I always find it interesting that those who advocate most strongly for war are usually those who have never seen it first hand. But, war is a nasty, ugly, dirty, brutish, cruel business. I'm very fortunate that, despite 18 years of military service, I've never seen it for myself but I've read enough from those who have to know I'm not in any particular hurry to experience it. I will readily admit that war is sometimes necessary. Entering into it with glee is an obvious sign that you have absolutely no clue what war is about. The following images are very graphic so if that would disturb you, click away now. Most are "collateral damage." Although I found some graphic pictures of American soldiers who had been casualties, I chose not to post them. I've moved the images down the page so, again, if you don't want to see them, don't scroll down. Click the back button. Last warning. THESE IMAGES ARE VERY GRAPHIC But, if you choose to view them, my only comment is, "welcome to war gentlemen." (There's several of them so they take a bit of time to load).

Let's see. . .what would a con say here. . .?

Duh! Of course that's the face of war! Just imagine what the victims of Saddam looked like after he finished with them!

I've seen frat parties worse than that!

You are a scum sucking traitor and ought to be hung, drawn and quartered!

But, seriously, did y'all hear about the latest on Michael Jackson's low carb diet?

joebordenrebel Wrote:Let's see. . .what would a con say here. . .?

Duh! Of course that's the face of war! Just imagine what the victims of Saddam looked like after he finished with them!

I've seen frat parties worse than that!

You are a scum sucking traitor and ought to be hung, drawn and quartered!

But, seriously, did y'all hear about the latest on Michael Jackson's low carb diet?

A radical conservative, i.e. RebelKev, would say you have no right to post those photos. He may even claim that those photos are atrocities of some other war, and our glorious National Guard, reservists and special forces would never do something like that to those in the photos because everyone knows that U.S. National Guard warriors fight war humanely, not savagely as depicted in those photos.

The more astute radical conservative would say that those photos are aiding those who wish to do our National Guard and reservists harm, helps in reducing the morale of our National Guard and reservists (special ops forces can kick serious butt and are not as susceptible to leveling or fading morale as are the bulk of our 135,000 in Iraq--National Guard and reservists) now in harm's way and posting of the photos clearly shows that MAKO is on the side of the terrorists.

Radical conservatives would also claim that those photos show that MAKO hates America because the radical conservative maintains that those who love America would ignore such brutality.

Maybe some more rad-cons would simply say that the photos were doctored by liberal, scum sucking media people to help the terrorists come over here and topple our mighty government, nation and society. That stuff didn't happen, it's fiction, they would say.

The radicale conservativo may say that the terrorists should have never of bombed us with our commercial jets like those scumbags did on 9/11.
The photo of the little boy in the second photo, he was a terrorist and that's what he gets for tangling with Americans, the most compassionate people on the earth, who can kick some serious bootay if we are forced to.

The radicale conservativo would say the following about my comments:

Oh yeah, we fooey on you!

The terrorists do deserve what they get from us!

The bulk of our forces in Iraq are courageous career military professionals in the mightiest volunteer army in the world, they ain't no National Guard. And the National Guard is a crack outfit these days anyway, even if'n they were over there.

Lastly, the rad-con will say that my comments represent a hatred for the United States and all in this nation who love peace and hate war. They will assert that I'm a Saddam lover who wants to go around the world bombing buildings with jetliners. :snore:

I could go on and on....but I do have to work! :mad:

MAKO Wrote:I always find it interesting that those who advocate most strongly for war are usually those who have never seen it first hand. But, war is a nasty, ugly, dirty, brutish, cruel business. I'm very fortunate that, despite 18 years of military service, I've never seen it for myself but I've read enough from those who have to know I'm not in any particular hurry to experience it. I will readily admit that war is sometimes necessary. Entering into it with glee is an obvious sign that you have absolutely no clue what war is about. The following images are very graphic so if that would disturb you, click away now. Most are "collateral damage." Although I found some graphic pictures of American soldiers who had been casualties, I chose not to post them. I've moved the images down the page so, again, if you don't want to see them, don't scroll down. Click the back button. Last warning. THESE IMAGES ARE VERY GRAPHIC But, if you choose to view them, my only comment is, "welcome to war gentlemen." (There's several of them so they take a bit of time to load).

hey buddy! what the hell is your point? We all know that war is bad!

Quote:hey buddy! what the hell is your point? We all know that war is bad!

No. Most people say that war is "bad" but they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They think, "well, people die in war." True enough. As my personal quote indicates, they never have the distinct displeasure of having their best friend's brain splattered over them. They never get to smell the odor of decaying bodies. They will never even see a picture of this because the "liberal" media "covers it up."

When you advocate for war, it's not an intellectual exercise. A lot of innocent children will die. More will become orphans. Parents will bury their children. Teenagers will come home blind or in a wheelchair. As I said in my original post, war is sometimes necessary. But, rather than approaching it from an intellectual perspective only, let's really take a look at what we are talking about when we advocate for war.

MAKO Wrote:

Quote:hey buddy! what the hell is your point? We all know that war is bad!

No. Most people say that war is "bad" but they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They think, "well, people die in war." True enough. As my personal quote indicates, they never have the distinct displeasure of having their best friend's brain splattered over them. They never get to smell the odor of decaying bodies. They will never even see a picture of this because the "liberal" media "covers it up."

When you advocate for war, it's not an intellectual exercise. A lot of innocent children will die. More will become orphans. Parents will bury their children. Teenagers will come home blind or in a wheelchair. As I said in my original post, war is sometimes necessary. But, rather than approaching it from an intellectual perspective only, let's really take a look at what we are talking about when we advocate for war.

have fun preaching, but i know that war is bad. Unfortunately, sometimes it's what has to be done.

Swoosh,

I'm sure your state's National Guard will take you.

KlutzDio I Wrote:Swoosh,

I'm sure your state's National Guard will take you.

Hell, why pussyfoot around? He can enlist.

MAKO Wrote:I always find it interesting that those who advocate most strongly for war are usually those who have never seen it first hand.  But, war is a nasty, ugly, dirty, brutish, cruel business.  I'm very fortunate that, despite 18 years of military service, I've never seen it for myself but I've read enough from those who have to know I'm not in any particular hurry to experience it.

Talk is cheap, and you prove it. "Seen it firsthand?" You act like your READING about combat somehow makes you the love child of Patton, Guderian and Zhukov.

Man, George C. Scott delivered these lines better than you.

KlutzDio I Wrote:Swoosh,

I'm sure your state's National Guard will take you.

what? why would i ever enlist in anything military related. Seriously though, the national guard does get taken these days.

Quote:Talk is cheap, and you prove it.

You lose douchebag. I enlisted 19 years ago. Been in ever since. Been damned lucky that I've never been shot at. Fortunately, unlike most Republicans, I can proudly say that I'm not a coward. Quite honestly, the chance of me never spending a fun filled year in Iraq are slim but, if it doesn't happen, I sure as hell won't complain. OTOH, I am, unlike most cowardly Republicans, available and willing to do whatever is necessary. Go sign up or shut the hell up.

When I need a blowhard, armchair general to fill me in on the reality of combat (which he's never been in) I'll let you know. I was done before you enlisted and spent 19 years as a weekend warrior. And if I need the help of someone who's never been there in fact to help me interpret the reality of what I've seen, you'll be the first guy who comes to mind. When you've spent as much time doing what you pretend to be an expert on based on reading, your comments might have meaning. Until then, I don't need your help interpreting photos about war.

MAKO,

First, let me say that I do appreciate the photos. They really drive home the ugliest hellholes of war that 99% don't see (or don't want to see). Let me also say that I've always leaned toward being against the Iraq War. Perhaps not as vehemently as others, but generally opposed to it nonetheless. There have been few conflicts I've completely agreed with, including WWII and the Taliban.

That said, here is my mini-rant...

Guys, for once and for all, let's end this shrill that "Republicans" and "neocons" have a monopoly on globetrotting wars and bloody battles. Yes, fair or not, Republicans are generally more known for being hawkish, but they certainly haven't cornered the market.

Here is a whole list of <a href='http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm' target='_blank'>Democrats</a> being quoted with nearly identical WMD claims that Republicans made prior to 2003, with many of the same Dems advocating overthrowing Saddam via force. And the fact that <a href='http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosta/Geopolitics/Risto.Mostarski/slike.html' target='_blank'>Bosnia-Serbia</a> posed even less threat to us than Iraq didn't stop a Democratic president from bombing the bejeezus out of a country that had no beef with the US. Not to mention the intervention in backwards Somalia. And lest we forget the tens of millions who died under the <a href='http://www.catallarchy.net/blog/cgi-bin/archives/012349.html' target='_blank'>communist war machine</a> over the ages.

War is hell, and should be treated as such. But the mantra that "Republicans = bloodlust; Democrats = doves" is getting stale.

Here's anothing thing that should end...listing Democrats who voted for the war. This administration presented them, along with us, deliberately falsified information. Just like many of us, they didn't know that they'd been lied to until it was too late. Unlike some of us, most of them haven't dug in their heels and insisted that the ever shifting rationales for the war justify those lies.

flyingswoosh Wrote:

KlutzDio I Wrote:Swoosh,

I'm sure your state's National Guard will take you.

what? why would i ever enlist in anything military related. Seriously though, the national guard does get taken these days.

In other words, it has to be done -- as long as someone else does it.

SDSundevil Wrote:

And Saddam Hussein had as much to do with the Sept. 11 massacre as these guys:

MAKO Wrote:

Quote:Talk is cheap, and you prove it.

You lose douchebag. I enlisted 19 years ago. Been in ever since. Been damned lucky that I've never been shot at. Fortunately, unlike most Republicans, I can proudly say that I'm not a coward. Quite honestly, the chance of me never spending a fun filled year in Iraq are slim but, if it doesn't happen, I sure as hell won't complain. OTOH, I am, unlike most cowardly Republicans, available and willing to do whatever is necessary. Go sign up or shut the hell up.

hey liberals, you guys were up in arms when the cons used obscene language. Where is the warning for this guy? i thought we weren't supposed to revert to name calling.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:

KlutzDio I Wrote:Swoosh,

I'm sure your state's National Guard will take you.

what? why would i ever enlist in anything military related. Seriously though, the national guard does get taken these days.

In other words, it has to be done -- as long as someone else does it.

some people want to enlist, some people don't. A lot of people who can't afford college go into the military. But i can afford college, so i don't fall into that category.