LIB-ertarian Johnson has Lib Meltdown

[Ghoulardi]

As far as the Iraq War was concerned, I find it hard to believe that you are still finding ways to justify it.  Nobody ever denied that Saddam had chemical weapons of some sort at one time.  When the United States government supported Saddam and Iraq in their fight against the Iranians in the 1980s, our military knew full well that Saddam had employed chemical weapons in the fight.

You mean like the effort you put forth to justify those that are committing acts on the US?

If we're to buy your argument that their acts of aggression were because of our acts of aggression, what do you think their acts of aggression will do? That's right, create more acts of aggression against them.

Common sense tells you if you don't want an altercation, walk away. Certainly, don't escalate the conflict and then whine and cry they hit you back.

So the niave person calls me niave. Your the one trying to justify acts of aggression on your country. Your the one that refuses to see their acts of aggression caused our acts of agression.

Oh, Gulf War Two wasn't just about chemical weapons. (Which I would add, using your logic, [as stated in their agression is caused by our agression] so we used chemical weapons, that doesn't give them the right to use chemical weapons [just as its wrong for us to be aggressive because they're aggressive]). There was also an act of aggression against a President

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

Your against aggression in any form? So you have no home or family to defend?

I used to be a pacifist long ago, then I woke up and realized there are things worth fighting for and forces that are more than willing to take those things away if your not willing to fight for them.

Thomas Jefferson said: "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." Ever wonder why? Because there's always somebody willing to take away your freedom if your not willing to fight for it.

Dude, maybe at one time businesses made money in time of war, but not anymore. Not when most of the manufacturing is in China. The only one who makes money in time of war is China.

Loss of freedoms during time of war. Really, then how do we have people protesting Viet Nam, Iraq, and presently you posting your posts? Seems to me you have your freedom of speech, as they did. So what freedoms are lost during war?

[jrodefeld]

You mean like the effort you put forth to justify those that are committing acts on the US?

If we're to buy your argument that their acts of aggression were because of our acts of aggression, what do you think their acts of aggression will do? That's right, create more acts of aggression against them.

Common sense tells you if you don't want an altercation, walk away. Certainly, don't escalate the conflict and then whine and cry they hit you back.

So the niave person calls me niave. Your the one trying to justify acts of aggression on your country. Your the one that refuses to see their acts of aggression caused our acts of agression.

Oh, Gulf War Two wasn't just about chemical weapons. (Which I would add, using your logic, [as stated in their agression is caused by our agression] so we used chemical weapons, that doesn't give them the right to use chemical weapons [just as its wrong for us to be aggressive because they're aggressive]). There was also an act of aggression against a President

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

Your against aggression in any form? So you have no home or family to defend?

I used to be a pacifist long ago, then I woke up and realized there are things worth fighting for and forces that are more than willing to take those things away if your not willing to fight for them.

Thomas Jefferson said: "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." Ever wonder why? Because there's always somebody willing to take away your freedom if your not willing to fight for it.

Dude, maybe at one time businesses made money in time of war, but not anymore. Not when most of the manufacturing is in China. The only one who makes money in time of war is China.

Loss of freedoms during time of war. Really, then how do we have people protesting Viet Nam, Iraq, and presently you posting your posts? Seems to me you have your freedom of speech, as they did. So what freedoms are lost during war?

Damn, I hardly know where to start.  Let's start at the end.  What freedoms have we lost during the so-called "War on Terror"?  Let's start with the Patriot Act, which granted the government vast powers to undermine American civil liberties.

Prof. Gary Orfield of the UCLA Civil Rights Project wrote in May 2003: "The loss of civil rights often begins with the reduction of rights in a time of crisis, for a minority that has become the scapegoat for a problem facing the nation. The situation can become particularly explosive in a time of national tragedy or war. But when civil rights for one group of Americans are threatened and the disappearance of those rights is accepted, it becomes a potential threat to many others."   [1]

Prof. Orfield wrote this while commenting on the plight of Arabs and Muslims who were the immediate target of Patriot Act provisions and other legislations in the aftermath of 9/11. However his prediction proved correct about the erosion of civil rights of all citizens. In the last ten years we have seen a steady erosion of the fundamental rights and civil liberties, all in the name of national security.

The gradual erosion of our civil liberties came in the shape of Warrantless Wiretapping, abuse of the USA PATRIOT Act, the National Security Entry/Exit Registration System (NSEERS), the Real ID Act, the Military Commissions Act, No Fly and Selectee Lists, Abuse of Material Witness Statute, Attacks on Academic Freedom and monitoring peaceful groups.

The so-called War on Terror has seriously compromised the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of citizens and non-citizens alike. From the USA PATRIOT Act's over-broad definition of domestic terrorism, to the FBI's new powers of search and surveillance, to the indefinite detention of both citizens and non-citizens without formal charges, the principles of free speech, due process, and equal protection under the law have been seriously undermined.

As Glenn Greenwald pointed out, the most disgraceful episodes in American history have been about exempting classes of Americans from core rights, and that is exactly what these recent, terrorism-justified proposals do as well.   Anyone who believes that these sorts of abusive powers will be exercised only in narrow and magnanimous ways should just read a little bit of history, or just look at what has happened with the always-expanding police powers vested in the name of the never-ending War on Drugs, the precursor to the never-ending War on Terrorism in so many ways.

http://www.civilfreedoms.org?p=7260


Furthermore, consider the revelations revealed to us by whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden, Wikileaks and Chelsea Manning.  We've created a massive new federal department in the Department of Homeland Security, and the NSA has decimated the Fourth Amendment through it's bulk data collection.  We've imprisoned American citizens without trial and executed American citizens without judicial oversight.

The link above goes through most of it, but the list of liberties lost since 9/11 is a long one.  The reason our government was able to abridge these liberties is that they capitalized on the fear Americans felt and used war-time conditions to their advantage.

The growth of government is facilitated most during times of crisis, and the greatest crisis that government can engage in is war.  Robert Higgs wrote about this in his book "Crisis and Leviathan:  Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government".


Moving on, I don't think you understand what the word "aggression" means.  Aggression is defined as initiatory violence.  I am not a pacifist and I will use violence to defend myself, my family and my property from criminals.  Similarly, I support our military using violence in defense of this country.  I expect them to repel an invading army, for example.

My problem is that our military has been engaging in aggression rather than defense.  After 9/11, we had the just right to go and get Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  We had the moral obligation to do everything within our power to avoid collateral damage, avoid disrupting and harming Arab citizens who hadn't committed aggression against us.

Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people had not attacked the United States and posed no national security threat.  They had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11.  Therefore, our military had no business attacking and occupying that country.

Similarly with Afghanistan, our special forces may have had justification to pass through that country in it's efforts to hunt down Bin Laden and Mohammed, but they had no justification for an extended occupation of that country to fight against the Taliban.

Once again, I am forced to repeat that I am not justifying terrorist attacks.  The anger that motivates most Islamic terrorists is justified, but the targeting of civilians is not justified.  If we remove the incentive, then we would be less at risk because there would be less anger and resentment towards the United States from the Muslim people.  Less resentment and anger, less terrorist recruits, and less attacks.

Robert Pape documented this extensively.  When a foreign occupying nation withdraws it's troops, terrorist attacks from the occupied nation against the occupying nation are drastically reduced or eliminated entirely.

By the way, the supposed "plot to kill President Bush" is not an act of aggression.  It serves as a pie-in-the-sky dream of a people that had absolutely no ability to carry out such an attack.  Aggression is a tangible action, not a plot to commit a future action.

This speculated plot absolutely does NOT justify the first Gulf War.  Every President faces death threats from his political enemies.  Secret Service investigates them all, but hardly anybody ever has had the means to carry through with an assassination. 

When Thomas Jefferson said "Eternal Vigilance is the price of freedom" he was thinking about our OWN government, rather than a foreign threat.  Do you think Thomas Jefferson would have supported the Iraq War or the first Gulf War?

Jefferson would have been more concerned, as am I, about the United States Federal Government depriving us of our liberties by exaggerating the threat of a foreign enemy.

[Ghoulardi]

Moving on, I don't think you understand what the word "aggression" means.  Aggression is defined as initiatory violence.  I am not a pacifist and I will use violence to defend myself, my family and my property from criminals.  Similarly, I support our military using violence in defense of this country.  I expect them to repel an invading army, for example.

My problem is that our military has been engaging in aggression rather than defense.

I think you don't understand the nature of euphemism. Nor do you understand the nature of strategy.  One of the rules of strategy is that the side always on defense loses. Doubt me? Watch any football or basketball game, you can predict the loser by who's on defense most. So your military for defense is a loser strategy.

The way to win is to go on offense, become pro-active, not reactive.

After 9/11, we had the just right to go and get Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  We had the moral obligation to do everything within our power to avoid collateral damage, avoid disrupting and harming Arab citizens who hadn't committed aggression against us.

And in a perfect world that's what would have happened. Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world. Anytime there's war, there's collateral damage. We've manage to minimize is considerable, but as I said, nothing is perfect---and therefore not 100%. Would you prefer it be like World War II where whole cities, like Dresden, were bombed into oblivian?

Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people had not attacked the United States and posed no national security threat.  They had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11.  Therefore, our military had no business attacking and occupying that country.

You apparently didn't read the article in the Washington Post link, did you? That's not a threat to national security? He did it once, he'd try again.

Similarly with Afghanistan, our special forces may have had justification to pass through that country in it's efforts to hunt down Bin Laden and Mohammed, but they had no justification for an extended occupation of that country to fight against the Taliban.

Pass through the country? They were harboring him, giving him sanctuary. How old are you? I'd say you were in your 20s, maybe 30s. You sure weren't old enough to understand what really happened when it happened. All you have is a false narrative some history revisionist gave you.

By the way, the supposed "plot to kill President Bush" is not an act of aggression.  It serves as a pie-in-the-sky dream of a people that had absolutely no ability to carry out such an attack.  Aggression is a tangible action, not a plot to commit a future action.

This speculated plot absolutely does NOT justify the first Gulf War.  Every President faces death threats from his political enemies.  Secret Service investigates them all, but hardly anybody ever has had the means to carry through with an assassination.

Your bias is showing. I thought you went by emperical facts. Actually, you only go by fact that support your point of view.

Oh they were idealist, so they don't count, you say.

Their anger is justifed, you say. Yet you chide the US for its anger for what's been done to it.

Obviously  your point of view is everybody has an excuse except for the United States.

When Thomas Jefferson said "Eternal Vigilance is the price of freedom" he was thinking about our OWN government, rather than a foreign threat.  Do you think Thomas Jefferson would have supported the Iraq War or the first Gulf War?

Jefferson would have been more concerned, as am I, about the United States Federal Government depriving us of our liberties by exaggerating the threat of a foreign enemy.

And naturally the communist don't want to take away our liberties, right? So then the statement holds for external threats to liberty too, doesn't it?

[walkstall]

I've never been in the military.  I made a conscious choice not to join the military because I strongly object to US foreign policy and I would not voluntarily participate in committing evil acts on behalf of the United States government.  I would have had to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan and I couldn't in good conscience support such unnecessarily war efforts.

Good conscience, I say the only thing you were doing was protection your own ASS from this. 

[quiller]

Good conscience, I say the only thing you were doing was protection your own ASS from this. 

The leftist cowardice is strong in this one. Too gutless to serve, too brainless to lead.

[Billy's bayonet]

I've never been in the military.
As far as the Iraq War was concerned, I find it hard to believe that you are still finding ways to justify it.  Nobody ever denied that Saddam had chemical weapons of some sort at one time.

The arguments made against Iraq were that they posed an existential threat to the National Security of the United States, Israel and the rest of the world.  Iraq was not actively engaged in war at the time. 

I'm against aggression in any form.  But according to our best estimates, our military has killed vastly more middle eastern Muslims than they have killed Americans.  I think the ratio is between 30:1 and 100:1
So the total amount of aggression on either side is not equal.

We can and should respond to terrorist attacks committed against us.  But we need to narrowly target those directly responsible for the attacks.  We should be bringing those people to justice while leaving the rest of the Muslim world alone.We got Osama bin Laden.  We've imprisoned or killed pretty much every home-grown terrorist in the past decade.

What I don't want our military to do is to initiate drone strikes against middle eastern nations.  I don't want us occupying middle eastern nations, or subsidizing puppet governments.  I don't want us interfering in the elections of other countries.

We can adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy and still respond to individual terrorist attacks.  Bringing to justice those who committed violence is not aggression, it is defense.  Terrorist attacks are simply criminal actions and should be treated as such.

I really can't believe how your mind works, is this what passes for intelligent foresight nowadays?

NO WONDER THE ENEMY IS WINNING....AND THEY ARE. I get more into this later but your last statement really shows your ignorance. Terror attacks are NOT criminal acts THEY ARE A FORM OF WARFARE, everything they do from introducing counterfeit $100 bill s into our economy to raising the price of oil per barrel is an act of aggression.

But, Lets begin with the Iraq war....one and two. As I previously pointed out, we could have handled Saddam differently and prevented the first gulf war by fortifying Kuwait against invasion and perhaps supported Saddam's claim about a territorial dispute....BUT NOOOOOOOOOOO it was people like you who encouraged a non interventionist policy or a non military solution believing that if you just let things alone they'll work out fine. It didn't, Saddam invaded Kuwait triggering a response from an outraged world and you know the rest.

LESSON LEARNED.....doing nothing is a sure way to make things worse. I point to CLinton's inaction over Bin Laudin and place it in the same catagory.

As I have also pointed out previously the very worst thing the US could have done was choosing NOT to take out Saddam after we beat his army. We made an enemy FOR LIFE, if it took a thousand years Saddam's X to the power Grandchildren would be an inherited enemy of the USA, just as Salahudin and the western CRUSADERS a millenium ago. That is how those people think. And you, me,  the US Army and The Pope with all the Saints in Heaven can't change it. We would have had to fight Saddam sooner or later, so stratigically, what is the best way to fight him WHEN HE HAS DEVELOPED NUCLEAR , CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS or BEFORE he has perfected or obtained such weapons?

Your main problem, like most American's is that you believe the rest of the world thinks like you do and uses the same logic, I ASSURE YOU THEY DON'T. You speak with an enlightened education based on freedom of information you can access daily in a newspaper, the internet or a TV program and make your own conclusions. Most people in the 3rd world can't afford a newspaper,don't have a TV and some barely have an education, what education they do have is state sponsored and more like propaganda or is approved by some Freak in a Kufi hat and a black robe quoting the Q-uan.

And when these loons fill people with the hate, MISINFORMATION and rancor against the West in General and the US in particular what sort of human product do you think they develop?

I particularly find your statement about the ratio's of Muslim's killed to Americans killed to be almost childlike in its naivety.

THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A WAR, when you start a fight with the Americans, they kill you in the tens of thousands. So don't start any shit with them.....That would be the logical choice, but these people DON'T CARE ABOUT HUMAN LIFE. only when it suits their propaganda, then they love to show children and pregnant women killed by a supposed drone strike. Never mind the fact they themselves kill women and children by the score if it suits their purpose and often with gun buts, clubs, knives, swords or even by stoning to death to save bullets.

Case in point, okay the Americans killed 30 Muslims to one, sure, fine, how many of those Muslims were suicide bombers with "magic belts" that killed themselves and maybe took out a few innocents along with the American soldiers it was intended to? You understand what I'm saying, Dead women and children are all part of their plan, because they KNOW HOW AMERICANS think.....OH, THAT'S TERRIBLE, WE HAVE TO STOP THIS AND END THE AGGRESSION AGAINST THESE POOR PEOPLE. We're killing 100 of them for every American killed....oh my oh my.  In the mean time they are training some 8 year old how to strap on a suicide vest.

That is why I said in previous posts you are buying into the enemies propaganda by believing their lies and their BS and while you may not support terrorism per se you inadvertantly support the position they want you and other American to have. This is a very sophisticated form of psychological warfare they use. Remember part of the strategy of this type of warfare (terrorism/Guerilla warfare) is to use not only the ENEMIES WEAKNESSES BUT ALSO HIS STRENGTH against him. YOU ARE BEING CONDITIONED BY THE ENEMY TO THINK THIS WAY.

While you and I see the Constitution as OUR STRENGTH, they exploit it as a weakness, they particularly use the first amendt, perhaps our greatest strength, to be exploited and spread their propaganda, lies and misdirection. Just look at Al Jazeera, now accessible on cable TV to every American household....what utter fools we are!

Now the last thing I wish to school you on is your ignorance on matters military. In previous posts I think we both agreed that special forces units, backed by the latest technological systems INCLUDING DRONES was the best way to address terrorism and fight battle in the future Vs large conventional armies occupying territory.

Now look at the contradictions you are putting forth, You don't want any intervention in the ME, you don;t want US troops occupying countries, you don;t want US Bases around the world YET YOU WANT ATTACKS AND STRIKES AGAINST TERRORISTS AS INDIVIDUALS when warranted.

How prey tale, would you have the US strike at terror orgs deeply ensconced in some middle east country if not with a drone strike on a high flying stealth bomber using laser guided technology? Would you land boots on the ground to be chopped up in enemy territory causing or loss of life to American soldiers....how stupid and callous. And if  ground operations are the case such troops must have bases from which to respond from. They must have ships and transport systems capable of delivering them and their supplemental equipment and communications and gear. At present, the most efficient form of response are dependant on seaborn and aerial transport from strategically located bases. And the drone program is largely run out of Edwards airforce base in California. I see the day when drone will not be large volkswagen beetle sized explosive missles but rather something like a mechanical bird programed to seek out a certain individual terrorist through facial recognition and deliver a 22 magnum hollow point to his fucking left eyeball. But such technology will cost billions in research and development

.......which brings us back to the original arguement about DOWNSIZING the military. You can't predict the cost of such increasing technology therefore you can't slash military budgets as you wish.

Technological weapons are our greatest asset to date.

[jrodefeld]

The leftist cowardice is strong in this one. Too gutless to serve, too brainless to lead.

Choosing not to join the military because I didn't want to support the War in Iraq constitutes "cowardice" to you?  If I joined the military when I was 18 or 19, I would have been deployed to Iraq.

Anyone who doesn't willingly offer themselves up as cannon-fodder in the Regime's senseless wars of aggression is a coward according to you. 

Suppose we didn't have a draft at the height of the Vietnam War.  Would you have voluntarily enlisted (assuming you were military age at the time) knowing that you'd be deployed in Vietnam?

If you say yes, then you're a damned fool.  Worse than that, your enlisting in the US military constitutes an endorsement of an evil policy.  If US soldiers refuse to comply with immoral orders, then US foreign policy would HAVE to change.

Military-worship absolutely sickens me.  If the United States ever faced a genuine national security threat, I'd be the first one volunteering to defend my family, my neighbors and my property.  But I will never willingly participate in acts of aggression, nor will I be a pawn for in insane military establishment that seeks world empire.

As older folks, ya'll should think long and hard about the sort of wars you want my generation and the generation after me to fight in.  You won't go fight, you'd rather send me and my friends to go die in your insane wars.  I don't agree with these wars, so I won't go and participate in them.

[thumper]

I have given jrodefeld timeout for 6 days.    I hope it will give him time for thinking about all his freedom he has, that other has given their lives for.  Free Speech Comes With A Price.  If you don't protect it you can and will lose it. 

[walkstall]

As older folks, ya'll should think long and hard about the sort of wars you want my generation and the generation after me to fight in.  You won't go fight, you'd rather send me and my friends to go die in your insane wars.  I don't agree with these wars, so I won't go and participate in them.

I am not going to be PC.   

You dumb ass, I would go again but they will not take me at my age.   You just sit in your mothers basement and stay safe until they come for you with a Machete. 

[quiller]

Choosing not to join the military because I didn't want to support the War in Iraq constitutes "cowardice" to you?  If I joined the military when I was 18 or 19, I would have been deployed to Iraq.

And your point, lying puke? I volunteered for the military during Vietnam. And your running away ennobles you HOW to people who love this country and want it properly defended?

Anyone who doesn't willingly offer themselves up as cannon-fodder in the Regime's senseless wars of aggression is a coward according to you. 

Lookin' right atcha, gutless one.

Suppose we didn't have a draft at the height of the Vietnam War.  Would you have voluntarily enlisted (assuming you were military age at the time) knowing that you'd be deployed in Vietnam?

We did have a draft. I ignored it and joined anyway.
[/s]
If you say yes, then you're a damned fool. [/quote]

Yeah, puke, don't EVER contribute, just be a parasite lying piece of shit. It suits you.

Worse than that, your enlisting in the US military constitutes an endorsement of an evil policy.  If US soldiers refuse to comply with immoral orders, then US foreign policy would HAVE to change.

Write Hillary. It's her foreign policy.

Military-worship absolutely sickens me.  If the United States ever faced a genuine national security threat, I'd be the first one volunteering to defend my family, my neighbors and my property.

A bullshit lie from start to finish, based on your yellow belly remarks here.

But I will never willingly participate in acts of aggression, nor will I be a pawn for in insane military establishment that seeks world empire.

If they won't let you kiss them into a peace treaty, then what do you do, Cupcake? Are you THAT stupid to think we can simply negotiate peace?

As older folks, ya'll should think long and hard about the sort of wars you want my generation and the generation after me to fight in.  You won't go fight, you'd rather send me and my friends to go die in your insane wars.  I don't agree with these wars, so I won't go and participate in them.

Leave it to EVERYONE ELSE to keep your gutless self free. I did go fight, clown. (1967-1973.) I willingly participated in the Vietnam war, and extended my service to 6 years because of the opportunities military service gave me.

[quiller]

I am not going to be PC.   

You dumb ass, I would go again but they will not take me at my age.   You just sit in your mothers basement and stay safe until they come for you with a Machete.

[quiller]

I have given jrodefeld timeout for 6 days.    I hope it will give him time for thinking about all his freedom he has, that other has given their lives for.  Free Speech Comes With A Price.  If you don't protect it you can and will lose it.

Belatedly saw this, saving me another epic rant threatening the site's reputation and all probable sense of proportion. Maybe.

[Billy's bayonet]

Choosing not to join the military because I didn't want to support the War in Iraq constitutes "cowardice" to you?  If I joined the military when I was 18 or 19, I would have been deployed to Iraq.

Anyone who doesn't willingly offer themselves up as cannon-fodder in the Regime's senseless wars of aggression is a coward according to you. 

Suppose we didn't have a draft at the height of the Vietnam War.  Would you have voluntarily enlisted (assuming you were military age at the time) knowing that you'd be deployed in Vietnam?

If you say yes, then you're a damned fool.  Worse than that, your enlisting in the US military constitutes an endorsement of an evil policy.  If US soldiers refuse to comply with immoral orders, then US foreign policy would HAVE to change.

Military-worship absolutely sickens me.  If the United States ever faced a genuine national security threat, I'd be the first one volunteering to defend my family, my neighbors and my property.  But I will never willingly participate in acts of aggression, nor will I be a pawn for in insane military establishment that seeks world empire.

As older folks, ya'll should think long and hard about the sort of wars you want my generation and the generation after me to fight in.  You won't go fight, you'd rather send me and my friends to go die in your insane wars.  I don't agree with these wars, so I won't go and participate in them.

I got drafted, I felt I had an OBLIGATION to serve my country in the military not necessarily go fight Vietnamese but do what my country asked of me, be that stationed at a cushy stateside base or wading through elephant grass looking for enemy tunnels.   Unfortunately or fortunately depending on ones point of view, I ended up doing the later and I will tell you, IT DEVELOPED ME AND MADE ME A BETTER PERSON, I PROVED MY METTLE. Just like it did a lot of other 18 Year old JERKS, you see in my day, if you were  Juvenile delinquent and got brought before a judge they would tell you, you got a choice, Go to jail or join the ________  Insert Branch of service. Military service turned some many of those young men around.

And yeah, if I had not been drafted I would have probably joined. Like my Older Brother who was some kind of electronic geek in the Air Force. STATIONED IN IRAN (surprise!) My military service DEFINED ME, otherwise I would have been just some 18 Y/O kid with no money for college education, no job or doing some mundane task that would have bored the hell out of me.

I bless ever day I served in the military even though some of those days were pure hell. Because THAT WHICH WE SURVIVE ONLY MAKES US STRONGER. without it I doubt I would have achieved much because in my shitty little Pa Steel town not long after that the mills began to close and the railroads stopped and all my high school buddies who stayed behind were out of work, laid off, losing their cars, their homes and in some cases their marriages.

And in my day, the early 70's, if you didn't have Military service you were shit, nobody wanted to hire you because all the people who owned the companies were WW2 Vets or Korean War Vets or in some cases had Served in 'Nam' You were part of the club, you proved yourself and here you were with an Honorable discharge and maybe even a few medals on your DD 214. (Discharge papers).

Don't you dare belittle those men or those of us who served and call us fools and dupes, because EVERY VET I ever met has something you probably lack....that's CHARACTER. What I see of your generation by and large is A LACK OF CHARACTER, you can't commit to anything, and nothing is of any value to you other than your gadgets and your insane social media. So don't tell us this bullshit about how your going to be standing on the front lines defending this country or your neighborhood or your home when then heathen hordes come. You don't have the commitment or the discipline when it comes to such as that.

And in short, most of us Old Bastards here would probably agree that we wouldn't want you around anyhow, you wouldn't listen to us and we wouldn't trust you.

[tac]

And in short, most of us Old Bastards here would probably agree that we wouldn't want you around anyhow, you wouldn't listen to us and we wouldn't trust you.

Candidate for friendly fire. Freaking coward. 

[Solar]

Belatedly saw this, saving me another epic rant threatening the site's reputation and all probable sense of proportion. Maybe.

I thought I'd give his post a test and check to see what the testosterone level was regarding content.
No, I was not surprised in the least.

Genre: Formal
  Female = 568
  Male   = 554
  Difference = -14; 49.37%
  Verdict: Weak FEMALE

http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php#Analyze