- dos poptarts PIE'd this
party_animalMember Since 02 Mar 2009
- Group SUPPORTER
- Active Posts 342
- Profile Views 8,022
- Member Title Big Member
- Age 30 years old
- Birthday October 16, 1984
Virginia Beach, VA
Favorite NFL Team
Most hated NFL Team
What you should know
Work causes me to not be as active on these boards as I have been in the past.
party_animal hasn't added any friends yet.
Posted by party_animal on 12 March 2015 - 05:10 PM
Posted by party_animal on 11 February 2015 - 02:51 PM
I would be careful going too far in this thread guys. It's not inconceivable there is someone who knew them posting here. Nobody has gone too far yet but as a reminder keep this respectful and don't let your world views/political leaning could the fact this is a fresh wound for some.
Whatever the cause of this is, it's wrong. Terrible situation.
Posted by party_animal on 02 February 2015 - 01:02 PM
Do you not see the problem with these statements? The fact that the military is so ever-present in regards to our national identity is a tragedy, and it isn't a tragedy that will ever be overcome if we don't start changing the way we see war and our foreign policy. To think that, in this supposed greatest nation, the looming threat of being conscripted into anything against our own free will is actually forcing someone into making a decision, is ultimately the same thing as conscription. I'm sorry, but I would love to see the statistics of those so noble that they enlist so that "someone else doesn't have to." There may be a couple here and there, but that sounds like a load of bologna to me. There doesn't have to be any military, but greed and human nature calls for them.
Here your taking one part of my and running with it. You missed the point. Let me explain it more clearly. People join for a myriad of reasons. But, the fact that they join prevents you from being potentially drafted. Military will exist regardless of how they get their troops, just as you said. You basically just responded here blindly because of a perceived slight of GGD.
You are attacking (or at least "losing respect for") someone based on their opinions of foreign policy and their views on those who enact the will of others, regardless of how "law of the land" you see that will. You see it as being professional, and others see it as blind allegiance.
And there it is again. A perceived slight. Go back and reread some these posts. If me choosing to end a conversation with someone because they choose to be disrespectful is an attack to you ...
No attempt to guilt. I said exactly why I felt it was heroic but, at this point anything I say you're going to misrepresent or belittle. You definitely missed the point there. At this point I think your issue and reason for posting has more to do with my political preferences more than the content of my posts.
But stop trying to guilt people into believing how becoming a soldier is an honorable choice made to protect them. That is just a flat out lie.
- Chimera PIE'd this
Posted by party_animal on 02 February 2015 - 10:18 AM
You chose the life. It isn't anyone else's fault... unless you financially had no other option than to sign up to fight someone else's wars. Then maybe we could look at what parts of capitalism are to blame, but I digress... Ultimately, soldiers make the decision to do what they do, and then somehow expect a blind support/allegiance to the common cause. If they don't get that support, then you have the rage posts like above about how "you don't understand because..."
I still don't get how becoming a soldier is so courageous, and anyone that questions that is a coward.
I'm really bothered by the black/white mentality of several people here. Then again, I kind of understand it because I came from a similar line of thinking. The difference is, I actually have a lot of life experience now which has changed my perception. But, make no mistake about it I was once a liberal young idealist fresh out of art school that thought I could tell people the way of the world from my the comfort of my own couch.
That being said, it's courageous to serve because they didn't have to sign up for service. They chose to sign away years of their lives so that other people don't have to be conscripted into service. One way or another there would be a U.S. military. Don't ever forget that fact. Nobody says you don't have the right to voice your opinion or that your opinion makes you a coward. There are plenty of other personality flaws people could find deep down inside somewhere to pick you apart and define you as a coward if they really wanted to. Hell, just look at the title of this thread for proof.
My post particularly noted how it's easy for him to point to what he thinks is the right decision without having to face any of the consquences himself. He advocates turning your back on an oath taken to defend the constitution, to obey the officers appointed over you, and to defend against enemies foreign and domestic.
That doesnt mean everyone is a robot. It doesn't mean everyone agrees with whats happening. Different people have their own way of rationalizing what goes on, dealing with what they've seen, or expressing their opinions. The only difference is regardless of how you feel you still are bound by military law to do what you're ordered to do. It's part of that whole oath thing described above. You have to seperate personal feelings from your professional duties. I get it, not everyone is capable of doing that. Again, people signed up to do this so that other people don't have to be conscripted into service.
I have been to a lot of places I personally would have never chosen to visit. Who in their right mind would want to visit war-torn third world countries who hate Americans? Outside of it being what I have to do legally and as a professional, the reason I do this is because I want to protect the people I serve with. I have never once asked for any of you to thank me for a damn thing. I never will. I appreciate when people do support what we do. But, I don't expect it nor do I demand it. I just go about my normal business.
The only reason I have mentioned it in this thread is because, someone like GGD is going a little out on the deep end with his point. If that's how he feels, whatever. I am just choosing to end the discussion.
- cookinwithgas PIE'd this
Posted by party_animal on 23 January 2015 - 02:44 PM
Preemptively I will state I was never a proponent of the Iraq war but, I do get tired of the captain hindsight nature of most of the people on this forum. You missed his point. He talks about protecting his brothers. My job in the military directly involves keeping service members alive. It's called force protection. Regardless of why we are there, we are there. You never want to see your friends and brothers killed in action. So, you do what's within your legal rights as a lawful combatant to do so.
“Savage, despicable evil,” writes Kyle. “That’s what we were fighting in Iraq…. People ask me all the time, `How many people have you killed?’... The number is not important to me. I only wish I had killed more. Not for bragging rights, but because I believe the world is a better place without savages out there taking American lives.”
None of the American military personnel whose lives were wasted in Iraq had to die there, because none of them had any legitimate reason to be there. From Kyle’s perspective, however, only incorrigibly “evil” people would object once their country had been designated the target of one of Washington’s frequent outbursts of murderous humanitarianism.
This is misleading. If you honestly think they were helpless and innocent, you're wrong.
After returning from his first combat tour in Iraq, Kyle recalls, he was rudely roused from slumber one morning when the burglar alarm went off. Although this was a malfunction rather than a real emergency, Kyle’s reaction was revealing.
“I grabbed my pistol and went to confront the criminal,” he recalls. “No son of a bitch was breaking into my house and living to tell about it.”
Why was it “evil” for Iraqis to feel exactly the same way about the foreign sons of bitches who broke into their country and wrecked the place?
Later in the book, describing a stalking exercise during his training to become a sniper, Kyle recounts how he “heard the distinct rattle of a snake nearby.”
“A rattler had taken a particular liking to the piece of real estate I had to cross,” Kyle recalls. “Willing it away didn’t work…. I crept slowly to the side, altering my course. Some enemies aren’t worth fighting.”
Exactly: The only enemies worth “fighting,” apparently, are those who aren’t capable of hurting you when you trespass on their turf.
I really think it speaks more to the whole conflict. But again, the military didn't decide to go to Iraq. We were told.
The circumstances in those two times are drastically different. In the beginning it was conventional conflict. He even states at the end of the passage you quote it wasn't literal.
“They may have been cowards, but they could certainly kill people,” observes Kyle of the guerrillas. “The insurgents didn’t worry about ROEs [Rules of Engagement] or court-martials [sic]. If they had the advantage, they would kill any Westerner they could find, whether they were soldiers or not.”
If that charge (made on page 87 of Kyle’s book) is accurate, it might reflect the fact that the Iraqi resistance (as well as the tactics of foreign guerrillas who joined the fight) was playing according to ground rules established by the U.S. early in the war.
On page 79, Kyle describes the Rules of Engagement that his unit followed when they were deployed to Shatt al-Arab, a river on the Iraq-Iran border: “Our ROEs when the war kicked off were pretty simple: If you see anyone from about sixteen to sixty-five and they’re male, shoot ‘em. Kill every male you see. That wasn’t the official language, but that was the idea.”
Through the years though the objective changed and our ROE changed. The ROE made force protection much harder. That's life though. The only issue I every had with restrictive ROEs was when it became required to allow locals to break into or convoys.
That being said we never beheaded journalists, kidnapped NGO employees, or threw acid on western women working for NGOs. That's one of the things he hints towards as well. Some one will bring up drones again as a rebuttal. Whatever. I don't fault you guys for what you read in the media, I fault you for a lack of critical thinking skills. It's literally like liberal robots here. Canned responses based off people who make up their mind before hearing the full argument.
Thin line between courage and stupidity. I am unfamiliar with this operation. But, it reads like VBSS. Having done VBSS before, I can tell you we try to make it clear as day we don't intend to threaten people. I never had someone on a ship rush me, but he would have met the same fate. I would also think he is stupid. We would not be there to threaten him and now because he just elevated the threat and everyone is going in handcuffs. No free meals, courtesy of you taxpayers, for them. His sudden rush of "courage" hurts himself and his friends.
“He made a run at me,” Kyle continues. “Pretty stupid. First of all, I’m not only bigger than him, but I was wearing full body armor. Not to mention the fact that I had a submachine gun in my hand. I took the muzzle of my gun and struck the idiot in the chest. He went right down.”
If Kyle had been a warrior, rather than a bully, he would have admired the authentic courage displayed by the smaller, unarmed man who fought to protect the ship and cargo entrusted to him.
Again. Force protection.
You're such a troll. If you can't distinguish between the actions of groups like LH, KH, DAESH, AQAP, AS, AQIM, etc. I have nothing for you. Chris Kyle is a hero because he saved lives. Go tell the family members of the people he saved me is no hero. Go tell the wounded vets he worked with after leaving the military he is no hero. Let me know how that turns out.
Good news! It was government sanctioned, so it isn't terrorism.
He is a SEAL. He writes like SEAL. Go read some of the other books from SEALs. They're similar. Their POV is also very tainted. People dehumanize their enemy to cope. I see if all the time.
Posted by party_animal on 18 January 2015 - 06:57 AM
Saw it last night with my dad... Enjoyed it.
It did feel a bit rushed at times telling his story. I didn't personally like the fact that Kyle referred to Iraqis as savages, but it did a good job of portraying the horror of war and the effects it can have on people.
At the end the theater was utterly silent which was the first time I've ever experienced that.
Dehumanizing the enemy is a common coping mechanism for service members.
The movie is good. It took a far different tone than I expected.
- Jackofalltrades PIE'd this
Posted by party_animal on 13 November 2014 - 02:12 PM
Your experience does not equate to everyone's experience. You can say that because it was what YOU saw. You also aren't having into account why things like that have to be done. If every time I heard a specialist, third class, private, or airman cry about this...
Its the faux 'appreciation' for the Military and 'all they do' that keeps the country in these warzones in the Middle East and elsewhere. Most people in the Military clean bathrooms all day, and I can say that because I lived it.
Don't try to undervalue what prior do because you got asked to clean a latrine or head, spending upon service. You know there's more to it than that, your just being unnecessarily bitter and childish.
There is nothing admirable about serving in any capacity in todays Military, but the majority of Americans are ignorant to that fact. Our Military has fought for freedom a grand total of 3 times. 1776, 1865, and in the 40's, and even that is questionable. Everything else has been a fought in order to secure profits, or for positioning for geopolitical reasons.
I did however enjoy those free chicken tenders the other day.
Again, your opinion. I am not going to judge your service or venture to for on how long you served. Your view is very narrow minded and self centered. That's it.
I have seen people on here rent and it being a volunteer service as if it somehow takes away from their service. But at the end of the day, regardless of they reasoning they decided to join a force that can be called upon at any time to defend or homeland from enemies both foreign and domestic. And that's a fact. Just because you don't agree with what goes on in Iraq or Afghanistan doesn't somehow diminish service. They still volunteered for whatever and a lot of people did it honorably. Yes we have things like sexual assault that go on in or services. Guys what, we're a small cross section of our entire society. That small percentage of idiots, doesn't somehow overshadow the majority or devalue veterans day at all.
Days like memorial day and veterans day hold a special place in my heart. It reminds me of people who never came home and their families, their children who will grow up without their father. That is sacrifice. Not necessarily agreeing with what you do but, just doing your job anyway so that your friends and teammates come home safe. Because it damn sure sticks when they don't.
Posted by party_animal on 12 November 2014 - 10:42 PM
Posted by party_animal on 11 September 2014 - 06:21 PM
Oh snap. Good one. I guess you really hurt my feelings.
No, I'm just being smarter than you and most people, as usual.
Seriously, your ignorance in that post speaks volumes to your intelligence. Or in this case, lack thereof.
- Kuhndog94 PIE'd this
Posted by party_animal on 11 September 2014 - 06:12 PM
Umm...no it doesn't. Here's the difference, as a general rule, black people in the USA have good reasons to hate white people, and always will. Slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, higher interest rates and lower pay even with the same jobs and education levels, toxic waste, landfills, roads, other utilities being sited in their neighborhoods, etc, etc, etc.
Any blacks disliking white people is what it is, there is no "equivalency," so just get over it.
White people have no reason, in general, to be racist. Racist white people are racist just because they are hateful.
Black people who hate white people hate them because of a history of mistreatment. Anyone who refuses to accept that reality is just full of himself.
Scars don't always heal. Blacks like anyone else can prejudge, but there is no black "racism," just reason and reaction. Racism carries with it a belief that one's race is "superior." Black pride is about is about proving that they are not inferior (reaction), and fighting for equality.
There is no black "racism."
I hope you're being sarcastic.
- Kuhndog94 PIE'd this