well, you mentioned me and cowardice in the same sentence. who's the bigger coward here? you would'nt lift a finger if the scenario i stated were true.
yes, i can still run as fast, but i am much more prone to reinjuring myself than i was then. also, they want soldiers who can give 100% every day, day in and day out.
getting injured in combat and reinjuring a pre existing injury are two different things. you think i am dodging you? you ask me a question, i answer, and you say my answer is crap because you dont like it. if anything, you are dodging my question of whether you would trust someone at your back in combat who isnt 100%
__________________
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
Could is not irrelevant, because if nothing was done there could have been more attacks or there couldn't have been any. Personally I rather err on the side of caution.
What's your opinion on 9/11 and America's actions? Is it, America should have done nothing because the attacks killed a 'mere" 3000 people or America just did the wrong thing, but should haev done something?
You are. I don't think that's a matter of debate after the shambolic explanations and excuses you've given.
I've admitted that I don't want to go to war, for many reasons, and I've stated them. It's not a matter of cowardice because I have specifically said I'd defend only those I care for. The difference is, you are an armchair troop supporter. You are a coward because you could blatantly enlist, you choose to make excuses to get out of doing so.
And you can too, can't you? They have the possibility of injury, so do you. You were previously injured, and if you hadn't recovered to the point of having a fully functioning knee, THEN you would be more prone to injury, but that's not the case. Quit the ducking and diving, you dodger.
No, your answer is crap because you're using pathetic hypotheticals to excuse yourself from service you previously spoke in favour of, and accused me of being less of a man than you for not accepting or wanting a part of.
I'm not dodging your question. Someone who isn't 100% wouldn't be there, would they? That doesn't apply to you, since everything you've said has suggested that you could perform, there's just a possibility you might re-injure yourself. Based on what? You were injured before? False. Like I said, you have clearly recovered if your boastful "I can run as fast." statements are true. You don't see recruitment officers turning people away in case they get shot and leave their man unguarded.
It doesn't add up, you're talking bullshit. You felt safe in the knowledge that you were out of recruitment age until I pulled it up. You never mentioned health until I called you on enlisting, now you're making scenarios up that don't coincide with what you have told us about your condition. You said you would go if forced, yet...you claim not to be at 100%, in which case you would have dodged the draft. You haven't thought about covering your tracks, and I'm dusting you for it.
You wouldn't fight, just like I wouldn't, because you're afraid. If you weren't, you'd have enlisted by now.
They attacked my country and they killed my countrymen, it could have easily been my city, me dead or someone I know. So I should be obtuse because I happened to be lucky enough to have not been killed; that's lame.
Well, that's an entirely different argument and thread and it's a more complex situation than either of us think. But I do agree in part.
If I didn't think it was, I wouldn't have said it.
How were you lucky to not have been killed? Being in the attack and surviving, THAT'S being lucky enough to not have been killed. Living in an entirely different city and suggesting you were lucky is what's lame, Rob.
The fact is, I said it was irrelevant because you're saying what it could have been. We're not discussing that. You always feel the need to tack something needless onto a current debate, it's strange.
It's not complex, really. Iraq didn't do it, yet Iraq got whooped, under false guises and "Hell, there are terrorists there ANYWAY, so it's good enough.". Sorry, I don't accept that.
9/11 could have happened to any major city... Still doesn't take away that it happened in my country and to my countrymen; I refuse to be obtuse just because I didn't die (which I wouldn't be anything then) nor someone I know was killed. That's just foolish I think.
If you want to think the Iraq situation is so cut and dry and you figured it out entirely, go ahead.
Obviously I thought it was, that's what I said. Are you doing what you have accused me of? Not reading.. or are you implying that what you think is of greater importance since you did capatize the "YOU" when refering to me?
As is the opinion that going to fight this war is great because it's some defense of freedom, which is what this debate was originally about. It's never been about freedom, there was never a threat to freedom.
I never said that, but what I said wasn't untrue.
You think it's relevant, I don't. This is evidenced by the fact that I have to keep bringing you back to the matter at hand, but that's neither here nor there.
you keep calling me a coward. you need to take a good look in the mirror. IF there were a draft, IF my country absolutely needed me, i would join up. i WOULD NOT run, i WOULD NOT draft dodge, as YOU would. running away when called upon when you are ultimately needed? THAT'S cowardice. what, you think i am gonna say "well, AC is right, i gotta up and volunteer now?"....that's BS. of course i am not gonna volunteer, but if there were a draft, i would'nt run, as you would.
you just don't get it. but if you feel better calling me a dodger, go ahead. you are letting your petty personal feelings towards me affect the way you post, little lady.
just because i can run as fast does'nt mean i have recovered. until i have surgery, i will never recover. ligaments dont just grow back. once they are snapped, they are snapped.
i never had a reason to bring up preexisting injuries until you mentioned the age requirement. call me a liar, a dodger, whatever you want, apparently you get off on that. i claimed to be 100% but i would have dodged the draft? WTF? what are you babbling about? i never said i would dodge the draft. thats your thing, running and hiding when law requires you to take up arms. and yes, i would be afraid. any seasoned combat veteran will tell you that they are afraid every time they go out on patrol. any cop will tell you they are afraid when they are doing their beat. whats being afraid got to do with it?
__________________
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
And yet, you claim that you aren't fit to serve, in which case the draft wouldn't apply to you anyway. You've slipped up so much that you're confusing yourself now.
You aren't going to volunteer because you're an armchair supporter of troops. Everything you've said so far suggests that you are able to and that you're making excuses.
And you aren't, which is why you're using phrases like "little lady", haha. You've been found out, just accept it.
You can run as fast as you did three years before the injury, and you're now in late 30s. That's recovery, that is recovered. It's most CERTAINLY recovery enough to join the armed forces. You're either lying about the severity of your injuries, being injured at all, or being in good condition. The three can't be together.
You can keep saying "running and hiding" as if it makes me look worse, and I'll just keep letting it roll off my back while you continue struggling to justify your "inability" to volunteer.
What you are saying doesn't add up. You aren't fit enough to volunteer, but you're fit enough to run at the speed you did when you were 17. You AREN'T fit enough to volunteer...yet if forced into the draft, you would somehow be of acceptable quality.
It's obvious. You won't volunteer for the same reasons I don't want to, because you are afraid of war and you're afraid of being killed in one. You like the idea of going, fighting for the "cause", but you won't do it. You're an armchair supporter.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
No, not at all. I don't mind soldiers they do a job that is necessary (kinda like plumbers). I just don't feel that they deserve respect because they passed better opportunities and died doing the job they choose.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
No, look, being a soldier in Germany is smooth sailing (well not that, but not nearly as dangerous), to fight in Iraq has NOT to be done. And everyone that volunteers volunteers for a dangerous job that has not to be done.
The difference is that you call it balls. I call it stupidity.
I call it stupidity because of the fact that it requires unquestionable dedication to fighting for the government. That's stupid. Nothing ballsy about agreeing to kill people for your government, no matter what.
Especially since the most common excuse, "Our freedom is at stake.", isn't true.
A job being necessary doesn't necessarily mean that undertaking it isn't stupidity.
Armies are necessary, for reasons evidenced by WWII etc. That doesn't mean it cannot be proposed that wanting to do that job is stupid, or foolhardy, whatever term you want to use.
You don't think it's a bit odd to pledge your life, and possibly lose it, for a government who, in all probability, aren't even fighting to technically protect anything that would affect your everyday life? It's insane to me.
"I'm going to Iraq to fight for the freedom that 9/11 took...tried to take...didn't...have any effect on...never did...never will.".
KMC Community Forums
Mar 29th, 2007 06:01 PM
