.

It's why you attack any who speak up for what's right so strongly, because they threaten to take away the security blanket of your lies. It's just pathetic, but worse, as a voting citizen of a powerful nation, your snivelling fear lets you vote to harm others without any price. And you use the word courage? You have no right to type it.

You try to make up for with attacks what you lack the 'real stuff' for - a reasonable point of view, logic, and other common virtues of a poster.

It's why you see the sleaziest wrap themselves most tightly in the flag, to hide their own shortcomings - and then have the gall to call others who defende principles 'unpatriotic'.

You have a chance to grow into a man someday, daniel, some of you snivellers do; good luck with it for all our sakes.
 
Can you point me, ProfJohn, to anywhere that someone has made a statement that that's universally the case, rather than just a generalization? As you know, generalizations are not disproven by exceptions. If you can't, you are just arguing another straw man to falsely demonize the left.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Oh, I understand 'courage', daniel; more important is the moral awareness to know when to not commit violence, and it takes greater courage to stand up for right against the pressure to kill; but people like you tend to worship courage to make up for your own deficiencies, as if you can have some rub off if you are enough of a military sycophant.

It's why you attack any who speak up for what's right so strongly, because they threaten to take away the security blanket of your lies. It's just pathetic, but worse, as a voting citizen of a powerful nation, your snivelling fear lets you vote to harm others without any price. And you use the word courage? You have no right to type it.

You try to make up for with attacks what you lack the 'real stuff' for - a reasonable point of view, logic, and other common virtues of a poster.

It's why you see the sleaziest wrap themselves most tightly in the flag, to hide their own shortcomings - and then have the gall to call others who defende principles 'unpatriotic'.

You have a chance to grow into a man someday, daniel, some of you snivellers do; good luck with it for all our sakes.
Click to expand...

Am I assuming that you think that we were wrong to fight against the British in a WAR in order for you to say these things? What about when we defended our country through WAR in order to uphold those beliefs?

Interesting that the very rights which allow you to say those have been taken through the means by which you deem so inferior to your obviously inflated idea of self-worth and moral superiority.
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Am I assuming that you think that we were wrong to fight against the British in a WAR in order for you to say these things? What about when we defended our country through WAR in order to uphold those beliefs?

Interesting that the very rights which allow you to say those have been taken through the means by which you deem so inferior to your obviously inflated idea of self-worth and moral superiority.
Click to expand...

No, I distinguish between just war and unjust war. That's the difference.

Some almost just assume that our government choosing a policy of war means the war is justified. The idea of opposing our going to war is virtually incomprehensible for them.

I'm against *others* using force immorally, too, if that's not obvious, and our using force to stop them when needed. So when the British abused *their* power in much the way our own government sometimes does that I criticize, as the British government was allied with the East India Trading Company, the largest corporation in the world, to do injustice against the colonists, I'm all in favor of the Colonists standing up and fighting against the injustice for their own rights - something you would call 'supporting terrorists'.

In your analogy of the revolutionary war, I'd be arguing to the British troops that it was immoral for them to go and shoot Americans, they lacked justification.

You would respond by asking if I was opposed to the Brits having repulsed foreign invaders too, to which I'd respond no, and so on.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Am I assuming that you think that we were wrong to fight against the British in a WAR in order for you to say these things? What about when we defended our country through WAR in order to uphold those beliefs?

Interesting that the very rights which allow you to say those have been taken through the means by which you deem so inferior to your obviously inflated idea of self-worth and moral superiority.
Click to expand...

No, I distinguish between just war and unjust war. That's the difference.

Some almost just assume that our government choosing a policy of war means the war is justified. The idea of opposing our going to war is virtually incomprehensible for them.

I'm against *others* using force immorally, too, if that's not obvious, and our using force to stop them when needed. So when the British abused *their* power in much the way our own government sometimes does that I criticize, as the British government was allied with the East India Trading Company, the largest corporation in the world, to do injustice against the colonists, I'm all in favor of the Colonists standing up and fighting against the injustice for their own rights - something you would call 'supporting terrorists'.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you in in 95% of what you say, if it weren't for some of your zealotry above. Many who go to war do so mainly because of the dude next to them would do the same, the esprit de corpse is important. They are a common tool, if you wanted to boil it down. It's up to the government and ultimately the citizenry to use that tool appropriately.

Yet, you cannot blame the tool for abuse, the entity who wields the tool and abuses it is the one at fault. Blaming the tool and taking anger out on it does nothing to solve the problem.

Thus, I take exception for some of what you say.
 
legendKiller, I agree with most of what you say, too, and that includes the extremely powerful pull of unit loyalty - and you are virtually never going to get a soldier in a unit to put the morality of the war ahead of his battling alongside his fellow soldiers. I understand the battle is mainly fought elsewhere, with the leaders who use the tool.

But you and I do differ when you completely remove the moral responsibility of the soldier and transfer it to the political leaders. I believe that we'd all be better off the more we can get the people who join and serve to think for themselves and refuse to help in immoral military actions. I do understand no war has been stopped by that in history, perhaps.

I'm not sure what you are referring to as zealotry, unless you are using the word as hyperbole to mean 'something you have another opinion about'. And I make no excuse for zealotry, to the extent that I'm arguing for what's right. Zealotry to prevent unnecessary killing is an obligation IMO. If you will kill for it, why not speak up for it too?

If our only difference here is that I ask the people who serve to not consider their own moral obligations transferred to the government, we agree on a lot.

(To be clear, I understand we all agree on some moral obligations, such as war crimes. The difference I refer to is the morality of the war.)
 
Craig it is a constant charge on here. Mainly people asking everyone who supports the war or the policy why they are not over there fighting. As if only by going to fight can you support the war.

I doubt Harry will be on the front line, but he could see some minor action.
He could actually be a liability because you don't want commanders making decisions based on not getting him hurt or killed.

Remember when Gore went to Vietnam he was kept away from any place dangerous because he was the son of a senator. (This is not a knock against Gore, he didn't ask for this treatment, it just happened.)
 
Craig it is a constant charge on here. Mainly people asking everyone who supports the war or the policy why they are not over there fighting. As if only by going to fight can you support the war.
Click to expand...

If you can't cite anyone who has said that absolutely none of the rich send their children to war, you should admit you overstepped and made a straw man by claiming that one rich kid going proves the left was wrong in its (imagined) statement.

Saying that absolutely no rich person sends their child to war is different than asking war supporters if they're willing to go to war or send their children. I understand you may be frustrated by the latter question, but that doesn't make it right to just pretend someone said another question.

I doubt Harry will be on the front line, but he could see some minor action.
He could actually be a liability because you don't want commanders making decisions based on not getting him hurt or killed.

Remember when Gore went to Vietnam he was kept away from any place dangerous because he was the son of a senator. (This is not a knock against Gore, he didn't ask for this treatment, it just happened.)
Click to expand...

That's changing the topic, though, from the issue of the claim that the left says no rich people send their kids to war. That's wrong from what I see; as I said, a straw man.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Does this take away the argument about the rich not sending their kids off to war?
Click to expand...

not really... come back when the sons and daughters of the people who actually voted for the war get shipped out.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Oh, I understand 'courage', daniel; more important is the moral awareness to know when to not commit violence, and it takes greater courage to stand up for right against the pressure to kill; but people like you tend to worship courage to make up for your own deficiencies, as if you can have some rub off if you are enough of a military sycophant.

It's why you attack any who speak up for what's right so strongly, because they threaten to take away the security blanket of your lies. It's just pathetic, but worse, as a voting citizen of a powerful nation, your snivelling fear lets you vote to harm others without any price. And you use the word courage? You have no right to type it.

You try to make up for with attacks what you lack the 'real stuff' for - a reasonable point of view, logic, and other common virtues of a poster.

It's why you see the sleaziest wrap themselves most tightly in the flag, to hide their own shortcomings - and then have the gall to call others who defende principles 'unpatriotic'.

You have a chance to grow into a man someday, daniel, some of you snivellers do; good luck with it for all our sakes.
Click to expand...

You should work for Kerry. You sound like a pompous ass just like him.
Who are you to question these young men and women who choose to serve in the armed forces. They are doing what they feel is necessary to protect freedom even for people like you.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I doubt Harry will be on the front line, but he could see some minor action.
He could actually be a liability because you don't want commanders making decisions based on not getting him hurt or killed.
Click to expand...

What he said.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Does this take away the argument about the rich not sending their kids off to war?
Click to expand...

Not really - this is a longstanding tradition in the British royal family, and one of the few such traditions I respect. Lamentably our own wealthy families mostly prefer to leave the fighting to others (with, admittedly, some notable exceptions).
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Does this take away the argument about the rich not sending their kids off to war?
Click to expand...

Not really - this is a longstanding tradition in the British royal family, and one of the few such traditions I respect. Lamentably our own wealthy families mostly prefer to leave the fighting to others (with, admittedly, some notable exceptions).
Click to expand...

yes, I believe I just saw a story about John McCain's son regarding his service. And Webb also of course as was discussed A couple of weeks ago.

Here it is. found it.
 
It shows the pathetic state of the British military. When you have to bring in inbred brats to maintain military levels, you know you have a problem. And I thought that the US was doing bad...
 
A brave but stupid decision. What a trophy he'd be if he were to be captured by the militants. The British will probably invest in another batallion just to make sure that that doesn't happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top