Why They Hate US

[jillian]

We are Not Muslim.

closer

 

[The Gadfly]

Are we responsible for these dead Iraqis?

What threat did they pose to your children?

Why should anyone be allowed to profit from their murders?

"These results provide strong evidence that the Gulf war and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under five years of age. We estimate that an excess of more than 46,900 children died between January and August 1991. (N Engl J Med 1992;327:931–6.)"

MMS: Error

Ummm, and wasn't it the U.N. (the one you Leftists worship), not the U.S., that imposed those sanctions? Why yes it was, as a matter of fact. But please, explain to me how "Rich American parasites who profit from war" are responsible for Saddam Hussein diverting oil-fpr-food money from Iraqi civilians to his military (there's incontrovertible evidence he did that, as you know). I swear, you're a one trick pony; all you know how to do, is bash America, because it isn't the communist workers' paradise your little Trotskyite heart desires.

Check the dates again.

Between January and August 1991 over 46, 000 Iraqi children died from direct and indirect effects of US bombs dropped on water treatment plants.Gulf War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you think anyone earned a profit from those bombs?

That bombing, George, was a direct response to the fact that Iraq had invaded and occupied one U.S. ally (Kuwait), and threatened to invade another (Saudi Arabia)Aside from the naked and unprovoked aggression involved, as a practical matter, we could not let Saddam control that big a chunk of the world's oil supply, so we acted. partly out of treaty commitments, partly out of self-interest.. That's hardly a first, for us, or most other major powers. Apparently, Saddam did not believe we could and would push him out of Kuwait, so he would not pull his forces out voluntarily, and ultimately we had to kick them out. Infrastructure, including roads, bridges, water and power plants, is a legitimate target of war, and we bombed it. That was a necessary part of the strategy, and I make no apologies for it. I thought we were rather restrained; we could have, after all, carpet bombed Baghdad, but didn't; we confined our strikes to targets of military value. There is no reason this nation's forces should fight with one hand tied behind their backs just to "make it fair" or soothe your tender, squeamish, effeminate, little permanent civilian "conscience" (which is rather selective at that-you don't seem perturbed over Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait). I believe in fighting to win. Don't like that? Cry me a river!

 

[hortysir]

Since our invasion in March of 2003, one in four Iraqis has become
1. dead
2. displaced
3. maimed
4. incarcerated

Link?

 

[The Gadfly]

and you and george the brain dead antisemite terrorist supporter should get an education on the subject area you're discussing before you make ridiculous statements.

Awesome answer! It's dismissive and vaguely insulting yet can't be countered in any way. Because you haven't said anything. Nice!

By the way, how you YOU respond if China persuaded the UN to invade the US (let's say it was to put an end to our contentious culture wars). Would you be tickled pink about them building permanent military bases in your back yard?

In that case, I would pick up my weapon, and start killing every Baby-blue-helmeted amateur soldier I could find! I do not consider that third-world debating society our friends, anyway. There's your answer, plain and simple. Now I have a couple of questions for you: (1) ever been in combat? (2) in the event of said U.N. invasion, where might we expect to find YOU? Would that be helping repel it, or would you be cowering in your hole, moralizing about it?

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I went to Vietnam as a soldier, to do a job. I fought the people I was ordered to fight, and killed those I was ordered to kill. I'd do it again; the army didn't pay me to sympathize with the enemy, or question the policy decisions of my superiors, and I did not and do not give a rat's rear end what the enemy may have felt about that, or what some dope-smoking hippies back home felt about it. Is that clear enough for you?

 

[dblack]

In that case, I would pick up my weapon, and start killing every Baby-blue-helmeted amateur soldier I could find! I do not consider that third-world debating society our friends, anyway. There's your answer, plain and simple. Now I have a couple of questions for you: (1) ever been in combat?

No.

(2) in the event of said U.N. invasion, where might we expect to find YOU? Would that be helping repel it, or would you be cowering in your hole, moralizing about it?

I'd hope I'd have the courage to be out there fighting for all I was worth. But I don't suppose I'll really know until I'm tested, eh?

... the army didn't pay me to sympathize with the enemy, or question the policy decisions of my superiors, and I did not and do not give a rat's rear end what the enemy may have felt about that, or what some dope-smoking hippies back home felt about it. Is that clear enough for you?

Yeah. It sounds like you're missing the point of my comments entirely. The question of the thread is "Why do they hate us?". It's my suggestion that it's very likely that they hate us because our military is in their face day in and day out. Some people want to say it's a religious issue, or that they're jealous of this or that, and those issues may have some merit. But it seems to me that the overwhelming factor would be our presence there. I'm saying we would be just as angry and violent as they are if we were in their shoes. That's not 'sympathy' as much as just having an intelligent understanding of your enemy's perspective. Delusion doesn't get us anywhere.

 

[westwall]

Gosh you're clueless. They don't hate you....they don't even know you exist.

 

[The Gadfly]

In that case, I would pick up my weapon, and start killing every Baby-blue-helmeted amateur soldier I could find! I do not consider that third-world debating society our friends, anyway. There's your answer, plain and simple. Now I have a couple of questions for you: (1) ever been in combat?

No.

(2) in the event of said U.N. invasion, where might we expect to find YOU? Would that be helping repel it, or would you be cowering in your hole, moralizing about it?

I'd hope I'd have the courage to be out there fighting for all I was worth. But I don't suppose I'll really know until I'm tested, eh?

... the army didn't pay me to sympathize with the enemy, or question the policy decisions of my superiors, and I did not and do not give a rat's rear end what the enemy may have felt about that, or what some dope-smoking hippies back home felt about it. Is that clear enough for you?

Yeah. It sounds like you're missing the point of my comments entirely. The question of the thread is "Why do they hate us?". It's my suggestion that it's very likely that they hate us because our military is in their face day in and day out. Some people want to say it's a religious issue, or that they're jealous of this or that, and those issues may have some merit. But it seems to me that the overwhelming factor would be our presence there. I'm saying we would be just as angry and violent as they are if we were in their shoes. That's not 'sympathy' as much as just having an intelligent understanding of your enemy's perspective. Delusion doesn't get us anywhere.

DB, there is no way to completely prepare anyone psychologically for the realities of ground combat, which means that no one (I didn't either) can know for certain how he will perform and react to it, until he has experienced it. That's not a value judgement, just a fact.

As for the enemy, Bin Laden hated us in large part simply because we support Israel. He was happy enough to have us help him fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, so for him and a lot of Al Quaeda, it was far less about being on their turf, than that, and their ideology. The "being in their face" thus applies more to the Taliban, and perhaps the Iraqis. In any case, it doesn't matter; you generally expect your enemy in combat to have the same gentle concern for you, that you have for him (which is none). It is of no great help to know whether the enemy's motivation for fighting is political, religious, or territorial, unless you can use it to help break his will to fight, which is the ultimate objective of the exercise. Until then, it is a matter of killing him, before he kills you. Since the beginning of warfare, combat has been, and still is ultimately about one soldier imposing his (and his nation's) will on his opponent.

 

[dblack]

In any case, it doesn't matter; you generally expect your enemy in combat to have the same gentle concern for you, that you have for him (which is none). It is of no great help to know whether the enemy's motivation for fighting is political, religious, or territorial, unless you can use it to help break his will to fight, which is the ultimate objective of the exercise. Until then, it is a matter of killing him, before he kills you. Since the beginning of warfare, combat has been, and still is ultimately about one soldier imposing his (and his nation's) will on his opponent.

I suppose all that's true, but I'm assuming a broader context than just combat. Politically, it's very important to understand the motivations of others. Especially when formulating foreign policy. It can make the difference between fomenting hatred or inspiring cooperation - which seems to be the context of the topic. Since 9/11, many of Americans have been trying to make sense of it all - asking "Why do they hate us?" It's an important question to understand, because if we've done things to help create that hatred, we need to learn to avoid it in the future.

 

[Intense]

In any case, it doesn't matter; you generally expect your enemy in combat to have the same gentle concern for you, that you have for him (which is none). It is of no great help to know whether the enemy's motivation for fighting is political, religious, or territorial, unless you can use it to help break his will to fight, which is the ultimate objective of the exercise. Until then, it is a matter of killing him, before he kills you. Since the beginning of warfare, combat has been, and still is ultimately about one soldier imposing his (and his nation's) will on his opponent.

I suppose all that's true, but I'm assuming a broader context than just combat. Politically, it's very important to understand the motivations of others. Especially when formulating foreign policy. It can make the difference between fomenting hatred or inspiring cooperation - which seems to be the context of the topic. Since 9/11, many of Americans have been trying to make sense of it all - asking "Why do they hate us?" It's an important question to understand, because if we've done things to help create that hatred, we need to learn to avoid it in the future.

Your Prayer rug is in the mail.

 

[georgephillip]

Misleading title. Should read:
Why I Hate the US

"WAR is a racket.

"It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."

Why I hate War.

Survival of the fittest, baby!!!

Move to Switzerland, Yella'.
But, meanwhile, appreciate those that have fought and died in the bloodiest wars in history to give you the right to be a Pinko.

You mean survival of the richest, fool.

Most of those who've "fought and died in the bloodiest wars in history" were lied to.

Wall Street says "thanks, slaves."

"Now hand over your Social Security."

 

[georgephillip]

Yet another Obama Hate thread... Can't you just leave the poor little boy alone???

One And Done.

Has a ring to it, I think.

Except for those unable to judge the "poor little boy" by the content of his character.

Obama's "character." Now there's an interesting topic.

In my opinion, Obama is at least as corruptible as his predecessors and much smarter than any of them.

Maybe it's time to pick a president who's neither Democrat nor Republican?

 

[daveman]

They hate us because we're free. That's the main thing. I mean, seeing their homeland occupied by our military might annoy them, but the main thing is, they're jealous of our wealth and our freedom.

They hate us because they're told to hate us. They're told by their rulers that the US is responsible for their oppression -- not their rulers.

 

[The Gadfly]

In any case, it doesn't matter; you generally expect your enemy in combat to have the same gentle concern for you, that you have for him (which is none). It is of no great help to know whether the enemy's motivation for fighting is political, religious, or territorial, unless you can use it to help break his will to fight, which is the ultimate objective of the exercise. Until then, it is a matter of killing him, before he kills you. Since the beginning of warfare, combat has been, and still is ultimately about one soldier imposing his (and his nation's) will on his opponent.

I suppose all that's true, but I'm assuming a broader context than just combat. Politically, it's very important to understand the motivations of others. Especially when formulating foreign policy. It can make the difference between fomenting hatred or inspiring cooperation - which seems to be the context of the topic. Since 9/11, many of Americans have been trying to make sense of it all - asking "Why do they hate us?" It's an important question to understand, because if we've done things to help create that hatred, we need to learn to avoid it in the future.

Oh, it's quite true, but let's take your "broader context" for a moment. First of all, since my first explanation of why Bin Laden and Co. hated us apparently didn't register with you, let's expand on it a bit. Islam is a religion founded by a warrior, which from its beginnings has had a pronounced penchant fro spreading itself by conquest. That was true in its early days on the Arabian peninsula, and it remained so when it swept west out of Arabia and across North Africa and eventually Spain a couple of centuries later. It has always had a militant component, sometimes more dominant than at others, and every time that militant side has become dominant, it has had another eruption of violent expansionism. What we are now witnessing, is another such militant Islamic eruption, led by Al Quaeda, but not confined to it. This current version of militant Islam has its origin (like Bin Laden) in the radical Waha'abi Islamic sect of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi oligarchy, in an effort to remain in power, has for many years bought the most fanatical components of this sect off, by funding schools they run in various Islamic countries, and by exporting its radicals to those same countries. This has, naturally expanded the influence of Waha'abism, which in its radical form is violent, rabidly anti-Western, anti-Israeli, and by extension anti-American.

Just to complicate matters further, there is a second form of militant Islam whose current center of gravity is Iran. Unlike it's Saudi counterpart, this group is Shia, rather than Sunni, and while it is more focused on regional hegemony and eventual hegemony over the Islamic world, it too has larger aspirations; driven by its more radical clerics. It too, is anti-western, anti-Israel, and anti-American.

From an American point of view, it does not greatly matter, whether their hatred for us is driven by real grievances or imagined ones. Let's be very clear on this, THERE IS NO NEGOTIATING WITH THESE PEOPLE. America is NOT going to stop supporting Israel, which is not only the only real democracy in the Middle East, but our only dependable ally there. The idea that stopping support of Israel would placate our militant Islamic foes is frankly absolutely ludicrous. That, like Chamberlain's attempted appeasement of Hitler at Munich, would only encourage them. APPEASEMENT NEVER WORKS, not in the long run; never has, and never will; history is replete with examples of those who preferred to give in rather than fight. All of them eventually either lost, or had to fight a long hard war to survive. Had Chamberlain remained as Britain's leader, the Nazis would have won WW II!

Aside from that, the fact is that our enemies just happen to be sitting on top of half the world's oil. Whatever we think about weaning ourselves off the stuff, for the foreseeable future, we will at least need access to that oil, or we will no longer have a first-world economy, or a first-world country. That means that we cannot just disengage with that part of the world to make our enemies like us better (it's not clear that they would, anyway).

That leaves America with exactly two alternatives. We can either fight them until we break their will to resist us, or we can buck up, build up, and get ready to fight them later, in the hope of achieving some level of deterrence. This is no longer the Cold War, this is not the Soviet Union, we're facing, and these people have nothing to lose-threatening to bomb a bunch of seventh-century barbarians back to the stone age won't work either. First of all, they know we won't nuke them, and we know we won't. Second, it would not make all that much difference to them if we did; there are few targets of sufficient value to them to be worth totally destroying, save for a few religious shrines.

It may be that the present generation of Americans no longer has the stomach to do what is necessary here. If that is the case, it is only a matter of time, until we go into the dustbin of history along with ancient Greece, Rome, and the Great Empires of Europe. This country was founded, and existed for many years against all odds, simply because it was populated by men who refused to run from any fight, and would rather get hurt than give up or give in. A great nation grown too fat and contented, too soft, too intellectualized, too effete, and (I know I will catch hell from the distaff side for this one!) too effeminate, will not long remain great. The world is too savage a place for this nonsense, and whether we like it or not, the strong survive, and the weak perish. I don't know about you, but I intend to survive, and I do not care how much enemy blood has to be spilled to ensure just that.

Now, for whatever reason, these sonsofbitches attacked our nation on 9/11. They started it, and this American has absolutely ZERO interest, in asking them why they did it. I DO NOT CARE WHY. THEY wanted this war, THEY started this war, and America had damn well better finish this war, no matter how long it takes, how much it costs, or what the damn body count is, or how we achieve it! This is not just about sacrifice (though we will have to make some). This is not about conscience (lose this war, and your "conscience" won't mean a damn thing!). This is not about being popular, or loved (I don't know why liberals are so obsessed with the idea-personally I'd rather be hated, and feared for being tough, than be liked because I made myself a doormat that someone else can wipe his feet on feet on). This is not about "dying for your country"; as Patton put it, this is about "making the other poor dumb bastard die for HIS country!" I'd rather fight for freedom, and be wrong with blood on my hands, than sit in my easy chair with a clean conscience while freedom died. I'd rather get hurt, than give in, and I am not asking any American to do what I wouldn't do, because I have put my own arse on the line to fight a war for America, and if I weren't so damn old, I'd be right in the middle of this fight too! It is time to quit questioning ourselves, quit doubting ourselves, quit agonizing over the situation, and kick ass. If Americans today had half the guts our ancestors did, we'd have more volunteers for this war than we could use. During WW II, the last time someone attacked America, you'd have been hard put to find any American who gave a rat's rear end about the sensitivities or sensibilities of the Japanese. No one cared why the Japanese hated us, and attacked us; all they cared about was kicking Japanese ass until they cried "uncle". That is exactly the attitude we need now!

Some of you out there may have forgotten how you felt on 9/11. I have not! Now, let's stop yapping, roll up our sleeves, lock and load, and get to work showing those people what happens when you mess with the best! In the words of one young American who remembered how to act like an American on 9/11, "LET'S ROLL!"

 

[georgephillip]

Because America's for-profit Killing Machine generates nearly half the world's refugees.

Afghanistan with 3.05 million displaced persons followed by Iraq's 1.68 million refugees currently lead the pack but don't underestimate the misery US elites have in mind for Yemen and Libya.

While the US accepts more refugees for permanent settlement than any other country (71,400 in 2010) most of the current burden falls on neighboring states like Pakistan, Iran, and Syria.

Maybe US defense contractors and the richest 1% of Americans should have their income that comes from killing children taxed at a little higher rate than their winnings in Wall Street's casino?

Half of World's Refugees are Running From US Wars | Truthout

Why They Hate US

How about we help you out with a hint George.


We are Not Muslim.

That's a small part of this story.

We are not Muslims (most of us anyway) yet our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have induced 4.78 million human beings to flee their countries. Tens of thousands of others have been killed or maimed or incarcerated by our troops in our never ending quest to bring democracy to the desert.

Are you clueless or indifferent to those facts?

 

[georgephillip]

We are Not Muslim.

closer

Or Kosher.

"It is equally tragic to read of nine-year-old Akaber, killed by Israeli gunfire to her head while riding in her uncle’s car to get medical stitches removed, and of the 29 other nine-year-olds killed by Israeli forces in the past decade, eight of them by Israeli gunfire to the head."

Alison Weir: Shot in the Head

 

[georgephillip]

Ummm, and wasn't it the U.N. (the one you Leftists worship), not the U.S., that imposed those sanctions? Why yes it was, as a matter of fact. But please, explain to me how "Rich American parasites who profit from war" are responsible for Saddam Hussein diverting oil-fpr-food money from Iraqi civilians to his military (there's incontrovertible evidence he did that, as you know). I swear, you're a one trick pony; all you know how to do, is bash America, because it isn't the communist workers' paradise your little Trotskyite heart desires.

Check the dates again.

Between January and August 1991 over 46, 000 Iraqi children died from direct and indirect effects of US bombs dropped on water treatment plants.Gulf War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you think anyone earned a profit from those bombs?

That bombing, George, was a direct response to the fact that Iraq had invaded and occupied one U.S. ally (Kuwait), and threatened to invade another (Saudi Arabia)Aside from the naked and unprovoked aggression involved, as a practical matter, we could not let Saddam control that big a chunk of the world's oil supply, so we acted. partly out of treaty commitments, partly out of self-interest.. That's hardly a first, for us, or most other major powers. Apparently, Saddam did not believe we could and would push him out of Kuwait, so he would not pull his forces out voluntarily, and ultimately we had to kick them out. Infrastructure, including roads, bridges, water and power plants, is a legitimate target of war, and we bombed it. That was a necessary part of the strategy, and I make no apologies for it. I thought we were rather restrained; we could have, after all, carpet bombed Baghdad, but didn't; we confined our strikes to targets of military value. There is no reason this nation's forces should fight with one hand tied behind their backs just to "make it fair" or soothe your tender, squeamish, effeminate, little permanent civilian "conscience" (which is rather selective at that-you don't seem perturbed over Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait). I believe in fighting to win. Don't like that? Cry me a river!

The bombing of Baghdad in '91 was a war crime.

How many have you committed?
How many women have you killed?
How many did you rape?
How many children?
Were you "squeamish" about the first?

You're just another flag-flapping punk who's getting close to his own death and looking for justification for his crimes. There are none. If there's any justice in this world, shit like you will die the same slow miserable death you've helped inflict on others.

Don't like that?
Swill some Agent Orange and die.
Bitch.

 

[georgephillip]

Since our invasion in March of 2003, one in four Iraqis has become
1. dead
2. displaced
3. maimed
4. incarcerated

Link?

Antiwar.com

 

[The Gadfly]

Check the dates again.

Between January and August 1991 over 46, 000 Iraqi children died from direct and indirect effects of US bombs dropped on water treatment plants.Gulf War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you think anyone earned a profit from those bombs?

That bombing, George, was a direct response to the fact that Iraq had invaded and occupied one U.S. ally (Kuwait), and threatened to invade another (Saudi Arabia)Aside from the naked and unprovoked aggression involved, as a practical matter, we could not let Saddam control that big a chunk of the world's oil supply, so we acted. partly out of treaty commitments, partly out of self-interest.. That's hardly a first, for us, or most other major powers. Apparently, Saddam did not believe we could and would push him out of Kuwait, so he would not pull his forces out voluntarily, and ultimately we had to kick them out. Infrastructure, including roads, bridges, water and power plants, is a legitimate target of war, and we bombed it. That was a necessary part of the strategy, and I make no apologies for it. I thought we were rather restrained; we could have, after all, carpet bombed Baghdad, but didn't; we confined our strikes to targets of military value. There is no reason this nation's forces should fight with one hand tied behind their backs just to "make it fair" or soothe your tender, squeamish, effeminate, little permanent civilian "conscience" (which is rather selective at that-you don't seem perturbed over Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait). I believe in fighting to win. Don't like that? Cry me a river!

The bombing of Baghdad in '91 was a war crime.

How many have you committed?
How many women have you killed?
How many did you rape?
How many children?
Were you "squeamish" about the first?

You're just another flag-flapping punk who's getting close to his own death and looking for justification for his crimes. There are none. If there's any justice in this world, shit like you will die the same slow miserable death you've helped inflict on others.

Don't like that?
Swill some Agent Orange and die.
Bitch.

OK, you sanctimonious little punk, not that it's any of your damn business:

(1) I have never committed a "war crime" (unless you consider killing armed enemy personnel a "war crime"). If you do, sorry, but I didn't keep an exact count; I was just a bit too busy keeping myself and my men alive to keep a scorecard; I do hope you understand.

(2) Exactly two. Both were Co Cong (female VC, to you). One was aiming an SKS at one of my men. The other pulled a grenade out of her ao dai. I shot both of them. I'm not sorry.

(3)) I have never raped a woman, in Vietnam or anywhere else. Contrary to myth, most soldiers don't. We don't have to; we can generally get laid without resorting to force. I suspect you are projecting, because you couldn't get laid in a Tijuana whorehouse; might have something to do with your pansy attitude. Women, (except unwashed hippie chicks) do not generally go for that.

(4) ZERO. (I DID knock one out, though; he was obviously acting as a lookout for the VC. I cold-cocked him, gagged him and tied him up. Don't worry, we let him go, after we finished dealing with his adult "friends". He was none the worse for wear.) Disappointed?

(5) I didn't have time to be; the first one popped out of the bush about fifteen meters in front of me, AK in hand. I was a little quicker on the trigger than he was, and put a short burst in him.There were about a dozen more with him, and I think I got another in the firefight that followed, but I was too busy moving, giving orders, and so forth to be sure. When it was over I knelt down and puked from the sudden adrenaline rush of unexpected action-that's pretty common, actually. After that, I felt relieved; I was still shaking, but hadn't panicked, hadn't run, wasn't dead, and hadn't taken any casualties, and we found eight dead VC. Good day for us, bad day for Charlie; wish they all could have been like that.

Now, what "crimes" was that again? My only "crime" was having the intestinal fortitude to serve my country, you pompous little hippie jackass. Just for the record, your little commie rat, weak-kneed, lily-livered, gutless puke self is not worthy to spit shine my muddy Corcorans, or those of any other man who fought in Vietnam, with your filthy tongue!. I'll answer to my Maker, for anything I've done, when my time comes, and however it comes, but until then, little child, you are NOT my God, judge and jury, or my military or civilian superior. I do not have to "justify" any of my actions to you and your friends, and I do not really give a shit WHAT you think, or even IF you think!

As for flag waving, I love that flag, and the nation it represents, in a way someone like you will never understand, and hell yes I will wave it, and salute it, and protect it, until they place it on my coffin. Don't like that? TOUGH! I've earned it!

If it's all the same to you, Agent Orange tastes even worse than Ba'mui Ba (though the latter had more formaldehyde in it), so I think I'll have a swig of scotch, instead. I believe I've earned that too.

As for justice, if there is any, in this world or the next, all us Vietnam vets will come back as dogs, and all you damn hippies will come back as trees! That way, we can see how YOU like being pissed on, for a change!

P.S. The only "bitch" I see here, is YOU. Is it "Low T"....or did you just never get around to growing a pair?

 

[georgephillip]

You're the longest-winded baby killer I've come across.

Were you drafted, or did you "volunteer" to travel thousands of miles from your stye and kill human beings ("gooks" to you) who posed no threat to your family?

'Still confusing yourself with a good guy?
Good guys don't kill because their government tells them to.
Hitler had an abundance of those.
Shit like you would have fit in well with the fuhrer.

Your crime, again, was being too stupid/lazy/indifferent and ignorant to question those who gave you orders that turned you into war criminal.

You were already a slave.
"Thanks for you service."
Slave.

PS Your "maker" is another lie the rich tell to convince their slaves to serve.

 

[The Gadfly]

You're the longest-winded baby killer I've come across.

Were you drafted, or did you "volunteer" to travel thousands of miles from your stye and kill human beings ("gooks" to you) who posed no threat to your family?

'Still confusing yourself with a good guy?
Good guys don't kill because their government tells them to.
Hitler had an abundance of those.
Shit like you would have fit in well with the fuhrer.

Your crime, again, was being too stupid/lazy/indifferent and ignorant to question those who gave you orders that turned you into war criminal.

You were already a slave.
"Thanks for you service."
Slave.

PS Your "maker" is another lie the rich tell to convince their slaves to serve.

No one had to "force" me to serve my country, George. I volunteered, and I would do it again. As I see it, wearing America's uniform is an honor and a privilege, one I am both proud and humbled to have been granted. You may think "Duty, Honor, Country" is just a corny slogan; to me, it is what I live by.

By the way, I didn't and don't call them "gooks", I call them Vietnamese, except for the "Montagnards", who I call "Dega" (their name for themselves). I speak their language (rather rusty, now), and I actually liked the ones who weren't trying to kill us. I went there at least in part to protect the innocent from those murdering, torturing, communist scum known as the VC, and I did not need my government to tell me what the VC were or did, because I saw their atrocities for myself. You want baby killers? Go shake hands with the VC, and meet the REAL baby killers, rapists and murderers of Vietnam.

I was not and am not a "slave"; I was an officer of the United States Army, following my oath. It does not become an officer to question the lawful orders of his superior officers, or of the National Command Authority, and I did not. I really do not care what Hitler had or did not have; I fought for Uncle Sam, NOT Uncle Adolf.


I am neither stupid nor lazy. YOU, on the other hand, are too stupid and too lazy to locate your own arse, much less remove your head from it long enough to appreciate the extent of your own hypocrisy, ingratitude, and mean-spirited venality. God, what a sorry disgrace to American manhood you are, you who take everything America has given you, and abuse it; you, who who deride "privilege" at every turn, yet are more than willing to accept the benefits of the freedom you never so much as lifted a finger to earn.

P.S. Why don't you read Theodore Roosevelt's "The Man In The Arena"-it's an excellent description of what armchair critics like you are actually worth.