Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClear)   Pentagon investigating Marines who prevented insurgents from returning as White Walkers   (realclear.com ) divider line
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

13863 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2014 at 5:05 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-01-15 07:06:29 PM  

what_now: Dancin_In_Anson: Eugene Sledge's

Yeah, let's not compare Tarawa with Afghanistan. I get where you're going with this, and I agree, but the Pacific Theater in WWII was worse than you or I can possibly imagine. Probably worse than Ypers.


My uncle was in the USMC, in the Pacific, during WW2. He operated his unit's flame thrower. He took pictures. I've seen them.

So, believe me when I say - you're not wrong
 
2014-01-15 07:13:35 PM  

Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.


Anything to get outraged about.  Everybody's selling something.
 
2014-01-15 07:14:27 PM  

HeWhoHasNoName: NkThrasher: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: If the troops have since left the military, they would have to be ordered back to duty to face charges, which is extremely rare, he added.

"You know what? I'm cool with my desk job, so I'll uh... not come back to duty."

"You know what, Ft Lavenworth sucks at this time of year, and all times of year.  Let me give you a tour of it..."

If they were enlisted or NCOs and have left the IRR, I'm not sure that's even possible.  I'm not a UCMJ expert, though.  If your contract is up and your IRR obligation is up, it's a civilian matter.



NCOs are enlisted.


I vaguely remember a JAG brief I got a decade or so ago where we were told that under certain ridiculous circumstances we could get pulled back even though we were enlisted.  Although that very well could have been a lie and that we'd be charged in civilian court for a military related offence, not put back in uniform.

But even so, it's not as simple as "Nope, not coming back.  Haha, can't charge me!"
 
2014-01-15 07:17:59 PM  
Beware of entrance to a quarrel,
But being in it,
Bear it,
That the oppos'd
May beware of thee
 
2014-01-15 07:19:47 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Those were bombs dropped from air campaigns in cities that were not occupied. Totally different from trying to occupy a city and keep it's citizens from rebelling against you.

Yes, and?


You're not advocating the killing of non-combatants i.e. women, children, babies in a war zone on the basis of efficient war making.  Right?
 
2014-01-15 07:21:16 PM  

Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.


I think the idea behind this policy is to avoid offending the surviving members of the group that we're killing.
 
2014-01-15 07:29:23 PM  
I'm having a hard time believing this. US soldiers are heroes and saints; they would never do anything bad. And if they did, well it's not their fault anyways because they wouldnt have done it if those brown people didnt put them in those positions. Why did brown people make our soldiers commit war crimes? Leave our heroes ALONE.
 
2014-01-15 07:33:50 PM  
the only thing I gotta say about any of this is that a couple of years ago I had an apprentice come through the brewery for a couple of months.

young guy, vet, he had used his bonus money to put himself through brewing school..

smart, nice guy.. eager and capable worker despite all the gruelling shiat work that apprentices tend to get.

He was also a fairly quite with a slight smell of hauntedness about him.. I asked him what he had done while in country, as in duties,. jobs what have you .

he simply said, : "I was a sharpshooter in Fallujah".

I left it at that.
 
2014-01-15 07:35:49 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: what_now: Gonz: I'm just saying that sometimes, in combat, there aren't a whole lot of good answers available.

I am absolutely sure that is accurate.


As much as I'd like to point and say, "See! B-b-but Bush endorsed this!", I cna't turn this into a partisan thing. If I were in a desert, surrounded by people who may or may not want to kill me, after witnessing the death of friends and fellow soldiers...not sure I'd be one of the guys following the rules. And I would feel totally justified in my actions.


Even though you volunteered to be there?
 
2014-01-15 07:35:57 PM  
So they burned the bodies of the same people who like to throw acid in the faces of little girls. And I am supposed to care, why?
 
2014-01-15 07:36:03 PM  

what_now: mark12A: Had I been running the Iraq war, I would have leveled any town or neighborhood that an IED went off in. I don't care if the locals were responsible or not. But they would have been HIGHLY motivated to prevent ANYBODY from implanting IEDs in their area from then on. Had this been done, there would have been no IED campaign, and approximately 6000 of the finest people our society produces would still be alive. Don't send our guys into war unless you mean to win it. This "Winning hearts and minds" crap is pure BS.

Yeah, the Nazis did that against the Italian Partisans and the French Resistance. It didn't work. It's never worked, it never will work.

I know how easy it is to ITG from your fuzzy blanket and Cheeto stained laptop, but read some farking history before spouting off about how  you would have won an unwinable war, mkay?


The Romans disagree with you. In fact, most of history disagrees with you. Naked savagery and brutality work extremely well, and if you have to go kill everyone, then do so, because this isn't a fantasy world where corpses get back up. The dead will not oppose you.

Mind you, I don't endorse that position, but you are absolutely wrong with your assertion.
 
2014-01-15 07:37:10 PM  

gas giant: Well done America, well done!


I see what you did there.

www.smokegrillbbq.com
 
2014-01-15 07:37:27 PM  
Too many too quote...
Those rioting locals just to your body count.
In WWII & Vietnam We did do much worse, resulting in coining the phrase a "Screaming Alpha" at least these jarheads waited until they were dead before lighting them up.
Moral of the story, when you may be committing terrible acts that may be construed as war crimes, DON'T TAKE PICTURES
 
2014-01-15 07:42:17 PM  

Carousel Beast: what_now: mark12A: Had I been running the Iraq war, I would have leveled any town or neighborhood that an IED went off in. I don't care if the locals were responsible or not. But they would have been HIGHLY motivated to prevent ANYBODY from implanting IEDs in their area from then on. Had this been done, there would have been no IED campaign, and approximately 6000 of the finest people our society produces would still be alive. Don't send our guys into war unless you mean to win it. This "Winning hearts and minds" crap is pure BS.

Yeah, the Nazis did that against the Italian Partisans and the French Resistance. It didn't work. It's never worked, it never will work.

I know how easy it is to ITG from your fuzzy blanket and Cheeto stained laptop, but read some farking history before spouting off about how  you would have won an unwinable war, mkay?

The Romans disagree with you. In fact, most of history disagrees with you. Naked savagery and brutality work extremely well, and if you have to go kill everyone, then do so, because this isn't a fantasy world where corpses get back up. The dead will not oppose you.

Mind you, I don't endorse that position, but you are absolutely wrong with your assertion.


Native Americans don't seem to be stealing our cattle or raiding our settlements lately.
 
2014-01-15 07:42:58 PM  

mark12A: Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.

Napalm the rioting locals. Yet another reason we farked up this war. You want to win wars? Do what we did in WWII. Beat them into total, abject, bloody submission. We did not do that to Iraq, hence this bullshiat. Leave our warriors alone. They did NOT decide to go there. They were sent. By us. Go after the idiots who sent them there then told them to play nice.


Pretty spot on if you ask me. If we are going to fight wars do it all out. We have to subjugate the population to get a total victory, take the will to fight out of the population and or the will to support the fight and then we can build from there, look how well it worked for us with Japan and Germany.
 
2014-01-15 07:50:51 PM  

Robin Hoodie: here's the thing, even if the marines had a reason to dispose of the bodies, they shouldn't have been taking pictures like these. you kind of fark up the "things are so terrible that we need to burn the bodies" excuse when you pose with the corpses


They're Americans. Americans have posted photos of themselves shiatting on the sidewalk before. Just to prove they were there, like when Oriental tourists hand you their cameras on front of the Lincoln idol.
 
2014-01-15 07:51:17 PM  

big pig peaches: So they burned the bodies of the same people who like to throw acid in the faces of little girls. And I am supposed to care, why?


Because we *claim* to be better than that. THAT'S why. Are people so obtuse not to understand this concept?

/I know. Stupid question is stupid.
 
2014-01-15 07:56:31 PM  

WTFDYW: big pig peaches: So they burned the bodies of the same people who like to throw acid in the faces of little girls. And I am supposed to care, why?

Because we *claim* to be better than that. THAT'S why. Are people so obtuse not to understand this concept?

/I know. Stupid question is stupid.


Not only that, but it can make others in the area mad and violent, people who might have otherwise not given two shiats.
 
2014-01-15 08:01:00 PM  

dropdfun: mark12A: Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.

Napalm the rioting locals. Yet another reason we farked up this war. You want to win wars? Do what we did in WWII. Beat them into total, abject, bloody submission. We did not do that to Iraq, hence this bullshiat. Leave our warriors alone. They did NOT decide to go there. They were sent. By us. Go after the idiots who sent them there then told them to play nice.

Pretty spot on if you ask me. If we are going to fight wars do it all out. We have to subjugate the population to get a total victory, take the will to fight out of the population and or the will to support the fight and then we can build from there, look how well it worked for us with Japan and Germany.


Against religious fanatics with a mix of nationalism? You'll sooner run out of bullets.
 
2014-01-15 08:02:32 PM  

WTFDYW: big pig peaches: So they burned the bodies of the same people who like to throw acid in the faces of little girls. And I am supposed to care, why?

Because we *claim* to be better than that. THAT'S why. Are people so obtuse not to understand this concept?

/I know. Stupid question is stupid.



We are better.  After all these were corpses and not captured soldiers who were doused fuel and burned still alive.  Frankly, what happens to a corpse shouldn't be a huge concern regardless of individuals personal feelings.  You want to handle a body in the manner your religion prescribes, then don't lose the battle and you can manage the battlefield recovery efforts. That's not to say what happened wasn't bad, but this is more along the lines of running a stop sign level of misconduct that is a slap on the wrist and move on.  Anyone expending time and effort to try and severely punish these soldier for conduct that happened in a major battle to a couple of biohazard objects nearly 10 years after the fact has some seriously misplaced priorities.
 
2014-01-15 08:03:08 PM  

Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.


Well, intentionally desecrating bodies is a war crime.  Cremation's usually fine, since it's how all civilized cultures dispose of their dead and is generally motivated by hygenic rather than religious concerns.

They'd only be in trouble if someone could prove that they cremated the bodies  because they were from a muslim sect that requires burial.  If they can't prove the second point beyond a reasonable doubt, this falls under "shiat happens, we'd rather take a boot from Allah in the next world than start a plague in this one".

//There's also a policy violation, but they'd have to actually call these people back to service to enforce it, and with the photos being from 2004 that might not even be legally possible since their 10-year contract might be up.
 
2014-01-15 08:13:18 PM  

The One True TheDavid: How about instead we find people who are in good physical, mental & genetic shape and give them special treatment in peacetime so they can reproduce and rear offspring effectively? You know, turn the whole paradigm around. Give the genetic winners and their families whatever help they need to produce & rear 3 or 4 exemplary kids.

And the flip side of that: "Sorry son, but we don't let healthy people under 25 join the Marines unless they can prove their genes are broken.The armed forces are a way to make use of slightly defective citizens, not to splatter America's future all over Kandahar."


There's a recent short story that explored a dystopian alternate history in which World War III is raging on, and the U.S. has done more or less exactly that.  If your sperm count was too low, you were pretty much guaranteed to die on some radioactive battlefield.  If you had a high sperm count and showed a proper respect for women (by 1950's standards), you could have up to three wives, although you'd have to share each wife with two other husbands on a rotating schedule.

I think it was titled "Fade to White", but I don't remember the name of the author.  It was nominated for a Hugo Award last year but didn't win.
 
2014-01-15 08:17:06 PM  

rattchett: Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Those were bombs dropped from air campaigns in cities that were not occupied. Totally different from trying to occupy a city and keep it's citizens from rebelling against you.

Yes, and?

You're not advocating the killing of non-combatants i.e. women, children, babies in a war zone on the basis of efficient war making.  Right?


That's how wars are decisively finished. After the US+UK burned Dresden and the Soviets leveled Berlin WW2 in Europe was sho nuff over and the Allies sho nuff won. It took 45 years for Germany to fully recover after that. You've got to slaughter a large fraction of the enemy's population base, make living there damn near impossible, and destroy the survivors' will to resist or even hold their heads up.

If you're all about respecting human rights you don't start wounding, maiming and killing people. They're mutually exclusive.

First you beat them down so hard they'll be mentally, socially & economically crippled for 2 or 3 generations, then you send in the NGOs to address their hearts & minds. Being all namby-pamby is just a stupid & immoral waste.
 
2014-01-15 08:20:57 PM  

Jim_Callahan: They'd only be in trouble if someone could prove that they cremated the bodies because they were from a muslim sect that requires burial.


Intent follows the crime. Proving intent here might be a bit hard to do considering the decomposed nature of the corpses and the known health hazards they they presented to the living. Cremation may be a crime against the Muslim religion however the U.S. military is not bound to those laws nor should they be. They violate religious practices for their own people all of the time when those practices get in the way of the mission at hand. Sure they try to respect them whenever possible but just like not holding Sunday services in the middle of an ongoing battle they will be ignored when expediency dictates it.

The other side did much worse or have we forgotten the desecration of bodies and hanging burned corpses from bridges so soon? Compare that to burning rotting corpses for health reasons and we are friggin' saints.
 
2014-01-15 08:29:08 PM  
friggin' saints
i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2014-01-15 08:34:26 PM  

Fallout Boy: dropdfun: mark12A: Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.

Napalm the rioting locals. Yet another reason we farked up this war. You want to win wars? Do what we did in WWII. Beat them into total, abject, bloody submission. We did not do that to Iraq, hence this bullshiat. Leave our warriors alone. They did NOT decide to go there. They were sent. By us. Go after the idiots who sent them there then told them to play nice.

Pretty spot on if you ask me. If we are going to fight wars do it all out. We have to subjugate the population to get a total victory, take the will to fight out of the population and or the will to support the fight and then we can build from there, look how well it worked for us with Japan and Germany.

Against religious fanatics with a mix of nationalism? You'll sooner run out of bullets.


I'd say Japan fit the bill for both those requirements, took firebombing and two nukes for good measure but worked out in the end.
 
2014-01-15 08:37:15 PM  

Daedalus27: We are better.


Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.
 
2014-01-15 08:39:56 PM  

Omahawg: friggin' saints
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x510]


Did you notice where I was comparing desecration of bodies? The people behind Abu Ghraib were prosecuted and punished for what they did. But if you want to go there then remember the name of Ron Pearlman and how his head was sawed off with a dull knife as he pled for mercy and how the video of it was released. Compare that to Abu Ghraib then yes, still saints. Especially seeing as we condemned the actions in that image above  and the terrorists celebrated the action in Pearlmans video.
 
2014-01-15 08:42:10 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.


Welcome to the history of war. To paraphrase Patton "Our duty is not to die for our country but to make the other bastards die for theirs".
 
2014-01-15 08:43:02 PM  

The One True TheDavid: rattchett: Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Those were bombs dropped from air campaigns in cities that were not occupied. Totally different from trying to occupy a city and keep it's citizens from rebelling against you.

Yes, and?

You're not advocating the killing of non-combatants i.e. women, children, babies in a war zone on the basis of efficient war making.  Right?

That's how wars are decisively finished. After the US+UK burned Dresden and the Soviets leveled Berlin WW2 in Europe was sho nuff over and the Allies sho nuff won. It took 45 years for Germany to fully recover after that. You've got to slaughter a large fraction of the enemy's population base, make living there damn near impossible, and destroy the survivors' will to resist or even hold their heads up.

If you're all about respecting human rights you don't start wounding, maiming and killing people. They're mutually exclusive.

First you beat them down so hard they'll be mentally, socially & economically crippled for 2 or 3 generations, then you send in the NGOs to address their hearts & minds. Being all namby-pamby is just a stupid & immoral waste.


Pure falsehood. WWII was won with the destruction of industrial facilities and armies. The large civilian casualties were the result of an era before high precision strikes, and the purposeful killing of civilians was never the main intention (and it wasnt even in significant amounts to make a difference); even Dresden and the two nuked cities were chosen because they were major industrial centres. Total war works when you are fighting nation states who will capitulate when their factories and armies are destroyed, but it doesnt work against terrorism and guys with AKs and bombs in civilian clothing.
 
2014-01-15 08:43:52 PM  
Radioactive Ass

But if you want to go there then remember the name of Ron Pearlman and how his head was sawed off with a dull knife as he pled for mercy and how the video of it was released.

I laughed so hard I kinda got a stitch.
 
2014-01-15 08:47:43 PM  

Daedalus27: We are better.  After all these were corpses and not captured soldiers who were doused fuel and burned still alive.  Frankly, what happens to a corpse shouldn't be a huge concern regardless of individuals personal feelings.  You want to handle a body in the manner your religion prescribes, then don't lose the battle and you can manage the battlefield recovery efforts.


Keep your religion out of my war. This is about oil!
 
2014-01-15 08:48:51 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Omahawg: friggin' saints
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x510]

Did you notice where I was comparing desecration of bodies? The people behind Abu Ghraib were prosecuted and punished for what they did. But if you want to go there then remember the name of Ron Pearlman and how his head was sawed off with a dull knife as he pled for mercy and how the video of it was released. Compare that to Abu Ghraib then yes, still saints. Especially seeing as we condemned the actions in that image above  and the terrorists celebrated the action in Pearlmans video.


how about war is just bad and turns everyone on all sides into evil murderers because that is what you do in war? what was that old line about colonel kurtz and handing out speeding tickets at the indy 500? I don't remember. still, the colorado militia under chivington decorated their saddles with the vaginas cut out of cheyenne women so you know......war is just bad and makes otherwise normal people do very bad things.

I'll say it again: war is just bad, folks.
 
2014-01-15 08:48:55 PM  

The One True TheDavid: rattchett: Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Those were bombs dropped from air campaigns in cities that were not occupied. Totally different from trying to occupy a city and keep it's citizens from rebelling against you.

Yes, and?

You're not advocating the killing of non-combatants i.e. women, children, babies in a war zone on the basis of efficient war making.  Right?

That's how wars are decisively finished. After the US+UK burned Dresden and the Soviets leveled Berlin WW2 in Europe was sho nuff over and the Allies sho nuff won. It took 45 years for Germany to fully recover after that. You've got to slaughter a large fraction of the enemy's population base, make living there damn near impossible, and destroy the survivors' will to resist or even hold their heads up.

If you're all about respecting human rights you don't start wounding, maiming and killing people. They're mutually exclusive.

First you beat them down so hard they'll be mentally, socially & economically crippled for 2 or 3 generations, then you send in the NGOs to address their hearts & minds. Being all namby-pamby is just a stupid & immoral waste.


Intentionally targeting non-combatants is  not moral and it is not efficient.  The bombing of Dresden or Tokyo did not win WWII.  The Germans lost because their armies were ground up and the resources were expended, not because their population was brutalized.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly won the war in the Pacific- but we cannot nuke every enemy.  There are many of examples of brutality that did not win the war - Stalingrad, the Japanese atrocities in China, the bombing campaign against Germany or Britain.

Where do you draw the line?  Was Mai Lai an avoidance of namby-pamby thinking?  Was it intelligent and moral?  I think you're factually wrong and it is not because I am soft.  It is because I believe that morality has to be sought, even in war.
 
2014-01-15 08:50:20 PM  

mark12A: But what is disgusting is the attitude that some people have that because the Taliban desecrated American soldier's bodies it is all right for American's to do it to them. That attitude is just wrong because we are supposed to take the moral high ground and not stoop to their level.

You poor snowflakes know little of what went on in WWII, culminating in the nuclear strikes on Japan. We were brutal. And it got results. Ultimately saved more lives than it took.

Had I been running the Iraq war, I would have leveled any town or neighborhood that an IED went off in. I don't care if the locals were responsible or not. But they would have been HIGHLY motivated to prevent ANYBODY from implanting IEDs in their area from then on. Had this been done, there would have been no IED campaign, and approximately 6000 of the finest people our society produces would still be alive. Don't send our guys into war unless you mean to win it. This "Winning hearts and minds" crap is pure BS.


And when the entire northern hemisphere predictably teamed up to smash  us into submission, it would have been totally justified, since, in your scenario, we would have begun a war illegally and conducted war with a strategy consisting of 'war crimes FTW!'.

/Protip: We are not the only nation on Earth with an army
//Even if you can't fathom the moral reasons for playing nice, that's a nice concrete one.
 
2014-01-15 08:52:37 PM  

dropdfun: Fallout Boy: dropdfun: mark12A: Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.

Napalm the rioting locals. Yet another reason we farked up this war. You want to win wars? Do what we did in WWII. Beat them into total, abject, bloody submission. We did not do that to Iraq, hence this bullshiat. Leave our warriors alone. They did NOT decide to go there. They were sent. By us. Go after the idiots who sent them there then told them to play nice.

Pretty spot on if you ask me. If we are going to fight wars do it all out. We have to subjugate the population to get a total victory, take the will to fight out of the population and or the will to support the fight and then we can build from there, look how well it worked for us with Japan and Germany.

Against religious fanatics with a mix of nationalism? You'll sooner run out of bullets.

I'd say Japan fit the bill for both those requirements, took firebombing and two nukes for good measure but worked out in the end.


Against a Middle East brand of religious fanatics and nationalism? The Soviets tried it, the British tried it. And why is it that people always equate fighting nation states with fighting terrorist and guerilla organizations? You drop a nuke on Japan or occupy it with troops, it surrenders. You drop a nuke in Afghanistan or occupy it with troops, and millions will line up to strap bombs across their chests.
 
2014-01-15 08:54:58 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.


Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.
 
2014-01-15 09:05:15 PM  

Molavian: The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.

Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.


If you ever want to actually win a war, excessive brutality is NOT the way to go. Because then you just end up with a perpetual underground resistance, and the rest of the world might just turn on you. And no matter what the tiny-dicked Republican armchair generals might think, even America can't take on the entire world and win.
 
2014-01-15 09:06:05 PM  
This story must be a joke!
 
2014-01-15 09:23:43 PM  

LordJiro: Molavian: The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.

Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.

If you ever want to actually win a war, excessive brutality is NOT the way to go. Because then you just end up with a perpetual underground resistance, and the rest of the world might just turn on you. And no matter what the tiny-dicked Republican armchair generals might think, even America can't take on the entire world and win.


Crack open some history books and tell me how excessive brutality in war doesn't work.
 
2014-01-15 09:33:21 PM  

Molavian: LordJiro: Molavian: The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.

Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.

If you ever want to actually win a war, excessive brutality is NOT the way to go. Because then you just end up with a perpetual underground resistance, and the rest of the world might just turn on you. And no matter what the tiny-dicked Republican armchair generals might think, even America can't take on the entire world and win.

Crack open some history books and tell me how excessive brutality in war doesn't work.


Yep. Sure worked for the Japanese and Germans
 
2014-01-15 09:42:04 PM  
I keep waiting to hear some news channel talk about the fact that we still have an American P.O.W. there.

It doesn't appear that he is even getting enough to eat.

I guess we are ok with that.

we must be, since they wont talk about it.
 
2014-01-15 09:43:51 PM  
A_Glass_Of_Pink

CNN ran a story about it today.
 
2014-01-15 09:43:53 PM  

ongbok: Molavian: LordJiro: Molavian: The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.

Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.

If you ever want to actually win a war, excessive brutality is NOT the way to go. Because then you just end up with a perpetual underground resistance, and the rest of the world might just turn on you. And no matter what the tiny-dicked Republican armchair generals might think, even America can't take on the entire world and win.

Crack open some history books and tell me how excessive brutality in war doesn't work.

Yep. Sure worked for the Japanese and Germans


I thought that was more due to the fact that they didn't have enough minerals and gas.
 
2014-01-15 09:52:26 PM  

ongbok: Molavian: LordJiro: Molavian: The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.

Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.

If you ever want to actually win a war, excessive brutality is NOT the way to go. Because then you just end up with a perpetual underground resistance, and the rest of the world might just turn on you. And no matter what the tiny-dicked Republican armchair generals might think, even America can't take on the entire world and win.

Crack open some history books and tell me how excessive brutality in war doesn't work.

Yep. Sure worked for the Japanese and Germans


Worked for Genghis Khan. Submit and here's what we can trade. Fight back and you all die. Whether or not brutality works in terms of winning wars depends on the strength of the aggressor and the perceived chance that you can in any way defend yourselves against them. Germany and Japan were barbarous for sure, but they left most people alive. Had Germany simply executed the entire population of France and kicked their bodies into the Loire, a lot of countries would have probably surrendered outright rather than fight back. It's the reason why the Empire wanted a Death Star to make the other systems fall in line.
 
2014-01-15 09:59:07 PM  

Molavian: LordJiro: Molavian: The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.

Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.

If you ever want to actually win a war, excessive brutality is NOT the way to go. Because then you just end up with a perpetual underground resistance, and the rest of the world might just turn on you. And no matter what the tiny-dicked Republican armchair generals might think, even America can't take on the entire world and win.

Crack open some history books and tell me how excessive brutality in war doesn't work.


And how many of those excessively-brutal civilizations/regimes are around today? Oh, they all got their shiat kicked in when the world got sick of them? Funny, that.
 
2014-01-15 10:01:23 PM  

Shostie: I don't know if the White Walkers could survive in a desert environment like that.


Wouldn't they be Brown Walkers?
 
2014-01-15 10:06:21 PM  
I'm the with the people saying you can't really blame the children you send over there for acting crazy when their friends are being killed around them.
 
2014-01-15 10:24:02 PM  

what_now: Gonz: "If authentic, the photos show service members violating the military code that requires them to handle the remains of fallen Muslim insurgents in strict accordance with Islamic custom."

You know, I'm having a hard time getting too outraged over this. "It's OK to kill 'em, but don't cremate them" seems like splitting hairs.

Treating the corpses with respect keeps the locals from turning on the troops. This rule isn't because we hold the dead in respect, it's to protect the military from rioting locals.


That battle was already lost ten years ago (NSFW).
 
2014-01-15 10:28:06 PM  

LordJiro: Molavian: LordJiro: Molavian: The My Little Pony Killer: Daedalus27: We are better.

Then we should act as such and stop saying "but they do it first/worst/different than us" whenever we're called out on doing wrong.

Doing wrong?  Like breaking the rules?  It's not a game.

If you ever want to actually win a war, excessive brutality is NOT the way to go. Because then you just end up with a perpetual underground resistance, and the rest of the world might just turn on you. And no matter what the tiny-dicked Republican armchair generals might think, even America can't take on the entire world and win.

Crack open some history books and tell me how excessive brutality in war doesn't work.

And how many of those excessively-brutal civilizations/regimes are around today? Oh, they all got their shiat kicked in when the world got sick of them? Funny, that.


You do realize that the United States is one of the oldest governments in existence, right?
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report