the world has some hope left

Soldiers fight for their country.
They dont get a choice in what they fight for.

Blame the politicians, not the soldiers.

its easy to sit and complain on the internet, if you actually care go out and do something about it.

I thought this picture was about the undying loyalty of the girlfriend or wife, showing that not all girls are whores.

That's why i thumbed up, not for the soldiers.

^

Well, you're both right.

He did say they are turned into victims...

"Dying or being maimed for a false cause doesn't make you a hero, it makes you a victim"

So I think he is blaming the politicians more

they may not have the choice of who to fight, but they can opt out of fighting completely...unless there's a draft, but that would only piss even more people off

why fight for something at all if you aren't even sure of what it represents? soldiers should know what the hell they get into before they sign their lives away for some war they don't even know anything about. if they don't know what the war is even for, then they must not have looked very hard before putting themselves and others lives on the lines for it.

I don't think you know what they are thinking when they sign up. I think a lot of soldiers are thinking that they could join the army to make things easier for them when it's time to go to college. Yes there are people who sign up because they want to fight, but most soldiers are terrified of going to war but they still do it. So, before you say anything again think about what you are about to say before you say it.

"a lot of soldiers are thinking that they could join the army to make things easier for them when it's time to go to college"
If you're willing to make such a drastic life decision just for the money that it entails, then I don't think you really deserve my empathy. Most of these guys are "selling their souls" and values by participating in some false war for something so trivial as money to get them through college.
These politicians may be the brains of any operations going on in the Middle east, but these soldiers have volunteered themselves to be the limbs. They should know what they're doing out there, or else they shouldn't be doing anything.

Yes, that is true, but out of the around 1 million soldiers in our army, there is maybe 50-100,000 actually going to war. The bulk of our army doesn't even go over to Afghanistan or Iraq. If I joined the army, it would be for the experience as well as help for college. But I would also join knowing full well that I could go to war, even if I don't want to. There is a lot to gain from joining the army but there is also a lot of risks, and I think most soldiers would think it out for a very long time, probably for years, before they join up. They might not agree but that doesn't mean they don't know what they are getting in to.

i think that it's a very big decision on someone's part if they were to choose to possibly kill or die for a cause, even if the chances of that happening are slim and the rewards are plenty. by enlisting in the army, they contribute their lives to that cause, whatever it may be. I think that when you make that kind of commitment to something that you should damn well know what the cause is, and if you're willing to pledge yourself over to it in exchange for some financial assurance.

alot of soldiers join because their fathers served and they admire them.
also theres alot of people with no other choice, decent pay and benefits for their families is sometimes too hard to pass up.

Unfortunately, today's soldiers are not fighting for the same thing as their grandfathers were. They may think and hope that they are, but it just takes a little bit of attention and analysis to figure out that things are much much worse now.
Those soldiers that are enticed by the money are in understandable situations, but they understood what they signed up for when they enlisted into the military. we worship every infantryman that gets injured, even though it's just part of this "war" that they volunteered to be a part of.
It's sad and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it's just how it is.

I completely agree
my father served in the army and survived Afganistan. I told him I hated the army and war and he slapped me across the face. He told me to never hate those whose job is to protect the ones who don't have to die in their place. He told me that it is true that war is bad and people do die, but war is just failed diplomacy. If the politicians cannot compromise then war is inevitable. He then told me to try to pick up a gun and take someones life and if you didn't somone you love dies. These are the decisions people should wander about.

Make no doubt that war is terrible, but sometimes you gotta act when diplomacy gets you no where

Reminds me of a quote that I believe General Patton said:

"Any soldier worth his salt should be anti-war"

War Pigs? I feel like that song describes what you are saying.

POLITICIANS HIDE THEMSELVES AWAY
THEY ONLY STARTED THE WAR
WHY SHOULD THEY GO OUT TO FIGHT?
THEY LEAVE THEIR ROLE TO THE POOR

YEAHH

on the other hand, with every conflict an army enters there are always soldiers that support what the military is doing. There are always soldiers that act like they own the place too.

Are you retarded?

They fight for their country, they don't have a choice hat their country makes them fight for, where they are assigned or whatever is where they go.

Was that really that hard to understand?

You know they do have a choice if they sign up or not.

read the last 5 comments we were talking about this..

Why would someone join the army if it doesn't agree with what they want to fight for?

When we sign up, it's not like we can predict the future. You think when i signed up, thinking that whole iraq/afghan thing was over with, that I knew terrorists in Libya and Afghan would attack us again within this past week, or any of all the other **** that's happened between then and now? We elected to serve because we wanted to protect and serve our country. However, we don't always decide how we will do that. Other nations and our politicians decide that for us, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Just the way it is.

Some people don't have a choice, they join the military so they can pay for college and have a life. If they or their family can't afford college they probably join the military. Don't get me wrong they probably still do it just to fight for their country.

Because a good chnk of the time they don't say

'hey, when you enlist we're going to be in (insert place here) doing (insert action here) in 5 years.'

And a lot of people genuinely believe that they're helping, and some people are just racists believing that everyone in the middle east is a terrorist.

There is no mandatory conscription in the USA you ******* toolbox.

They can choose not to become a soldier, sure.

but when you ARE a soldier, you don't have a choice as to where you are deployed, which is what he said.

Reading comprehension on lufieh's report card: Retarded.

Nobody's beating them over the head to join.

Alright bitch, how about this. How about we don't have anyone join the military, the coast guard, or any police force? Would that make you happy? Would that solve all our country's economic problems? Would that help make America a better place in any way? **** no, and you're an idiot for thinking it would even help a little. If nobody joined the military, then there would be no way for us to defend ourselves if we were attacked.

And on top of that, if you're gonna complain about people getting payed for nothing, why not bitch about people on welfare? They don't do **** . Most of them don't have jobs, and a lot of them probably aren't even looking for jobs, because they don't need to. They can just live off welfare. But of course you wouldn't complain about that because you being the stupid uneducated ****** you are, probably live off of welfare anyway.

Before you try to argue about something, especially something as potentially offensive as that, the least you could do is use a tiny fraction of that amoeba sized pile of horse **** you insist is a brain to come up with an argument that couldn't be cut down so easily.

TL;DR (Because let's face it, you aren't nearly smart enough to read all that in the 30 minutes your mommy lets you use the computer) You are a dumbass, knuckle dragging, wannabe hippy who likes cock and living off welfare.

I wish I had that guy slowly clapping for this situation...

You stupid ass clown, where the **** did I point out that the military should be reduced to a base minimum? And why the **** would I be in favour of military welfare queens but not ******* and ***** ? I despise all, and that's probably the only issue I side with Romney with.

On top of that, the pic is astutely correct that they haven't done ******** ever since WW2 in protecting us. Rather than being corporate and banking tools, they ceased to be useful to the ordinary citizen. I have every right to be mad because MY taxes pay for all the useless military expenditures, while the corporations reap the profits.

Nice strawman, you pseudo-patriotic faggot.

You did kind of have that vibe in the picture when you told people in the military to get a job, in this situation, you are in favor of people on welfare because you're complaining about people in the military getting money but you didn't say anything about them, and just because there hasn't been anyone stupid enough to invade America doesn't mean we don't need to have a military.

But please, go ahead and keep making the same argument over and over again. Redundant explanation helps get my brain working in the morning.

I know, I never said they have to.

But that post is honestly ignorant.

Well, pardon us there hypocritical armchair saint. Nowhere did the post degrade or mock anyone else injured by the war, and it seems like your opinion is formulated around Iraq. This could have been Afghanistan, which was justified. In either case:

Pictures of what happens to the middle eastern people exist, are well documented, and guess what? The majority of the time, its THEY themselves that did most of the damage. Al Qaeda has caused a huge amount of collateral damage, yet that always gets brushed aside by people shoving their armchair worldview points at others. Iraq police are now hunting down and killing all gays, and returning to what they were before America invaded. GDP and most living conditions for Iraqis greatly improved under the occupation (not saying I agree with it at all, but here are some facts http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2009/08/life-in-iraq-before-and-after-invasion .html). Iraq also stabilized politically, which fell apart after America left.

Moreover, you missed the point of the story entirely. It's not celebrating a soldier going to war, or patriotism. It's showing his girlfriend/wife staying with him after he lost his limbs, and had to rebuild. It told a story of compassion and love, which in your idiotic rant, you completely lost sight of.

It wasn't just a commentary on this picture, it's a commentary on all these pictures placing soldiers on a pedestal as though they're heroes for being injured.

Wonder why pictures of killed and injured middle eastern citizens are mainly taken by them? Because the world doesn't care about them, and western media doesn't want to show it, because it'll make people question the validity of entering such a conflict. Stop looking at this like it's the west jumping in to save the day and deliver liberty: it's a lie, we have no right in saying how any country should operate, and going in under the guise that they're threatening the freedom of the west is pure ******** . Even if this war does come to an end, extremism will still exist outside of middle eastern territories, warring on their home ground will never stop them.

Question everything. That's the problem with people today, they don't question, and they accept everything at face value. They threaten your freedom as much as I influence what you're going to eat for breakfast every morning.

So if the war isn't necessary you think their heroes? Unnecessarily going into another country and killing people makes them heroes? If they were doing it out of need and protection then that might be acceptable, but if it isn't necessary there is nothing heroic about killing people.

Yes, the United States (and any other country for that matter) does have the ******* right to tell other countries how to operate, within limits. Afghanistan was for all practical purposes, under Al Queda control when the United States invaded them.

If you don't think that anybody should intervene even if a terrorist organization has control of a government, how would you feel if the United States was taken over by the Mafia, where anything the mob said, went? And then when Americans bombed Berlin, London, Paris, Shanghai, Tokyo, you name it, and the U.S. government not only didn't apologize for the acts of their citizens, but praised their work, I would be ******* pissed and establish a new government over there.

Yes, extremism will exist no matter what we do, but it was needed for the United States to get the extremists out of the government...

exactly, finally someone sees it as it is. Who the hell is america or any other country to tell those middle eastern countries how to run themselves? Fighting for freedom in a land that isn't yours? that doesn't make sense. It is all for ******* money, hopes of getting their oil and maybe some democracy would be established and then they hope that those countries can suck america's dick for doing so.

I think some things need to be changed, Islamic beliefs are ridiculous and dangerous. A US ambassador got killed just for being American... This needs to stop.

Islamic beliefs are those of peace just like christian's. people get killed for being black, white, latino, asian in the America all the time, so what? there is crime everywhere.

Alright dude, you wandered off into tinfoil hat territory there. Afghanistan was justified by 9/11, since Osama was based there and that's where the planning/Al Qaeda operatives were.

You mean photographers for Time, NYT, CNN, The Washington Post, LA times, and BBC are all in on a giant conspiracy? They show pictures of what happens when locals walk over IED sites, and collateral damage from American UAV's. They show the brutality of Al Qaeda's programs on the local people. It's about as impartial as you can get.

Plenty of people care. Foreign aid is delivered in billions to relieve the suffering of those people.

Yeah, most middle eastern people don't threaten my captain crunch or my freedom. However, when the governments of countries over there are supporting people who fly planes into buildings full of civilians, it's time to go over and fix the problem, and remove the threat of that happening in the future.

Most stories, such as this one depicting injured soldiers are rarely about promoting the war, country or patriotism. It's mostly showing the inner strength of humans to overcome hardship, or the compassion of a couple firmly committed to each other. I think you are sorely missing the point of this post, and most others like it.

So was sending in PMCs with contracts which gave them carte blanche justified? Was them laundering money, weapons, trafficking humans, setting up child prostitution rings justified? Was using American tax payer money justified to line their pockets so they can do what they did?

I never mentioned anything along the lines of conspiracy; as soon as you mention anything contrarian to the mass consensus, someone always rushes to pick up the "conspiracy" card; these are facts, facts are not conspiracy. The suspect actions of the government during the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq are well documented. Media outlets barely ever offer portrayals on what life is like for innocents in the middle east, that's not a conspiracy; study up on media context and you'll see why.

Stop trying to paint me with the wrong shades just to ratify your own point; everything I've said is completely true and can be backed up with a couple of searches on Google.

PMC's were hired as security, and often given assignments that were incredibly dangerous to spare regular troops. There are several well documented articles about what they did wrong however. Carte Blanche? All those caught breaking international law get sent to military court to face trial and punishment for war crimes.

Child prostitution rings? The U.S. never set up child prostitution rings.... Where the hell did that come from?

"Wonder why pictures of killed and injured middle eastern citizens are mainly taken by them? Because the world doesn't care about them, and western media doesn't want to show it, because it'll make people question the validity of entering such a conflict. Stop looking at this like it's the west jumping in to save the day and deliver liberty: it's a lie, we have no right in saying how any country should operate, and going in under the guise that they're threatening the freedom of the west is pure ******** . Even if this war does come to an end, extremism will still exist outside of middle eastern territories, warring on their home ground will never stop them.

Question everything. That's the problem with people today, they don't question, and they accept everything at face value. They threaten your freedom as much as I influence what you're going to eat for breakfast every morning."

This is where the tinfoil hat reference was derived. The media has openly and accurately reported on almost every facet of the war. Articles are freely available to anyone. They are generally online due to the graphic nature of many, but are run at night on prime time. The only information not put on prime time T.V. was info that could not be verified, or found.

I'm not painting you any shade here, I'm countering your opinion with the other side of the argument. I'm also commenting on the fact that you've taken this story way out of context and placed a value in it that's just not inherently there. This was a story about love, not war.

Read 'War PLC' by Stephen Armstrong, an entire book about the conception of PMCs and their actions throughout various conflicts. And no, only a small handful of PMCs were trialled, Blackwater walked free, because their contract essentially gave them carte blanche that absolved them of any actions that would usually be brought to the courts.

The media have not accurately portrayed the conflict, how often did you turn on the news and hear about how many Iraqi or Afghan civilians or troops had died that day? How often did you hear about western soldiers who had committed suicide after returning home from duty, due to untreated PTSD. No, you don't see that, because it's too depressing, it doesn't bring you to question the validity of war. We are not innocent, and people like the guy in the picture don't need praise, they need an apology.

Ahmad Shah Massoud fought alongside hundreds of Mujahideen to repel the Soviets, then Hematyr and his mujahideen betrayed the others - opening a floodgate for the Taliban to abuse the nation. Massoud and thousands of Afghans fought against those who sought to destroy their nation THEY FOUGHT FOR, THEY DIED FOR. If you maybe learned a little history about Afghanistan, how the Taliban too over and raped, slaughtered, took back the world's fastest rising economy to ruins. You act like the fighting, the violence, started when we got there.

Massoud warned the European delegates that if Bush and the US don't intervene soon, the Taliban will attack Europe and the US. And sure enough they did. When ever I hear stupid **** like this, or stuff like in OP's post. I get sick. They're both equally disgusting.

The Taliban are monsters. They destroyed a country and the people that fought for it. Right now, Massoud's men make up a large portion of the top ranking soldiers in the ANA (Afghan National Army), and his family members let his legacy live on in ambassador work and vice presidency. They worked with Massoud, they carry on his legacy with working with the US and coalition soldiers because they know if they never came - Afghanistan's thriving, vibrant culture would have been decimated completely by the Taliban.

The Taliban wouldn't do so well if the US didn't give them the funds and CIA training in order to fight Iran. Once again, intervening in affairs they have no stake in. If they wanted to secure relations with them, they would've done it through diplomacy and opening channels of commerce, not assisting them in a conflict they shouldn't have been involved in.

The US funded Hematyr's Mujahideen alongside Pakistan, because Hematyr had a lot of soldiers and so they seemed like they'd defend against the Soviets well. This money came in the form of moderate arms and vehicles from the Pakistani military.

While this was happening, Iran supported Proto-Talibani leader Abdul Ali Mazari and his Hazara Hezb-i Wahdat forces, along with Saudi Arabian rich men like OSAMA BIN LADEN.

While it is true the Taliban and Iran were enemies, the US did not ever involve themselves in those conflicts from 1998-2004, with hostilies ending and the Islamic Front actually aiding Taliban fighters.

The only Taliban support was by proxy of funding Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who channel money to Hekmatyar and the proto-Taliban.

In essence, you're wrong. This isn't a debate. I'm telling you facts. That's that. This is not right or wrong, this is not altruism or morality. This is fact, your facts are wrong. Instead of antagonizing the US, why not look at the big picture and accept the country for what it is - hundreds of millions of minds and hundreds of millions more who have died. No country is a single breathing entity, while they may act like them in many Human Geographic models - it goes as far as a metaphor.

Facts bear no morality, merely words.

They funded them, and gave them training, that's intervention enough and a gesture of where their allegiances lie. Years later it backfires, and that training was used against them, and we're supposed to be surprised? Facts may not bear any morality, but actions certainly do.

Do you know what the term 'by proxy' means? We didn't train anyone. Our money went into the hands of the Pakistanis and Saudis that thought that'd be a good idea. They took the guns we gave to them and gave it to the Taliban and Hektmayr. The Bush kim jongistration as openly condemned the former Carter and Ford kim jongistration for not enough oversight on the funds, saying they should have supplied Massoud. In fact, if the CIA did their research, the Taliban probably wouldn't have lasted a second in Afghan soil.

Most high ranking military officers are recommended by former Bush advisors and new Obama legislature to work with new Peshawar Accord Mujahideens like Massoud, former members, to help combat the Taliban.

In fact, the percentage of Afghan citizens who thought their country was headed in the right direction in 2005 was 77%. Most Afghans support the Americans and coalition heavily. Who have helped their economy grow from the stagnation of Taliban rule. If it was about the resources, they would have never invaded. Afghan production of rare minerals doubled in Taliban times and fell to an all time low when the US liberated the area, with prices fluctuating.

Of course I know what "by proxy" means. I also know that if an adult leaves a gun lying around and a child picks it up and shoots someone, the parent's the one to blame.

So you're saying giving a sovereign country arms because of deals we made with that country a decade earlier means that if they make a bad decision and that bad decision escalates and we go there to fix it BY PROXY it's our fault?

Look, we both come from different age groups, different cultures, different lifestyles, and etc. I'm not new to the US, but I wasn't born here. And I'm very proud to say I'm a citizen. I've traveled to Afghanistan, to Panjir, and met these people first hand. I've encountered soldiers, natives, former-Mujahideen, Taliban (from a distance), and even Academi mercenaries. The only people I have disdain for from a long time of being engrossed in this subject is the Taliban and Saudi Arabia - not even Pakistan.

I know what politics makes people do, I know the lack of complete omniscient power makes governments do mistakes. And I certainly know the US made ****** up by aiding Saudi Arabia and Pakistan after that whole region kerfuffle. To antagonize a nation, a government with no one leader (since the Soviet Invasion in Afghanistan our government has changed a multitude of times - politically and power-wise.)

I'm not telling you to stop thinking what you're thinking, although I disagree with you.
Everything I said was fact - correcting many of your inaccuracies. The rest was getting you to reason. I wouldn't wish presidency on you any day. Because you will have to order people to be killed, you will have to make giant mistakes, and no one will ever think you were as good as the next guy. I just hope you go out and learn these things for yourself and understand morality is so ambiguous and laughable in this industrialized world - that most Westerners don't know what Islam is. They've only seen Westernized Islam and Radical Islam like the Taliban, which Massoud denounced as beyond Islam - pure evil.

No, setting up alliances with said nations then leaving it to its own devices and disassociating itself with it is what brought on the discord between the nations. Dr Frankenstein created the monster, and he shouldn't be surprised if it turns on him.

And think of how Islam is actually portrayed in the media, how it's been portrayed since 9/11, like a demonic cult, where the truth is, it's not. It's the fundamentalism within, a microcosm of individuals, possibly around the same number of people of fundamentals that exist in other major religions. Not only that, threatening the ideology only causes a RAISE in fundamentalism; people who face oppression seek strength, and fundamentalists preach that they can offer that strength. This is more a war of conflicting religious ideologies than it is for actual freedom, except whilst those in the east see it as that, the west sees it as a means of gaining an empiric hold on the world, and securing its own interests.

And those people who say the 3,000 who died in 9/11 are good enough reason to go to war? How about the 5,000 and counting troops who've died in the wars? And for what? Nothing.

أبدا ستعمل تعطي لكم، لن نخذلكم ل. أبدا ستعمل نلف وندور والصحراء لكم

ENGLISH ************ , DO YOU SPEAK IT?!

فقدت لكم اللعبة

"But what if Iraq does not combine terrorism create stools."

Until you go fight in a war, how about you go and **** yourself. Soldiers don't fight for their beliefs, they do what they're told. Also, this content isn't about political ******** , its just a man who served his country and lost several limbs, but still charged on through with life. Please go cover yourself in gasoline and play with a lit match.

Yeah, because you really need to have fought in a war to have an opinion on war. Tell that to Noam Chomsky or Christopher Hitchens. Doing what you're told doesn't make you a hero, it makes you a lamb to the slaughter. Have you fought in a war? I doubt it. So by your logic, you shouldn't have a say in this.

Oh, and tell a World War 2 veteran that soldiers don't fight for their beliefs. That was a war on an ideology that truly threatened the world, not a made up context.

Missed the point my good sir.

This is a heart warming story of how a man came back from the (insert war bashing here) war and had lost almost all of himself there (literally). And regardless of what his physical appearance was like, regardless of his handicaps his girlfriend still stayed and loved him and they continued their lives together, working through their hardships.

if youi want to post pictures about that then why don't you just do it?

Because people only want to see what the human spirit can endure; they don't want to see the depths humanity can sink to. That's a pill too bitter for some people to swallow.

op although i agree with your general viewpoint i think it would be ignorant to think that was only a small amount of human rights abuses and killings occuring before the US started this war. I'm sure there were many middle eastern families whose lives were being torn apart under Taliban rule (Afghanistan) and Saddam (Iraq).

Even now if you look at the stats the majority of civilian deaths are caused by idiot Islamic extremists who while trying to cause some damage to the US forces end up killing a substantial amount more of their 'own' people/

Even if this man hadn't been a soldier I would of thumbed up, Its an inspiring story about a man who persisted and a women that loved him no matter what. It's not being used as propaganda to get us to hate the middle east, there is nothing on there that would indicate as such, it's simply showing the love between two people. Calm the **** down.

Are you ******* retarded? this has NOTHING to do with the war AT ALL. this is just saying that the poster's (along with mine and many other's) faith in humanity was restored because the woman stayed with her man even though he had all four limbs blown off. That man could be of any ethnicity, from anywhere in the world and could have lost his limbs in literally ANY manner and the reaction (for me at least) would be the EXACT SAME

^ This ****

I wish I had the courage to say what you just did, but of course I live in the Midwest where the military is practically revered on the same pedestal as Christ Himself and I would only get called a "commie" or some **** .

THANK YOU

Totally agree with you man, most people only see the brutallity of war of their own countrymen.

**** YEAH, POLITICS.

You keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night. Bear in mind that while people believe that the 3,000 lives lost due to 9/11 were worth going to war for, it's cost 5,000 more lives of US troops to fight that war. Worth it? I think not.

Oh look, more naive libertarian douchebags are ranting on about how all soldiers are baby killing monsters who don't deserve the time of day. I thought your kind died off with the rest of the hippies in the late 1970s.

So why don't you go ahead and share with the rest of the class what sort of sacrifices YOU had to make to achieve whatever level of success you may or may not have?

You don't have to be involved in war or be a soldier to make a commentary on war; Christopher HItchens and Gore Vidal have both written at length on conflict, received praise for their work, and neither of them have been in a war, so does that invalidate what they say? That's like saying a jury can't judge a criminal unless they've committed a crime themselves. So if I can't comment on war, then YOU shouldn't be able to comment on war. Tell me what sacrifices YOU have made?

Also, you have a skewed definition of what libertarianism actually is; if I was a libertarian, that would mean that I would believe in defense of personal property without government intervention, a definition far removed from what I said.

And you don't have to be a "hippy" to disagree with war, you only have to be a human being. Think war's worth it? Tell the guy in the picture, or the hundreds of soldiers who committed suicide after returning from duty due to untreated PTSD, I'm sure their families would love to hear you tell them that.

Well for one, I actually went ahead and signed on for the military, went through the necessary training, and and currently waiting to deploy with my unit.

But you go ahead and keep making assumptions about all of the people that you meet and talk to. I'm sure you'll get one of them right.

Also, what makes people like Hitchens and Vidal able to talk is that they have a bit more experience than what they're apathetic history teacher taught them about Vietnam in High School. I know you love seeing yourself as though you're lumped in with these respectable intellectuals, but when your only sacrifice is that you're having pseudo debates on internet humor sites...just...you're embarrassing yourself.

Okay, so you're allowed to make various assumptions about me, yet all of a sudden, you're in the military?

That's the nice thing about the internet, I never pretended to be something I can't prove. You did.

And criticizing me for having "pseudo debates" on an internet humour site? You're on the same ship, you just happen to be on your high horse.

Your best response is"NUH UH!"? Seriously?

You are incredibly bad at this.

for ***** sake man i dont give a **** if hes a u.s. soldier or not this is ******* awesome. Respect this man not for the war he fought for our country but for the war he fought mentally and physically for himself and his family. Overcoming a loss like that is simply insane.

We would, but its hard to get them to pose for a picture when they want to tear your head off over a ****** Youtube video.

Well, I'm with you on this, but I'm still joining the army to pay for college. Probably a dumb **** move, but I'm not exactly rolling in cash, and I hate taking out loans.

Honestly, I sympathize with you, and wish you the best of luck. Frankly it's unfair that due to the state of higher education and its rising costs in the US that you have to join the army just to afford college. Then again, it's a country that invests more in defense than its own citizens. Just do yourself a favour and completely ignore the 'for profit' colleges; they're a complete scam and have an obscenely high drop-out rate.

Try and find a desk job with them, it's not worth putting your neck on the line.

Well, with my eyes and just flat out ****** genetics I'd probably get stuck in Intelligence.

You know what else he can do? He can join on in the medical field as a nurse, and later on develop a career saving lives out of it, like my mother did. Or he can do what I did and join as a medic, where I can learn the same basic life saving principles my mom did without blowing myself full force into the medical field. Both of us have the military to thank for the ability to now be competent when it comes to emergency situations. We're not one of the staring public wondering what to do when **** happens. The military did that.

Or am I still a mindless monster?

there is actually video of English soldiers tourchering captured civilians
and one reported death at the hands of English soldiers
on SBS last year

So ******* what? You see what they do over there? Just for wearing clothing that shows your ankles you could be killed if you are a woman. Those countries are full of radicals with a ridiculous religion (Even more than the ones over here). I don't agree with the collateral damage, and I know the war was started over false pretenses, but don't ever insult a man who fought for his country and almost died, you don't know what it is like, so **** you.

It's still not for us or anyone else to say how they should live, and we most certainly shouldn't oppose our ideologies on them. What would you do if someone burst into your house tomorrow, held a gun to your head and forced you to live the way that THEY want, even if you didn't agree with it or want it? And being killed for exposing ankles is a complete myth.

And don't you dare use the "their religion is crazy" argument; Christianity, Catholicism and many other mainstream religions are just as ******** as Islam, and fundamentalism exists in ALL of them. Not only that, people criticize middle eastern countries for incorporating religion in their laws, yet the US has people swear to God under oath when people are in court, regardless of their belief.

And nowhere did I insult the man. In fact, I offered sympathy, which you'll see if you read correctly. I said that he's not a hero, he's a victim of his government.

I'm an Atheist, I didn't say the religions over here aren't bad, I said theirs are worse, Islamic belief includes that if you draw Muhammad you should be put to death. Yup...

And yet in the US, polls have showed that 90% of people wouldn't elect an athiest. They'd rather have someone who's Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim (yes, Muslim), Hindu, Mormon or even a Scientologist (yes, even them). The US puts thiesm on a pedestal just as much as middle eastern countries do. The Qur'an states that images of Muhammad are blasphemy, and punishable by death, they are following their law. Just like the majority of US states are following the supposed law of the Christian bible in saying that homosexuality is a sin, therefore they can't get married (which it doesn't actually say anywhere in the bible clearly).

They have their laws, we have ours. Once again, we are not at liberty to impose upon anyone else's ideology, especially when it's not a threat to our own.

I'm not sure that's what this is about. I mean, I agree with what you're saying, but I think that this is more about the fact that not only did the guys girlfriends stay with him after he lost all his limbs, but she even had kids with him. It's not about the war, it's about the relationship between these two, how she loved him for him, and stuck with him long after he lost his legs. How she didn't love him any less, and, in fact, may have loved him more for having enough balls to not off himself from depression due to him losing both arms and legs.

It easy to say that, but you dont have a clue...
without the soldiers out there, these people will become slaves and victims of the extreme islam terrorist, just look at what became of Yemen or Afghanistan.

Read my other comments, clearly I do have a clue. You're deluded to think that temporary intervention will change the modus of a country. It's not liberty, it's not peace, it's just an interruption of services. Ask anyone from the middle east and they'll tell you that the media's portrayal of it is complete nonsense.

Im from the middle east :)

Yeah, the military didn't go in for oil, but the governments did. Explain to me why there are limits on how much oil Iran can export but none on Iraq? I wouldn't debate something if I wasn't informed, and if you were so confident in what you had to say, you'd comment under your account name, not under a veil of anonymity.

)Why he went to war may have been for a wrong reason (as war usually is), but this still is a beautiful tale. After all, he didn't ask to lose his limbs, didn't he?

It's amazing his girlfriend supported him through it.

By god, you're right. I think this proves your point even further:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=V36MT5lAMrc

this war is nothing new to them.

**** you salari

and **** anyone who agrees with this douchebag.

those soldiers are send to stop dictators and bastards who treat the small people like dirt. theyre send to make the world a better place. but the media make the soldiers look bad, cuz its a good story, and you retards swallow it like a big fat cock as you like it.
if we didnt send soldiers to stop the dictators, the small people would have a much worse future than if we didnt..

so stfu hippie douchebags

What an eloquent and well represented rebuttal. What's your source, every Call of Duty game?

Dude, you're making the military look bad. That's the kind of **** they feed people in a satirical war movie to raise volunteering rates.

fair enough if you dont like the war and stand against it, but they are just doing their job at the end of the day. I don't think there is anything wrong with things like this proud of the soldiers etc. who are caught up in this. but if its a pro war post fair enough kick **** off if not blame the politicians

man c'mon...you have points but this isn't simply about war. it's about the perseverance of true love.
And you can hate war as much as you want but not saluting any person that goes out and risks their lives for their countries (in good intentions) is simply being an ******* .

how exactly would you know? you've been there? these soldiers don't have a choice what the fight for. blaming a war on soldiers who had nothing to do with it is disgusting. have some respect.

I'm guessing you haven't read about the actions of PMCs given carté blanche on behalf of the US government, laundering money and guns, human trafficking, setting up child prostitution rings, all the while being pardoned and paid with your tax dollars.

And I don't feel any hate towards either party, I just think it's ridiculous that we put soldiers on a plateau and refuse to question the actions of the government for putting them in that position in the first place. I'll say it again; the people who were hurt or killed in war aren't heroes, they're victims. Everyone is a victim in this conflict, except it's only "heartwarming" when you see a white skinned victim for some reason.

I've said this to someone else already; ready 'War PLC' by Stephen Armstrong. It documents everything from the conception of PMCs to the controversial contracts they've been given. And yes, I'm talking about Blackwater, they set up child prostitution rings where they would force young girls into kim jongistering oral sex to their troops for a dollar.

It's not trolling, it's being informed.

Links? Would love to see this.

who cares lol, people die, its no biggie. just dance yo

Why the **** should i care. I mean honestly i could care less they are foreigners they are not soldiers of my country i don't care whether they die or are injured. I care for my people you care for yours.

'MERICA!

Whats really happening in the world??
What really happening in the world is the same **** that goes down the whole history of men.
The strong ones beat the weak ones for their ressources easy as that.
Somehow this is Darwins "Survival of the fittest" just on a whole new lvl.
To be honest, (here comes my opinion prepare for red thumbs) why should i give a damn about other countrys but mine?
Tell me!

because people exist outside your own country. be a bit more open minded.

i know that people exist on the outside of my country but... well let me explain it in a more different way.
If you read the newspaper and notice that someone somewhere got killed.
By accident, intentional ****** .... you are of course not unaffected by this incident, because you are a social being.
Either way it will not affect your way of life.
BUT if someone close to you gets killed it affects your life directly.

What i mean is: of course is it fckin awful that mankind has to kill each other for stupid reasons.
It is awful to see people die in a war in foreign countries, but to be honest does it affect you in the same way it would if it would be your country?
Just sayin

no you tell me please, because i don't understand faggots logic.

I have to agree. He signed himself up to be a chess piece for these ****** wars. I have to give the girl credit though. She stayed by her man when he most needed it whereas I've only ever heard of women cheating on men and dumping them when they've entered the service.

I think that is the whole ******* point.. Not that he went to war...

Well have you concidered that the guy needed the money to support his wife and kid...I dont see whats so bad in that. Thats the reason many of the guys go there. That does not mean they like killing or support the wars and all that stuff.

But we don't want to spend a lot of money.

******* LOL

Besides of the strength of the guy too.. I wouldn't be able to bear with that

I NEVER ASKED FOR THIS

if that technology existed and looked that good i might actually cut my arm off. the left one. i need the right one to perform certain "delicate" functions

And that's a real man standing beside her man.

beside his woman*

*woman? xD Would have been funny. Damn you.

Actually **** it. Was still funny. Thumb for you.

I broke the law, come arrest me!

If you're stupid enough to marry some one who would cheat, then you deserve it. (Most troops aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer either; I mean what can you expect from Americans)

says the man behind his computer probably thinking he is better than everyone else.

**devilmaytam rolled a random image posted in comment #11 at All hail ** me after reading this post