At least I have stated a rational argument. You come on here, complain about leftist media are brainwashing the nation into fighting in Ukraine then you prove your stupidity by advocating for political policies, as you say leftist media brainwashed you to choose. How stupid can one be?
Someone on letsrun payroll gives me a down arrow the second I post. Childish.
ATTENTION ALL ADULTS (and kids looking to get a head start on [mature] adulthood): STOP looking at "voting" on social media or the like. It's akin to the HS prom king/queen vote. Really.
If US forces took concentrated fire from a building in Iraq and Afghanistan 9 times out of 10 the building was leveled with artillery or close air support.
Once soldiers have to choose between PR and staying alive they will always opt for staying alive.
The Russians are doing what all soldiers do.
There's endless videos of mobs blocking roads and men stopping columns to berate the soldiers and the Russians haven't done anything to them.
War is ugly. Only the ignorant and naive think what's happening now is any different than what's always happened just because the people have cameras.
You're making silly generalizations. All combatants are not created equal. Some worry about civilian casualties a lot, some none at all, and some somewhere in between. The modern U.S. military worries about them quite a bit. And we know, based on past actions, that Putin cares about it far, far less. And, it would appear, that's also true of this conflict. Surprise, surprise.
Just stop pretending that every service member in every service in every conflict is applying the same standards to decide upon whether or not to use force in a given place at a given time. It's simply not true, and it gives too little credit to those who worry about it, and far too much credit to those who don't.
Have you ever been in combat?
When people are trying to kill you you're not thinking about PR. Combatants don't want to die. If you force them to choose between their own life and the life of the people who may or may not be in the house the guy trying to kill them is in... guess who wins!
Putin is not making tactical decisions. That's absolutely ridiculous.
What an ignorant take on the situation, but then again your take is always the same as the msn since you've never had an original thought of your own.
I could be wrong, but it's pretty obvious that Putin watched a democratically elected leader of Ukraine get ousted by the west and figured it was only a matter of time before they try the same thing in Russia. The fact that the average idiot here thinks they would have stopped with Ukraine is Putin's motivation.
1) I don't watch read anything from MSN or watch MSNBC, so you're wrong.
2) I never said my thought here was original. There is no need for original thought here anyway, and in fact, original thought would just be wrong. Putin is power hungry. He has said Russia is constantly humiliated due to the fall of the USSR, and he feels it is disrespectful for NATO to expand. Putin has been causing trouble for a long time. His issue isn't just that Ukraine had a revolution and ousted his puppet President. You should stop your love of Putin. He's a bad guy. You are an idiot.
I'm pretty sure the poster you responded to meant to write msm, not msn, but you seem like the kind of guy who would believe everything msnbc tells you. Blindly believing the west are the good guys and that Putin is bad reinforces that.
Also, how many times do you log in and out to upvote your posts? I've noticed you always have way more votes than any other posts nearby in the thread.
You're making silly generalizations. All combatants are not created equal. Some worry about civilian casualties a lot, some none at all, and some somewhere in between. The modern U.S. military worries about them quite a bit. And we know, based on past actions, that Putin cares about it far, far less. And, it would appear, that's also true of this conflict. Surprise, surprise.
Just stop pretending that every service member in every service in every conflict is applying the same standards to decide upon whether or not to use force in a given place at a given time. It's simply not true, and it gives too little credit to those who worry about it, and far too much credit to those who don't.
Have you ever been in combat?
When people are trying to kill you you're not thinking about PR. Combatants don't want to die. If you force them to choose between their own life and the life of the people who may or may not be in the house the guy trying to kill them is in... guess who wins!
Putin is not making tactical decisions. That's absolutely ridiculous.
Wow, I'm stupid to take any more time with you, but what the hell. You're not reading and/or thinking.
It's not about "PR." And you're making it like everyone with the capacity to inflict harm on civilians is in danger. In modern warfare, a whole hell of a lot of them are not. Not the strike planners, or the intel providers, not the decision makers, quite often not the pilots, quite often not the person pushing the button or pulling the lanyard, etc., etc.
And what the f*** does Putin making tactical decisions have to do with anything anything? There are Russians making tactical decisions who likely are not worrying much about civilian casualties. And EVERY member of their chain of command up to Putin is accountable for this.
And yes, I've been in combat. And served in combat zones multiple times when I wasn't directly in combat. From O-1 to O-6. Plenty familiar with our treatment of civilian casualties. And yes, whether I had or not is completely irrelevant to having an intelligent conversation about this, of which you are clearly incapable.
When people are trying to kill you you're not thinking about PR. Combatants don't want to die. If you force them to choose between their own life and the life of the people who may or may not be in the house the guy trying to kill them is in... guess who wins!
Putin is not making tactical decisions. That's absolutely ridiculous.
Wow, I'm stupid to take any more time with you, but what the hell. You're not reading and/or thinking.
It's not about "PR." And you're making it like everyone with the capacity to inflict harm on civilians is in danger. In modern warfare, a whole hell of a lot of them are not. Not the strike planners, or the intel providers, not the decision makers, quite often not the pilots, quite often not the person pushing the button or pulling the lanyard, etc., etc.
And what the f*** does Putin making tactical decisions have to do with anything anything? There are Russians making tactical decisions who likely are not worrying much about civilian casualties. And EVERY member of their chain of command up to Putin is accountable for this.
And yes, I've been in combat. And served in combat zones multiple times when I wasn't directly in combat. From O-1 to O-6. Plenty familiar with our treatment of civilian casualties. And yes, whether I had or not is completely irrelevant to having an intelligent conversation about this, of which you are clearly incapable.
Do you think artillery just fires blindly? Or it is possible that they fire where they are told to fire? Do you think pilots just work an 8 hour shift and just bomb whatever they think looks fun to bomb?
You're a full bird who has no idea how fire support works... LOL! Sure!
You didn't say the chain of command is responsible for the actions of its subordinates.
You said:
"All combatants are not created equal. Some worry about civilian casualties a lot, some none at all, and some somewhere in between. The modern U.S. military worries about them quite a bit."
If you had ever left the FOB or seen 15 minutes of actual combat in your supposed career you would know your argument is absurd.
Soldiers fighting in urban areas do not pull punches. Google Fallujah. If soldiers are under attack they will respond to the threat regardless of who might be in the building with the people trying to kill them.
The US ROUTINELY fires missiles at toddlers that happen to be with "enemy combatants".
You're either lying about your service or you were in finance.
Ultimately, I believe he's an imperialist who wants to expand the territory and control of Russia.
War is complex and dirty. It's easy to label one side as "bad" and the other as "good" but the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Anyone with brain realizes that if 'imperialism' is your primary motivation to kill people, you are the 'bad' side. We could have packed this thread up after this post.
Do you think artillery just fires blindly? Or it is possible that they fire where they are told to fire? Do you think pilots just work an 8 hour shift and just bomb whatever they think looks fun to bomb?
You're a full bird who has no idea how fire support works... LOL! Sure!
You didn't say the chain of command is responsible for the actions of its subordinates.
You said:
"All combatants are not created equal. Some worry about civilian casualties a lot, some none at all, and some somewhere in between. The modern U.S. military worries about them quite a bit."
If you had ever left the FOB or seen 15 minutes of actual combat in your supposed career you would know your argument is absurd.
Soldiers fighting in urban areas do not pull punches. Google Fallujah. If soldiers are under attack they will respond to the threat regardless of who might be in the building with the people trying to kill them.
The US ROUTINELY fires missiles at toddlers that happen to be with "enemy combatants".
You're either lying about your service or you were in finance.
The only thing we know for certain is you have never been within 1000 miles of a firefight, beyond maybe LARPing with your Airsoft buddies.
Wow, I'm stupid to take any more time with you, but what the hell. You're not reading and/or thinking.
It's not about "PR." And you're making it like everyone with the capacity to inflict harm on civilians is in danger. In modern warfare, a whole hell of a lot of them are not. Not the strike planners, or the intel providers, not the decision makers, quite often not the pilots, quite often not the person pushing the button or pulling the lanyard, etc., etc.
And what the f*** does Putin making tactical decisions have to do with anything anything? There are Russians making tactical decisions who likely are not worrying much about civilian casualties. And EVERY member of their chain of command up to Putin is accountable for this.
And yes, I've been in combat. And served in combat zones multiple times when I wasn't directly in combat. From O-1 to O-6. Plenty familiar with our treatment of civilian casualties. And yes, whether I had or not is completely irrelevant to having an intelligent conversation about this, of which you are clearly incapable.
Do you think artillery just fires blindly? Or it is possible that they fire where they are told to fire? Do you think pilots just work an 8 hour shift and just bomb whatever they think looks fun to bomb?
You're a full bird who has no idea how fire support works... LOL! Sure!
You didn't say the chain of command is responsible for the actions of its subordinates.
You said:
"All combatants are not created equal. Some worry about civilian casualties a lot, some none at all, and some somewhere in between. The modern U.S. military worries about them quite a bit."
If you had ever left the FOB or seen 15 minutes of actual combat in your supposed career you would know your argument is absurd.
Soldiers fighting in urban areas do not pull punches. Google Fallujah. If soldiers are under attack they will respond to the threat regardless of who might be in the building with the people trying to kill them.
The US ROUTINELY fires missiles at toddlers that happen to be with "enemy combatants".
You're either lying about your service or you were in finance.
Holy sh** you're stupid. Like the original id***, you act like the only people killing people in wars are those right outside the building. But even that aside, your "arguments" are phenomenally bad (which is why I hesitate to call them actual arguments).
SOME combatants right outside the building level it, regardless of the situation. Not all. You cite Fallujah, like an idi***. A big part of the reason that Fallujah is famous in modern times is exactly because there was LESS restraint than we normally show. But you were dying to type "Fallujah," and a shi*** argument ensued.
And TONS of strikes in modern warfare are done by those nowhere near danger. Simple fact. Like with the combatants right outside the building, they can care about civilian casualties, or not. And given that you think it cool to make fun of certain military specialties, I'll point out that some of the most important people around many strike planning tables are LAWYERS. But you didn't know that, and you don't know much else.
Put your steroids down, scrape the "Look at me, I'm a veteran (MAYBE)" bumper sticker off your car, and stop telling yourself that you think like an adult until you actually can. But you won't. So simply FO.
And by the way, not that it matters since your arguments s***, regardless, but what is your military experience? (knowing full well that you're probably lying)
Do you think artillery just fires blindly? Or it is possible that they fire where they are told to fire? Do you think pilots just work an 8 hour shift and just bomb whatever they think looks fun to bomb?
You're a full bird who has no idea how fire support works... LOL! Sure!
You didn't say the chain of command is responsible for the actions of its subordinates.
You said:
"All combatants are not created equal. Some worry about civilian casualties a lot, some none at all, and some somewhere in between. The modern U.S. military worries about them quite a bit."
If you had ever left the FOB or seen 15 minutes of actual combat in your supposed career you would know your argument is absurd.
Soldiers fighting in urban areas do not pull punches. Google Fallujah. If soldiers are under attack they will respond to the threat regardless of who might be in the building with the people trying to kill them.
The US ROUTINELY fires missiles at toddlers that happen to be with "enemy combatants".
You're either lying about your service or you were in finance.
The only thing we know for certain is you have never been within 1000 miles of a firefight, beyond maybe LARPing with your Airsoft buddies.
Nice utter and complete lack of a counter-argument, DB. But it's the best you got. Impressive.
And, of course, I have no doubt that you have a long and valor-filled military resume constructed in your head in your mom's basement.
The only thing we know for certain is you have never been within 1000 miles of a firefight, beyond maybe LARPing with your Airsoft buddies.
Nice utter and complete lack of a counter-argument, DB. But it's the best you got. Impressive.
And, of course, I have no doubt that you have a long and valor-filled military resume constructed in your head in your mom's basement.
Oops, I greatly apologize. Realize now that you were writing that to the pseudo-adult. Of course, I fully agree, and my accidental comments to you FULLY apply to him! Again, sorry.
Do you think artillery just fires blindly? Or it is possible that they fire where they are told to fire? Do you think pilots just work an 8 hour shift and just bomb whatever they think looks fun to bomb?
You're a full bird who has no idea how fire support works... LOL! Sure!
You didn't say the chain of command is responsible for the actions of its subordinates.
You said:
"All combatants are not created equal. Some worry about civilian casualties a lot, some none at all, and some somewhere in between. The modern U.S. military worries about them quite a bit."
If you had ever left the FOB or seen 15 minutes of actual combat in your supposed career you would know your argument is absurd.
Soldiers fighting in urban areas do not pull punches. Google Fallujah. If soldiers are under attack they will respond to the threat regardless of who might be in the building with the people trying to kill them.
The US ROUTINELY fires missiles at toddlers that happen to be with "enemy combatants".
You're either lying about your service or you were in finance.
The only thing we know for certain is you have never been within 1000 miles of a firefight, beyond maybe LARPing with your Airsoft buddies.
Well you're wrong as always. Shouldn't be berating 2 year old's for not being masked somewhere?
Nice utter and complete lack of a counter-argument, DB. But it's the best you got. Impressive.
And, of course, I have no doubt that you have a long and valor-filled military resume constructed in your head in your mom's basement.
Oops, I greatly apologize. Realize now that you were writing that to the pseudo-adult. Of course, I fully agree, and my accidental comments to you FULLY apply to him! Again, sorry.
Do you think artillery just fires blindly? Or it is possible that they fire where they are told to fire? Do you think pilots just work an 8 hour shift and just bomb whatever they think looks fun to bomb?
You're a full bird who has no idea how fire support works... LOL! Sure!
You didn't say the chain of command is responsible for the actions of its subordinates.
You said:
"All combatants are not created equal. Some worry about civilian casualties a lot, some none at all, and some somewhere in between. The modern U.S. military worries about them quite a bit."
If you had ever left the FOB or seen 15 minutes of actual combat in your supposed career you would know your argument is absurd.
Soldiers fighting in urban areas do not pull punches. Google Fallujah. If soldiers are under attack they will respond to the threat regardless of who might be in the building with the people trying to kill them.
The US ROUTINELY fires missiles at toddlers that happen to be with "enemy combatants".
You're either lying about your service or you were in finance.
Holy sh** you're stupid. Like the original id***, you act like the only people killing people in wars are those right outside the building. But even that aside, your "arguments" are phenomenally bad (which is why I hesitate to call them actual arguments).
SOME combatants right outside the building level it, regardless of the situation. Not all. You cite Fallujah, like an idi***. A big part of the reason that Fallujah is famous in modern times is exactly because there was LESS restraint than we normally show. But you were dying to type "Fallujah," and a shi*** argument ensued.
And TONS of strikes in modern warfare are done by those nowhere near danger. Simple fact. Like with the combatants right outside the building, they can care about civilian casualties, or not. And given that you think it cool to make fun of certain military specialties, I'll point out that some of the most important people around many strike planning tables are LAWYERS. But you didn't know that, and you don't know much else.
Put your steroids down, scrape the "Look at me, I'm a veteran (MAYBE)" bumper sticker off your car, and stop telling yourself that you think like an adult until you actually can. But you won't. So simply FO.
And by the way, not that it matters since your arguments s***, regardless, but what is your military experience? (knowing full well that you're probably lying)
Holy sh** you're stupid. Like the original id***, you act like the only people killing people in wars are those right outside the building.
Again, you don't seem to have any idea how fire support works which is why I think you're lying about your service.
Artillery is far away... Planes are far away.... Still with me Colonel Sanders? The soldiers "right outside the building" get shot at from the building. They then have to decide. Do we enter the building and take casualties, or do we radio the artillery or close air support for help. 9 times out of 10 they will call the artillery or the air support. This is a stone cold fact no matter what you and your finance buddies discuss at KFC.
And TONS of strikes in modern warfare are done by those nowhere near danger.
Yes, based on intel and quite often that intel comes from SF on the ground doing recon and painting targets. Also not relevant to the urban combat scenarios above.
A big part of the reason that Fallujah is famous in modern times is exactly because there was LESS restraint than we normally show.
Fallujah is literally the only time the US military has had to take a city that was opposed block by block since Vietnam. It wasn't an outlier for the tactics. Those ARE the tactics. There's no other way to do it without suffering horrendous casualties.
I do not care what you think of my or anyone else's service. There is ZERO chance you've ever been in combat. No actual soldier could be as ignorant as you are about combat if he'd ever actually seen it. At best you were in theater and never left the FOB/base. Thanks for your service but don't lie about being in combat to try to validate your absurd opinions on how combat actually is.
Ultimately, I believe he's an imperialist who wants to expand the territory and control of Russia.
War is complex and dirty. It's easy to label one side as "bad" and the other as "good" but the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Anyone with brain realizes that if 'imperialism' is your primary motivation to kill people, you are the 'bad' side. We could have packed this thread up after this post.
This^
OP shows he's absolutely cluess.
Also, OP has still failed to show any evidence at all of the massive hordes of people shutting down conversation about why Putin is invading. Ironically, he's also getting pummeled in his own strawman argument. Doesn't he realize the point of a strawman is to create an argument on a false premise so that you can WIN?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.