Am i racist or is it something else??

**quarry206** · 04-17-2009, 08:22 PM

you know captian talks as if he is hard core and stuff, but in SF selection they actually look for guys like him to kick out so they will never be in an elite unit.. people with the mind set of kill kill kill, are usually pushed out of actual hardcore units.

it is not an infantry man job to kill capt, merely they are used to enforce the higher levels of egagment. the infantry is the the king of battle, but they are not heartless killers... and as you can see by my location I am not speaking out of my ass because I am not, nor have i ever been a "fobbit".. but i also know either one of two things is true. you are talking out of your ass or you seriously need help for PTSD..

BACK TO ORIGNAL THREAD, i do believe you hit it, Nationalism is a good term. because your feelings are more towards the sides winning or losing then the people.. (in this case)

**tyward** · 04-17-2009, 08:23 PM

Great, I typed so long that I responded to somebody else...

RA · 04-17-2009, 08:23 PM

I must admit, I didnt read every post in here. So I dont know if this has been said-

Dont think your racist bro. Ive always considered the UK to be our closest and most trusted allies. If one of you die in war its as if one of us die.

Wanting to see our side defend us protect us and detroy the enemy is not racist.

***RAGE*** · 04-17-2009, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by RA

I must admit, I didnt read every post in here. So I dont know if this has been said-

Dont think your racist bro. Ive always considered the UK to be our closest and most trusted allies. If one of you die in war its as if one of us die.

Wanting to see our side defend us protect us and detroy the enemy is not racist.

very well said bro...

**BgMc31** · 04-17-2009, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by quarry206

you know captian talks as if he is hard core and stuff, but in SF selection they actually look for guys like him to kick out so they will never be in an elite unit.. people with the mind set of kill kill kill, are usually pushed out of actual hardcore units.

it is not an infantry man job to kill capt, merely they are used to enforce the higher levels of egagment. the infantry is the the king of battle, but they are not heartless killers... and as you can see by my location I am not speaking out of my ass because I am not, nor have i ever been a "fobbit".. but i also know either one of two things is true. you are talking out of your ass or you seriously need help for PTSD..

BACK TO ORIGNAL THREAD, i do believe you hit it, Nationalism is a good term. because your feelings are more towards the sides winning or losing then the people.. (in this case)

Excellent points Quarry. My father spent 20 of his 30yrs in the Army as a Spec Ops guy. And he's told me that there is a psych eval given to soldiers who apply for those positions and usually those guys who are gung ho are de selected. The guys who are true killers know how to seperate between what their job is (consisting but limited to simply killing people) and the 'joy' of killing.

This supposed CptAmer is another one of these wannabe toughguys who, if he is in the military, probably works in the motor pool and is trying to live vicariously through the internet.

Much respect to you Quarry,for doing what you do!!!

**CSAR** · 04-18-2009, 12:22 AM

The only shit Captain America has been in was when he stepped in some doggie doo.

**sigman roid** · 04-18-2009, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by Flagg

I'd put that down to the media and the government indocritinating us that Muslims are evil and are a threat to democracy.

i agree with you there , i think the reason we feel bad when we see british/american soilders being killed and good when iraqi soilders are killed is because we are led to believe we are doing a good thing by invading there country and they are doing a bad thing defending it. if the shoe was on the other foot and they invaded britain or america we would be doing exactly what they are.

**MASTER** · 04-18-2009, 06:36 AM

Killing is never necessary, Gandhi proved that. To be honest id say there are many causes that I would happily die for, but I would only kill to directly protect my family or friends. I especially would not kill for greedy corporations and arms manufacturers. Don't think that wars are any different now than they were in the past. Before christianity, people were at least honest about it. Wars are to gain more resources and land. The only difference now is they have the media to brainwash people. Iraq was about Oil and contracts for Halliburton, don't anyone think otherwise.

Afghanistan was about about the infamous gas pipeline from the caspian sea. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm . Do what the US says or they will take it by force.

**thegodfather** · 04-18-2009, 07:52 AM

Some interesting aspects to this thread...I'd rather not get into the debate though. Something I thought was interesting and that I'd like to point out.

While giving an example that if another country invaded England, everyone would fight back. Well that is all well and good, except over the past 20 years the people in England have rolled over and taken a giant shaft RIGHT UP THE ASS, and allowed their administration to confiscate all of their firearms. If you guys think you are going to fight a potential invader with a bunch of break-open .410 shotguns, well, thats hilarious.

Someone mentioned that Muslims want to spread their ideas to Western countries and infect them with it. Did you mean in the same way that we spread 'Democracy' with bombs and bullets? The 1,000,000 people killed in Iraq would probably have take Saddam Hussein over 'Democracy' anyday, because they would still be alive, instead of collateral damage.

Afghanistan I agree with. However, I would have liked to have seen a declaration of war.

**sigman roid** · 04-18-2009, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

Some interesting aspects to this thread...I'd rather not get into the debate though. Something I thought was interesting and that I'd like to point out.

While giving an example that if another country invaded England, everyone would fight back. Well that is all well and good, except over the past 20 years the people in England have rolled over and taken a giant shaft RIGHT UP THE ASS, and allowed their administration to confiscate all of their firearms. If you guys think you are going to fight a potential invader with a bunch of break-open .410 shotguns, well, thats hilarious.

Someone mentioned that Muslims want to spread their ideas to Western countries and infect them with it. Did you mean in the same way that we spread 'Democracy' with bombs and bullets? The 1,000,000 people killed in Iraq would probably have take Saddam Hussein over 'Democracy' anyday, because they would still be alive, instead of collateral damage.

Afghanistan I agree with. However, I would have liked to have seen a declaration of war.

i understand what your saying my point was more that the iraqis are doing what anyone else would after being invaded so seeing them as the ones who are in the wrong is in it self wrong imo.And by the way theres more guns on the streets of england now than ever before .

**quarry206** · 04-18-2009, 09:40 AM

i don't want to start a debate on this.. but i highly doubt the number is 1,000,000 killed.. maybe its 1,000,000 killed or displaced.. but i think the real number of iraqi's dead is around 100,000-200,000 thousand with three times that displaced moved..

alot of iraqi's moved for the money of jobs, or to places they couldn't be before. or maybe moved in fear.

but for 1million people to be killed there would have to been an avg of 456 killed a day.. which is never happened

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project

**southmadejd** · 04-18-2009, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by CptAmericaX

good point but no i must say your wrong, it depends on the experience if it was a platoon of dudes who wack 60 arabs and do not loose a single friendly KIA then no one cares and its going to be who has a bigger dick between the guys. But if you loose half your platoon thats where people do care and dont want to talk about it. If you have a therapy group you should realize no one in therapy will talk about the gloriouse battles where they wacked a bunch of rag heads and lost no one, they are concerned with about there fallen comrad

It isn't my therapy group per say, it is the therapy group I attend. And I will tell you that it is a combination of things that happen to us, taking somebody else's life is right up there on the list. At first in a combat zone it doesn't affect you at all, then 1 year down the line when you are trying to get on with your life and you are out of the Marine Corps, you slowly start to see his face in your dreams and see your fallen comrads faces in your dreams. That is why war is such a weird thing. When you are in the heat of the moment, it is either you or them so it is just a reaction, your training kicks into place. The psychological affects long outlast the physical affects in my opinion.

But I also understand what you are saying. I wasn't trying to say that guys who fought in combat together don't talk about it together but I have never heard anyone brag about it. And say....F-CK YEAH MAN!!!! IT WAS AWESOME TO BLOW THAT RAG HEADS F-CKING FACE OFF!!!!

Also, never do we speak about it with any civilian because I actually for some reason get very shy and stand offish when someone asks me about it. And only a complete tool would sit there and brag about it.

I will never forget how when I got home my best friend had the audacity to ask me "So did you kill anybody over there?". I seriously wanted to kill him when he asked me that. I think I still kind of hate him for asking me that but I guess he just can't really relate and doesn't know how shit is over there.

**hugovsilva** · 04-19-2009, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by MASTER

Killing is never necessary, Gandhi proved that. To be honest id say there are many causes that I would happily die for, but I would only kill to directly protect my family or friends. I especially would not kill for greedy corporations and arms manufacturers. Don't think that wars are any different now than they were in the past. Before christianity, people were at least honest about it. Wars are to gain more resources and land. The only difference now is they have the media to brainwash people. Iraq was about Oil and contracts for Halliburton, don't anyone think otherwise.

Afghanistan was about about the infamous gas pipeline from the caspian sea. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm . Do what the US says or they will take it by force.

You hit the nail right on the head bro.

And anyone thinking any different is ingenuous.

**gymnerd** · 04-19-2009, 11:03 AM

I feel exactly the same way as you Matt. I don't know what it means either but I also believe alot of them are just trying to defend their country as well. I also never agreed with Iraq and always agreed on Afghanistan as well.