Draginol Draginol

Giving soldiers the respect they deserve

▼

Giving soldiers the respect they deserve

The saga

from JoeUser Forums

There's been a very stimulating series of articles written by JoeUser bloggers with regards to the opinions of civilians on the sidelines making claims about what the military should and shouldn't do.  I missed some of the first ones (particularly a great one by Texas Wahine) so here's the series so far:

We need to help those Iraqis! (a civilian frustrated with those who oppose the war)

If you love war so much, why not go fight it? (frustration with non-serving civilians who seem to glorify war)

Why aren't you fighting in Iraq? (Bakerstreet responds to the above)

I dont' have to serve to support (same)

Are you a pasty pile of goo? (are people being overly defensive?)

One-Upmanship on JoeUser (whose opinions matter more?)

As a professional jerk, I'm a lot less sensitive to the feelings of soldiers or pro-military or anti-military people.  Simply put, I support the war. I support the job the military is doing. The job. Our soldiers are doing a job. I don't really care whether they like the job or not any more than I care whether individual policemen or firemen like the job they're doing. I only care that they do their job. 

That said, I can totally sympathize with soldiers and their families who see arm-chair generals, comfy at home, who treat warfare as little more than a sport for their amusement. I have seen this attitude in many pro-war people, a total disconnect from the hellish, dangerous, and staggeringly difficult times our soldiers face.  I can totally get what they're saying.  But I don't want to be lumped into that.  I haven't served in the military. I probably never will.  But I feel I do have an appreciation for the job our soldiers are doing even if I cannot even imagine what they've gone through.  Therefore, I make no bones that I support the job they've done.

Then again, being a jerk, I don't have any particular sympathy for the Iraqis. I would support bringing troops home IF there was the understanding that if Iraq fell into terrorist hands we would go in there and overthrow what they'd cobbled together.  Winning against terrorism doesn't mean we have to set up some sort of peaceful democratic state. Not in my opinion anyway. There's any number of countries that are in states of near anarchy.  What we have to work against are states with significant financial and material assets who support terrorism or who allow terrorists to openly organize and plan.  Hence, while I agree us leaving Iraq would likely result in a non-democratic government run by Shiites who oppressed minorities or even lead to civil war, I don't really care. I'd rather have our soldiers home.  IF that oppressive government started to support anti-US policies, pursue WMDs, sponsor terrorists, then we could go in again and take them out.

Of course, many of you reading what I just wrote probably are shaking your head at my naivete. Because you're right.  The US cannot (contrary to what some left-wing fringe Europeans think) just send the military in on a whim to overthrow countries we didn't like. Not until I'm emperor anyway. ;)   Therefore, the most balanced course of action is probably to stay until there's enough infrastructure in place that Iraq can move forward on its own and draw down troops gradually as they can.

politics
20,831 views 66 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
davad70 thanks for the response.

Its tiring providing "proof" for some of these idiots who cant bother to do
their own research. MOST ARE LIARS.

This was proved in another thread where some moron claiming to be a soldier
responded that White Phosphorus was HARMLESS

Harmless yet the artillery field manual (of the ARMY not a liberal publication)
sites its destructive properties and that it was used NOT to light the
theatre of operation but to attack the rebels.

Then we find out that in Gulf War 1 we cited it as a chemical weapon that
Saddam used ... so it seems
when we use it its peanut butter
when "they" use it ... its a chemical weapon.

We are all hypocrites and we have lost whatever semblance of "sanity"
we had
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Funny thing about the new constitution.

it SEVERLY limits the rights of women. In Marriage Unions, Alimony, Legal
matters, Appearance, etc etc

Do you know under Sharia law a womans testimony is worth less than that of a
man?

Do you know that a man now has the right to impose certain rules on his wife
daughters dress and grooming?

Do you know that a woman (daughter) may not be allowed to inherit land when
its divided up in inheritance issues ..

the list goes on and on


Say what you want about Saddam, that dude bent heaven and earth to keep that
country from being led by religious fundermentalists or people of that ilk.
Women served in government ... EDUCATED women. Remember the lady we fingered
as being head of his Biological Agents management?

So for those of you screaming "we are giving them democracy" please under
stand we are NOT.

ITS A SMOKE SCREEN!

THE ONLY CONCERN that "we" have is that their constitution includes a
provision that would allow our oil contractors access to their oil fields.
That and that we can keep them from forming an army that might threaten
Israel.

Hey whatever happened to those weapons of mass destruction?
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

This by itself is an absolute LIE! Show proof "i,d-ten t" (Sound or write it out!) During Saddams reign any woman caught outside dressed like that would have been stoned to death


Actually it's fairly well known that women were allowed to wear jeans in Iraq before the removal of Saddam. Obviously devout muslim women would not wear jeans before or after Saddam. But to suggest that any woman caught wearing jeans would be stoned is pretty ridiculous. Before you accuse people of stating absolute lies you should do a little research.


"I am Shia, but I don't want to wear a scarf on my head," said al-Taee, dressed in bell-bottom jeans and a tight T-shirt. "And I want to be able to work and travel unrestrained. If I can't do it in post-Saddam Iraq, I will have to leave the country."
Link

Signs near the campus entrance state: "A [new version of the] hijab appeared in Iraq after the year 2000 in which girls leave part of the head uncovered. Although this is called the French hijab, it is made in Iraq and is widespread in institutions and universities. Therefore we address all believers. They should ask representative of the Hawza for their opinions about such hijab and whether it is allowed."

The sign then goes on to provide an answer from Ayatollah Sheikh Mohammed El Yacuby, an expert on social problems. "The woman who wears such hijab is not a real Muslim and she has no belief in Islam. There is no permission for this kind of hijab," the Ayatollah's response reads. The sign goes on to state that pants, jeans, or culottes are also not allowed.
Link

Increasingly, women feel pressured to don veils, both because bareheaded women are favorite targets for rapists, but also to avoid harassment from religious extremists. More and more mosques are turning away women not garbed in a head-to-toe abaya, and the Al Mustansirriye University in Baghdad has posted a sign ordering female students to wear full hijab head scarves and forbidding the wearing of pants, jeans or culottes.
Link

This would put women in Iraq at a disadvantage. Already it's not a good idea for women to walk the streets of Basra wearing jeans. Iraq may be slowly moving toward democracy but it's also edging toward a conservative Islamic state. And Iran is doing what it can to help it along that path.
Link


You know you really should check your links better "before" you accuse "me" of not doing my research. Every link that you posted is from AFTER the war started (2003 to 2005)and we were in the process of "removing" Saddam. So unless you can provide either a picture or some link from before we went in, my comment about it being a lie stands!
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Say what you want about Saddam, that dude bent heaven and earth to keep that
country from being led by religious fundermentalists or people of that ilk.


Right.....That's why they "had" this. From About.com:


The movement for women in Iraq has greatly suffered due to sanctions and anti-women legislation imposed by Hussein's regime since the mid-90s. Under Islamic law, the punishment for a women who commits adultery is death. But women in Iraq are also being murdered for fighting with their husbands, having a relationship with a man outside marriage, and for being raped, because this brings shame on the family. Women have been stoned to death in public, disabled, disfigured and/or kidnapped. Women have even been kept hostage in their own homes.

According to the Iraq Foundation Web site "The rights of women in Iraq are going down the drain, along with everything else ... In 1998, Saddam ordered all women secretaries working in government agencies be dismissed. Now there are new laws barring women from work altogether."

Many women feel that once Saddam is removed from power, women's rights will return to Iraq. Recently a group of Iraqi women met in a Foreign Press Center Briefing to discuss Human Rights and Women in Iraq. Esra Naama stated "Saddam, right now, is terrorizing women, Iraqi women. He's using the excuse of infidelity. He's using the excuse of women being unfaithful to their husbands and the honor killing -- he's actually allowed honor killing to come back into society, where something that really, for a long time, was not in Iraqi society and I'm sure these ladies here can correct me if I'm wrong. But, once Saddam is gone, I believe that these are all things that will disappear from our society again."


Its tiring providing "proof" for some of these idiots who cant bother to do
their own research. MOST ARE LIARS.


I'm not the liar here nor am I the village idiot! It would seem that the position has already been filled by you.

This was proved in another thread where some moron claiming to be a soldier
responded that White Phosphorus was HARMLESS



NO ONE ever claimed WP was harmless. You "really" should do better research. From wikipedia.


Arms control status
Use of white phosphorus against military targets (and outside civilian areas) is not specifically banned by any treaty. However, there is a debate on whether white phosphorus is a chemical weapon and thus outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The Convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.)). The Convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals".(CWC, II). Strictly speaking, since white phosphorus's primary effects are not actually due to its toxicity, but its spontaneous ignition in the presence of oxygen, many believe it has more in common with incendiary weapons instead. [6]

The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians. [7] However, the protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effect is secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed Protocol III.

Military regulations
US military protocol prohibits the use of white phosphorus in civilian areas, unless approval is received from "above the division level". [8]. On the question of whether white phosphorus can be used against human targets, U.S. military training and doctrine (TRADOC) offers conflicting guidance. Although the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth states that "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets", [9] other training manuals do discuss the use of white phosphorus rounds against personnel. The US Marine Corps is reported to have issued guidance against using "flame weapons" (including white phosphorus) against personnel. [10]


Ongoing debate means it is NOT classified as a chemical weapon.


oh I almost forgot
FUCK
THE
TROOPS

they are murderers


Oh and I almost forgot....the SAME to you!
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
The last exchange between me and dharma on Tex's article (#35, #36) has caused me to give up hope of trying to find any middle ground. A depressing, futile discussion. Evidently we speak two different languages


Yeah, Baker, that's why I said you were right on my 'all about the money' article. Because we speak two different languages. Did you even read my response to you there? You said:

If you want to focus on the mercenary aspects and downplay patriotism and honor, that is your right. I tend to think maybe the people you are around don't wear their patriotism on their sleeve, and perhaps being constantly surrounded by people dedicated to such duty you've lost sight of how rare it is in the world.

To which I responded:


I think you are entirely right. See, when you're isolated from the civilian world the way Tex and I are, you get so accustomed to people doing their duty all the time that you tend to forget that the 'real world' doesn't operate quite like that.

I'm not trying to downplay the honor aspect. Obeying orders and doing your duty IS an honorable thing to do. I'm simply saying that to tar every single service member with a patriotic brush is an error. Some people, like my husband and Sergeant Neale, go to war because that's part of their job, not because they want to. They do their jobs to primarily to provide for their family, not out of a sense of patriotism.

I'm hoping that you simply didn't see it.....
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
DJBandit: Yeah, good idea. I read what you wrote earlier, and I think it was a smart choice to let someone with more sense and better writing ability speak for you instead of spouting the error-riddled, condescending crap that you initially posted.


So you insult my opinion because we don't agree on something? Funny how I don't ever recall saying anything directly to you, or anything this insulting for that matter yet you chose to do it to me. Is that all you people know how to do when you don't like what someone else has to say? Is it not possible to disagree without having to insult the inteligence of another person? With the exception of Col gene.

It seems that Bakerstreet is not the only one misunderstood here. How precise does one's words have to be to be understood? How do we express ourselves and try to say good things about someone with that person or others think the opposite? Oh well in the end I don't really care what you think of me or if you like what I have to say. This site was ment to express one's thoughts in a decent manner and was also created with blocking programs to lock out those you don't like. But your insults will not change my point of view or my way of expressing myself, in other words you don't like it, don't eat it. You can always try ignoring me.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think you are entirely right. See, when you're isolated from the civilian world the way Tex and I are, you get so accustomed to people doing their duty all the time that you tend to forget that the 'real world' doesn't operate quite like that.I'm not trying to downplay the honor aspect. Obeying orders and doing your duty IS an honorable thing to do. I'm simply saying that to tar every single service member with a patriotic brush is an error. Some people, like my husband and Sergeant Neale, go to war because that's part of their job, not because they want to. They do their jobs to primarily to provide for their family, not out of a sense of patriotism.


You are right about that and I appologize for the way I spoke. I myself did not see it that way either, being a civilian and not realizing that as a military family your life is not the same as mine. But can you answer this to me, did your husband ever think that joining the AF made him feel good that he was doing a service for his country or was it for the money since day one? And please don't take this as an insult of any kind, I simply am curious to know, it makes it easier to understand rather than to presume or assume and you know what they say about assume.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
You know you really should check your links better "before" you accuse "me" of not doing my research. Every link that you posted is from AFTER the war started (2003 to 2005)and we were in the process of "removing" Saddam. So unless you can provide either a picture or some link from before we went in, my comment about it being a lie stands!


You really are not very smart are you? Those stories talk about before and after and have quotes from iraqi women about how things have changed since Saddam was removed.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
DJBandit:
Is it not possible to disagree without having to insult the inteligence of another person? With the exception of Col gene.


lol, we all have exceptions, don't we?

If you feel your comment was so pure and appropriate, why did you delete it? You can fool the people who didn't read it, but unfortunately, I saw it before you sent it to its cyberspace grave.

How precise does one's words have to be to be understood?


Pretty precise considering that this site relies primarily on communication via written word.

But your insults will not change my point of view or my way of expressing myself, in other words you don't like it, don't eat it. You can always try ignoring me.


Have I ever commented on any of your articles? I don't like what you have to say because you're a know-it-all jerk and it shows in your writing. I don't read your articles. In case you forgot, YOU didn't write this article.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you feel your comment was so pure and appropriate, why did you delete it? You can fool the people who didn't read it, but unfortunately, I saw it before you sent it to its cyberspace grave.


OK now you lost me. What, may I ask, are you talking about? I have never deleted anything from here that I can remember. Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? Or maybe the moderator of the article deleted it. In all honesty I have no clue what you are talking about. Help me out here will ay?
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have never deleted anything from here that I can remember.


It would be best for you to play the "that I can remember" card here, because you certainly DID delete a comment yesterday. You commented on THIS blog, then quickly deleted it and instead replied with:

What ParaTed2k said.


Our banter here isn't relevant to the article, so I'm going to leave it at that.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Pretty precise considering that this site relies primarily on communication via written word.


If you say so.

Have I ever commented on any of your articles? I don't like what you have to say because you're a know-it-all jerk and it shows in your writing. I don't read your articles. In case you forgot, YOU didn't write this article.


I doubt you have since I have only written maybe 3 and only one of them was political, kinda. And as far as I remember I only got replies on one of them which was a gaming article. So I am still confused as to if you're sure I am the person you are upset with.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
It would be best for you to play the "that I can remember" card here, because you certainly DID delete a comment yesterday. You commented on THIS blog, then quickly deleted it and instead replied with:


To be honest I don't remember. Maybe I did, I'm not sure anymore. I am almost 100% positive I did not write anything on this article besides what I wrote.

What ParaTed2k said.


It's not to hard to remember when you click edit and a new screenn shows up. I don't recall editing. I hardly ever edit at all cause it gives me problems when I do. Besides what would I have to say bad about this article? If I agree with what Parated2k said then you either don't like what he said or you must be confusing me with someone else.

It would be best for you to play the "that I can remember" card here


At this point I personally don't care what you think about me. I try to be nice, I'm not here to make enemies, just to debate. I know it gets heated at times but we are mostly adults here and we shouldn't have to go to the extreme just because we don't agree. If you have some personal beef with (which I can't seem to figure out why) then that's fine. But next time you wanna accuse me of something hows about bringing some proof, it's what everyone here likes to do. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, just like I did a few post above with dharmagrl #33.

Look, I would really like to solve this issue. I don't want people upset with me when I don't know why. I know your a nice person and in the same situation as dharmagrl when it comes to the war. I only want to express my thoughts and feeling, not make enemies. So let me know what we can do to fix this, and I don't mean putting it to the side and forgetting about it.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
But can you answer this to me, did your husband ever think that joining the AF made him feel good that he was doing a service for his country or was it for the money since day one?


He joined the service to finish college, get law enforcement training and experience, and to get out of the rinky dink little town he was born in. He said that he knew if he didn't get out of that town before he turned 21 that he would bury himself there....so he joined the Air Force. His original plan was to come in for 4 years, get the training and finish his degree, then get out and go work for a civilian police department.
However, the best laid plans sometimes go to waste....and I came along. We got married, we had kids, and he decided to re-enlist for another 4 years. Once, when his second enlistment was coming to an end, he had talked about getting out and had started looking at jobs in the civilian world. We worked out what we would need to make in order to have it be comprable to the pay and benefits the AF was giving him....and there simply wasn't anything available that would get us even close. You have to understand that we get 100% FREE medical services and prescription meds, we get half a million dollars life insurance on him for FREE, $200,000 on me for something like $20 a month, he gets a month paid vacation every year, we get a housing allowance ON TOP of his paycheck if we choose to live off base - to the tune of $1100 a month, if we live overseas we get a Cost Of Living Allowance, he gets a pay raise every year, he has job security, and now that he's staying in until retirement he's going to get 50% of his monthly base pay as a pension and FREE medical benefits for the rest of not only his life, but mine too....not to mention a valid military ID card that entitles us to free legal advice and assistance, commissary and BX privileges.

So, whilst it may briefly have been about patriotism (September 11th, 2001, he came home after having worked a 20 hour shift and told me with tears in his eyes that he had volunteered to go to Afghanistan - because he wanted to go put into action all of his training and skills in a real-world situation) it's not really about that any more. Don't get me wrong, he's proud of himself and his accomplishments, and he loves America.....but patriotism isn't his only reason for staying in. He deploys because it's his duty to do so, he goes to war because that's part of his job.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
He joined the service to finish college, get law enforcement training and experience, and to get out of the rinky dink little town he was born in. He said that he knew if he didn't get out of that town before he turned 21 that he would bury himself there....so he joined the Air Force. His original plan was to come in for 4 years, get the training and finish his degree, then get out and go work for a civilian police department.
However, the best laid plans sometimes go to waste....and I came along. We got married, we had kids, and he decided to re-enlist for another 4 years. Once, when his second enlistment was coming to an end, he had talked about getting out and had started looking at jobs in the civilian world. We worked out what we would need to make in order to have it be comprable to the pay and benefits the AF was giving him....and there simply wasn't anything available that would get us even close. You have to understand that we get 100% FREE medical services and prescription meds, we get half a million dollars life insurance on him for FREE, $200,000 on me for something like $20 a month, he gets a month paid vacation every year, we get a housing allowance ON TOP of his paycheck if we choose to live off base - to the tune of $1100 a month, if we live overseas we get a Cost Of Living Allowance, he gets a pay raise every year, he has job security, and now that he's staying in until retirement he's going to get 50% of his monthly base pay as a pension and FREE medical benefits for the rest of not only his life, but mine too....not to mention a valid military ID card that entitles us to free legal advice and assistance, commissary and BX privileges.

So, whilst it may briefly have been about patriotism (September 11th, 2001, he came home after having worked a 20 hour shift and told me with tears in his eyes that he had volunteered to go to Afghanistan - because he wanted to go put into action all of his training and skills in a real-world situation) it's not really about that any more. Don't get me wrong, he's proud of himself and his accomplishments, and he loves America.....but patriotism isn't his only reason for staying in. He deploys because it's his duty to do so, he goes to war because that's part of his job.


Wow, it goes to show what people sometimes have to do to make a living. I'm sure he's a great person and you sound like one as well. I can't blame you for going off like a bomb when debating with someone about wars and soldiers. Like you I had a loved one (my brother) in the National Guard but then he got out just before the Gulf War and our biggest fear was that he would be called in if they needed him. Plus he also has a brother from his dads side that is a Navy Seal and was in Iraq recently. We were al worried about him so I too have an idea what it's like to have a family member be put in the line of fire.

But as I said before I will more careful about these discussions and take more into consideration the fact that I don't have a military life and that some people do and therefor our lifestyles can be very different at times if not always.

Thanx for the answer.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
You really are not very smart are you? Those stories talk about before and after and have quotes from iraqi women about how things have changed since Saddam was removed.


More than likely "smarter" than you. Just in your first story alone I noted inconsistencies between it and what I posted in reply #30. On top of which I wouldn't believe any thing from SF. Mine's from wikipedia, an unbiased site. Too bad you can't say the same about SF. And your 3rd one? By Gregory Elrich? A self proclaimed "activist?
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
But as I said before I will more careful about these discussions and take more into consideration the fact that I don't have a military life and that some people do and therefor our lifestyles can be very different at times if not always.


And I in turn will try to NOT go off on people when they're slightly misinformed about the way the military works.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. I'll do my best to answer them.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
I did read your post, dharma, it led to the eventual throwing up my hands on the other blog. You seem to think the word "patriotism" means "I like war". On your blog you said:

"I'm simply saying that to tar every single service member with a patriotic brush is an error. Some people, like my husband and Sergeant Neale, go to war because that's part of their job, not because they want to. "


Once I saw that you were functioning on a totally different definition of "patriotism", I realized that discussing it with you was totally futile. I've explained and re-explained what I meant, specifically, and you just ignore it. Patriotism now has turned into a dirty "conservative" word, unlike being jaded and nihilistic like all the hip people. You have some very jaded, derivative definitions of the values I am talking about.

I say patriotism, idealism, and you hear an insult. There's not much I can do about that except mourn for what we are loosing as a species. The sad part is when you laud your husband and I laud your husband, we are talking about the EXACT same thing. When you talk about sticking it to anti-war protestors who abuse the troops, what you are standing up for is the exact same thing I am lauding.

You just have such a jaded, hippy-bullshit bias against anything that you have to call it something else to stomach it. Just my opinion; I was done, but you evidently needed to hear it again.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
On top of which I wouldn't believe any thing from SF. Mine's from wikipedia, an unbiased site. Too bad you can't say the same about SF. And your 3rd one? By Gregory Elrich? A self proclaimed "activist?


You still insist that women would be stoned to death for wearing jeans in Iraq while Saddam was in power?

I never said anything about women's rights in general, I was just correcting your ridiculously false statement about women wearing jeans. In your post you referred to #30, I don't see anything about women wearing jeans.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
You still insist that women would be stoned to death for wearing jeans in Iraq while Saddam was in power?


And he never said that. Better re-read his assertion, and your replies.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think it is cute how davad thinks freedom in the hands of the people is only good if those people have the same values as he does. I guess we would have been better off for a liberal tyrant for the 200 years it took us to get civil rights downpat in the US. All those years we didn't let women vote would have been better spent under someone like Hussein, I guess.

Again, Liberals just looooove their dictators as long as their values are the ones represented. Jeans on girls must make all those mass-killings, amputations, shoving people off buildings, etc., worthwhile. Hats off again to the grand tunnelvision of Liberalism...
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
And he never said that. Better re-read his assertion, and your replies.


Women were walking the streets in JEANS when Saddam was in power.


This by itself is an absolute LIE! Show proof "i,d-ten t" (Sound or write it out!) During Saddams reign any woman caught outside dressed like that would have been stoned to death.


Ummm...yes he did.


I think it is cute how davad thinks freedom in the hands of the people is only good if those people have the same values as he does. I guess we would have been better off for a liberal tyrant for the 200 years it took us to get civil rights downpat in the US. All those years we didn't let women vote would have been better spent under someone like Hussein, I guess.


I think it's cute how you try to put words in people's mouths. I've never said, nor implied such things. All I said was that it is not true that a woman would be stoned to death for wearing jeans when Saddam was in power.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

You just have such a jaded, hippy-bullshit bias against anything that you have to call it something else to stomach it

I say patriotism, idealism, and you hear an insult

You're a mind reader now too, huh?  You KNOW what I'm thinking? 

FYI, I DON'T hear an insult when you say patriotism, and I never did.  You act as if patriotism is a dirty word to me, and that's not how it is.  My stance was, is, and will be that patriotism plays a smaller part in SOME people's motives for joining the military than you might believe.

But go ahead and villify me, Baker.  Make me out to be jaded and nihilistic if it makes you feel better. Tell yourself that I have a hippy-bias if you want. I really don't give a rat's behind.