Are there any gay republicans?

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

You quite obviously have no clue who to blame, other than someone you don't like. I'd like to know why you aren't upset at the other genocide events happening in the world to this very day.

I thought you were angry I wasn't upset about the Roman expansion wars of 2000+ years ago. Of recent and current genocide I am upset, that's precisely why I believe americans should be held responsible for their illegal war on Iraq.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

I'm certainly not angry. Frustrated a little maybe. But blaming someone who participated, going off of information clearly not available to them at that time, is wrong. At the time my unit was activated (January 2001) we were told there "were WMD's in Iraq". I wasn't a commissioned officer in charge of anything, I was an E-4. SO .... I went with the ideas there were WMD's. When we arrived and saw them, then the world media started saying there were never any WMD's whatsoever, imagine how betrayed we felt. To this day, I never saw or heard anyone having any knowledge of nuclear capable weapons, but chemical weapons are classified as WMD's, and I saw those, as did every single member of my unit. All of us were amazed when we were told to keep quiet about it while the media blasted what was actually happening and reported that what we saw didn't exist. It took until 2014 for the Pentagon to admit what we saw in 2003.

Now with the recent discovery of an oil field in Texas larger than anything in Saudi, that (in my opinion) gives us full probable cause to begin to stop aid to idiocy and criminals and just start to let places implode. Saudi Arabia, while being one of the richest nations in the world, is also one of the most prolific violators of human rights (most specifically those of women and gays). They are the real ones behind the 9/11 attacks, yet one of the most financially respected nations in the world. They also were Hillary's largest financial contributor..... isn't it odd that she is the favored candidate of gays and those who champion gay rights, but she accepts the foundation of her financial running from a country that is anything but, PLUS being behind the 9/11 attacks.

I'm not a fan, on the whole, of how the entire Iraq situation was handled. But for anyone against that to champion Hillary (or anyone in "her camp") is just mind-boggling.

 

[deleted37010]

blaming someone who participated, going off of information clearly not available to them at that time, is wrong.

participated.... interesting verb.... E-4 the mental picture of you in uniform.... and hanging out of your uniform... another thread

what I remember being told in 2002
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice underscored the Administration’s sense of imminent danger, telling CNN on 8 September 2002 that the risk of waiting for conclusive proof of Saddam Hussein’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons was too great because “we don’t want the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud,” a metaphor President Bush subsequently repeated.
we all thought hell yeah... especially after colin powell gave it his backing....didn't he even give a speech at the UN...

I went with the ideas there were WMD's.

many of us thought there were WMDs.... and all of that mushroom cloud talk made us think nuclear... and add to the mushroom cloud..... the story about yellowcake uranium going from Niger to Irag.... and then maybe going to Al-Qaeda or terrorists...

When we arrived and saw them, then the world media started saying there were never any WMD's whatsoever, imagine how betrayed we felt. To this day, I never saw or heard anyone having any knowledge of nuclear capable weapons, but chemical weapons are classified as WMD's, and I saw those, as did every single member of my unit. All of us were amazed when we were told to keep quiet about it while the media blasted what was actually happening and reported that what we saw didn't exist. It took until 2014 for the Pentagon to admit what we saw in 2003.

The U.S. military ( http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/ ) refers to WMD as:

Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon.

were the weapons found... on a scale to be classified as WMDs.... i'd love some knowledgeable person to direct me

 

[malakos]

many would view the american military as imperialistic, racist, and warmongers..... regardless of supporting trump?

Such that "imperialism" or "racism" or warmongering can be automatically attributed to any individual who serves in the US military (as was done in this case)? How absurd!

 

[deleted37010]

Such that "imperialism" or "racism" or warmongering can be automatically attributed to any individual who serves in the US military (as was done in this case)? How absurd!

sincerely not my intent... i have no negative feelings for the writer.... nor do i view him as a warmonger....imperialistic or racist...

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

Such that "imperialism" or "racism" or warmongering can be automatically attributed to any individual who serves in the US military (as was done in this case)? How absurd!

It's not like we are talking about a subject who don't support the Iraq invasion and had no option to opt-out of it because of military duty. He still insists he sees no problem with the murder of thousands of iraqians at the hands of the american army.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

It's not like we are talking about a subject who don't support the Iraq invasion and had no option to opt-out of it because of military duty. He still insists he sees no problem with the murder of thousands of iraqians at the hands of the american army.

I'm thinking........ hypocrisy.........
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples_in_Brazil

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

It's not like we are talking about a subject who don't support the Iraq invasion and had no option to opt-out of it because of military duty. He still insists he sees no problem with the murder of thousands of iraqians at the hands of the american army.

I'm having a horribly difficult time imagining you believing I lack the access to the internet, or the intellect to utilize it. Please, afford me more opportunities to prove you a fool.

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

I'm thinking........ hypocrisy.........
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples_in_Brazil

I think that accusing me of being hypocrite because of the Roman Expansion remains my favorite post, but this one was also an interest bullshit.
Jokes aside, you are still a hired thug for imperialism.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

I think that accusing me of being hypocrite because of the Roman Expansion remains my favorite post, but this one was also an interest bullshit.
Jokes aside, you are still a hired thug for imperialism.

Well then encyclopedias are wrong. It said the Palatine Germans came from the Romans. That posted article you referred to happened while your people were already in Brazil. You're still blind as a bat. Keep your head in the sand. It's working wonders for you.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

I thought you were angry I wasn't upset about the Roman expansion wars of 2000+ years ago. Of recent and current genocide I am upset, that's precisely why I believe americans should be held responsible for their illegal war on Iraq.

OK...... buckle up buttercup. .... You CLEARLY don't know what genocide truly is (I suggest looking up the definition of the word at a minimum, or referring to Heinrich Himmler's beliefs and practices; because if you did know the true meaning of the word, you wouldn't be stupid enough to make that statement).... If you're truly stupid enough to consider Iraq genocide, then there is likely little hope for improvement of your abysmal ignorance. You bashing me because of military service also shows your unbelievable stupidity when it comes to the definition of imperialism and it's predominance (and practice by almost every modern power) in the modern world (see OPEC). Germany, Great Britain, France, Japan, Russia, and China deserve a "looking into by your 'expertise'". In case you haven't noticed, there is a "little something going on" in Crimea and the Ukraine (funny, they had no evidence or justification whatsoever). You also have clearly demonstrated you have no experience with any type of "chain of command" environment, where one must follow orders, with clear superior personnel overseeing them, with limited information, and little to no option to review "why" you are being told to do something.

I suspect the next "topic" on which you'll try to lecture me will be my "ridiculous support" of the 2nd Amendment, while you come from a country with FAR stricter gun laws...... yet manages to be the murder capital of the world, while far superseding the U.S. in gun violence.

It's neither your ignorance nor stupidity here that amazes me..... it's your unwillingness to just do a little bit of research which will clearly prove wrong half of what you type. It only took me a few minutes. So either you're too lazy, or too blind to consider it.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

And since you have me off on a tangent, I'll offer a little more of insight (which I'm assuming by now you're just pissed off enough to actually read through). You see, when we made the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, right, wrong, misconstrued, or misinterpreted, the Iraqi people/government/military may or may have not known what was disseminated to our people, and you can bet your life they damned sure didn't share it with the Iraqi public; even if they had, the ability of the public to gather the information through news or internet was impossible.

Therefore, upon our arrival, their people viewed it as a defensible occurrence. Meaning anyone standing in our opposition was "right". Now, in military conflict, once "on the ground" anyone who opposes you by military standards is a legitimate target, as we were there being the "opposition/invaders". We were legitimate military targets for them, and vice versa. We did not single out civilian targets, just as they did not. Any of our troops killed were seen as legitimate and justifiable targets in their eyes, and properly so by the rules of warfare/combat. Which side you agree with is an entirely different matter. When anyone in combat presents any type of threat, it doesn't matter whether it is man, woman, or child; a threat is a threat. The way they employed children and women as suicide bombers can be likened in principle to how our military operates; lower enlisted are given orders to follow yet they come from a way of life where there is absolutely no questioning of adults by children or women of men, and they are taught a level of dedication to "cause and religion" far beyond what most westerners can begin to comprehend. The middle east (and many more cultures) are sheer genius to employ women and children as weapons of war and combatants, because Europeans and Westerners are some of the few cultures in the world which hold women and children in such high regard, consequently causing almost every member of our military to hesitate to use force against them regardless of how justified we will be in the use of force. This very same tactic also creates an uproar with our civilian population. A tactic to use what they see as nothing but property against us, when we see their "property" as respectable pillars of our society.

The same principle applies if the U.S. were attacked..... regardless of who was right or wrong in the world's eyes, I will defend my country and her people. Therefore, I will be seen as a legitimate enemy combatant, and will be subject to justifiable force by any outside aggressor. It's not genocide. It's war. It's one people defending against another. Right or wrong is to be determined in a different venue.

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

You were not defending anyone, you were an attacker in an illegal war against people who have never done you a thing. Digging up wars that I've never participated from thousand years ago is being deflective.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

You were not defending anyone, you were an attacker in an illegal war against people who have never done you a thing. Digging up wars that I've never participated from thousand years ago is being deflective.

Thank you for proving how stupid you are.

 

[halcyondays]

You were not defending anyone, you were an attacker in an illegal war against people who have never done you a thing.

True. Iraq did not step the Earth and attack the US in 1990 or 2003, nor was there any threat that they would. Neither did North Vietnam, North Korea, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Panama, Grenada or the dozens of others who did not attack us but were targets for US invasion without a Congressional declaration of war required by Article 1, Section 8.

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

True. Iraq did not step the Earth and attack the US in 1990 or 2003, nor was there any threat that they would. Neither did North Vietnam, North Korea, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Panama, Grenada or the dozens of others who did not attack us but were targets for US invasion without a Congressional declaration of war required by Article 1, Section 8.

Actually Iraq invasion (1990 and 2003) have been made with the blessing of the american Congress. I'm calling the last Iraq invasion illegal because it was criminal on International Law (as rulled by the UN). I'm willing to hear arguments if you consider the first Iraq invasion unjustifiable, but I belief it was, considering that it was a defensive war against Iraq agression on Kuwait.

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

Thank you for proving how stupid you are.

I'm stupid because I don't agree with your accusation that I'm a genocider because of the roman invasions 2000 years ago. You, a proud participant in an illegal war, is an angel who's defending freedom of speech to all of us. Yeah, you don't have a distorted judgement at all.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

I'm stupid because I don't agree with your accusation that I'm a genocider because of the roman invasions 2000 years ago. You, a proud participant in an illegal war, is an angel who's defending freedom of speech to all of us. Yeah, you don't have a distorted judgement at all.

Thank you. LOL. You're awesome.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

I'm stupid because I don't agree with your accusation that I'm a genocider because of the roman invasions 2000 years ago. You, a proud participant in an illegal war, is an angel who's defending freedom of speech to all of us. Yeah, you don't have a distorted judgement at all.

You're also my moral guiding compass; Dare I say, my idol. *snicker*

 

[halcyondays]

Actually Iraq invasion (1990 and 2003) have been made with the blessing of the american Congress.

True. Our US Congress voted to "approve military action" in both those cases and in the Korean and Vietnam wars. It did not declare war. The US Constitution says Congress has the power to "declare war" not "approve military action." The latter is an abdication of constitutional responsibility to the American people and to members of our armed services.

The last time the Congress followed the Constitution and declared war was against the Axis Powers in World War II.