Iraq Blocks Twitter, Google, YouTube and Facebook

As predicted? LMAO. Let me fix your revisionist history with the words of Prophet Krauthammer:


Funny in 2009, this is what Charlie Krauthammer had to say:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011503149.html

And now in 2014:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._iraq_in_a_way_that_liquidated_our_gains.html


It would seem that the only people talking about the pending doom of leaving Iraq as Bush planned...were those who were not elected (self-styled) "conservative" politicians/hacks.


;)


Not sure that The Washington Post, as an example, is exactly a bastion of "conservative" politicians/hacks.


 
Algebra and a lot of other things were learned from Greek and Roman culture, by a no longer existing ancient middle east culture that got them just before they collapsed in the 500's. Lucky for us, they were preserved. Astronomy, is the exception, but when you have a crystal clear sky almost every night, it a tad easier.

The earliest instances of algebra were discovered in Babylonian writings as far back as 1800BC, damn near an entire millennium before the existence of ancient Greece as we know it. It is possible that some of the mid-late bronze age civilizations in that area had advanced knowledge of mathematics, but there is no written evidence indicating that.
 
Because shutting down social media will totally not backfire pissing off the populace...and totally work in stopping militants from communicating.

It is both reassuring and terrifying that true morons exist in power outside of the US Congress.

You'd be really, really surprised at how much militants actually use social networking and web mail to communicate on a daily basis. Hell in many areas they make up the majority of the user base. Why do you think the NSA wanted to exploit these things?
 
As an atheist, I am highly offended by this statement. Atheism is not a religion! Stop trying to F#@K it up. we don't go around preaching and converting because WE DON"T CARE, we are indifferent to religion.
Who is this "we"? Atheism is not organized, and teaching science is not "preaching". Teaching and understanding science from a young age without indoctrination naturally results in atheism, its not something you "preach". In any case, it was tongue in cheek, since I realize there is no way to get those religious fanatics to accept reason.
 
Yes they are. Religion does not abide by scientific method... period.

Einstein was religious, so was Oppenheimer, Kepler, Galileo, Da Vinci, Newton, and many others ... you just don't need to use them to solve the same problem at the same time ... the issue isn't religion or lack of it but a lack of humanistic moral values ... if you value men more than women and feel the need to establish a paternalistic and misogynistic control over them then you will have problems irregardless of your spiritual beliefs (AND that is one of their major issues) ;)
 
Iraq is implementing their own homegrown version of the Patriot Act by shutting down the social media sites in that country.

Yea...how many US social sites has the Patriot Act shut down, again? Was it...oh, that's right: 0. I get it, though. A la' Snowden, it's just more fun to fantasize and make things up, right?

I'd say that preventing another 9/11 by snuffing out its source is probably a good thing. Or, at least it was until the Obama administration. Now, after all the work and the sacrifice of American lives, ISIS says, "See you in New York!"

Jimmy Carter used to be my favorite for the All-Time Worst President. Used to be. Next to Obama Carter looks like a Reagan Republican, almost like RAMBO, by comparison to this milksop Obama. If ever in my lifetime I've seen a President truly deserve impeachment--it's Obama. What a (bad) joke. The US electorate richly deserves everything it's going to get from this clod--for the incredibly lunacy of electing the man for two terms! Unbelievable.
 
If ever in my lifetime I've seen a President truly deserve impeachment--it's Obama. What a (bad) joke. The US electorate richly deserves everything it's going to get from this clod--for the incredibly lunacy of electing the man for two terms! Unbelievable.

I think even the most right wing Congressperson realizes the political disaster in impeaching the first black President without something extremely concrete. Not to mention that House Republicans impeached the last Democratic President who is now one of the most popular political figures in America.

The right has constantly set themselves on fire over Obama. That's great for energizing the right wing base but for most everyone else it starts to appear far too personal and it's the main reason that Obama was reelected.
 
They should rename the Front Page News to the Front Page De-railed of Original Topics.
 
Actually ISIS doesn't use any type of electronic messaging system, so this doesn't matter.

They rely on couriers to deliver their information.
 
Anything that will get them to stop shouting Admiral Akbar twenty times in a row for every gunshot and rocket would be a step in the right direction.

:D I'm with you on that one. Time for a new Star Wars character, like Mon Mothma, or something.
 
Don't blame them.
From what I'm hearing of ISIS is that they are worst and more bloodier than Al-Qaeda.

Guess that is what you get for removing the devil you know.
Hopefully we'll think next time before we give them our weapons.

ISIS is Al Qaeda.
 
Blocking data??? REALLY????

I thought these guy's were blowing everything up, didn't realize they even had internet.

According to Wikipedia "IPv4: 243,712 addresses allocated, 108th in the world, less than 0.05% of the world total, 7.8 addresses per 1000 people (2012)"

See that 7.8 addresses per 1000 people...... Yeeeaaaahhhhh... Their not blocking much of anyone because most people in Iraq don't have internet....

You are aware many ISP's just run giant LAN's. Costa Rica for example if you don't pay for a static IP, you get a LAN IP assigned to you...
 
Einstein was religious, so was Oppenheimer, Kepler, Galileo, Da Vinci, Newton, and many others ... you just don't need to use them to solve the same problem at the same time ...
Scientific method is a way of thinking, and it is incompatible with religious doctrine. Considering the repercussions of declaring yourself an Atheist even up to the 1950s (Atheists were feared to be communists during the Red Scare), historically extremely few scientists would fess up to doctrine being nonsense, especially when going back in time to where there was no separation of church and state and their money was required to fund research. As such, many in fact went out of their way to make statements to assure the Church that their findings that seemingly contradict religious texts are merely a matter of interpretation.

And Einstein was most certainly not a believer in the teachings of organized religion.
Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment - an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections.

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
- Albert Einstein
 
Scientific method is a way of thinking, and it is incompatible with religious doctrine. Considering the repercussions of declaring yourself an Atheist even up to the 1950s (Atheists were feared to be communists during the Red Scare), historically extremely few scientists would fess up to doctrine being nonsense, especially when going back in time to where there was no separation of church and state and their money was required to fund research. As such, many in fact went out of their way to make statements to assure the Church that their findings that seemingly contradict religious texts are merely a matter of interpretation.

And Einstein was most certainly not a believer in the teachings of organized religion.

Perhaps I should have used the word spiritual then ... I am more of an Agnostic myself with tendencies towards Buddhism and Taoism ... I don't believe in God but I think it is man's opposition to Nature and the Universe that creates a lot of our problems ... I dislike rabid Atheists as much as rabid religious types (like that guy that keeps suing the government over In God We Trust on the money :eek: ) ... as long as one maintains a decent moral compass it doesn't matter whether one is religious or not (a little spiritualism, especially with the Eastern philosophies doesn't hurt though) ;)

“When we learn to work with our own Inner Nature, and with the natural laws operating around us, we reach the level of Wu Wei. Then we work with the natural order of things and operate on the principle of minimal effort. Since the natural world follows that principle, it does not make mistakes. Mistakes are made–or imagined–by man, the creature with the overloaded Brain who separates himself from the supporting network of natural laws by interfering and trying too hard.

When you work with Wu Wei, you put the round peg in the round hole and the square peg in the square hole. No stress, no struggle. Egotistical Desire tries to force the round peg into the square hole and the square peg into the round hole. Cleverness tries to devise craftier ways of making pegs fit where they don’t belong. Knowledge tries to figure out why round pegs fit into round holes, but not square holes. Wu Wei doesn’t try. It doesn’t think about it. It just does it. And when it does, it doesn’t appear to do much of anything. But Things Get Done.

When you work with Wu Wei, you have no real accidents. Things may get a little Odd at times, but they work out. You don’t have to try very hard to make them work out; you just let them. [...] If you’re in tune with The Way Things Work, then they work the way they need to, no matter what you may think about it at the time. Later on you can look back and say, "Oh, now I understand. That had to happen so that those could happen, and those had to happen in order for this to happen…" Then you realize that even if you’d tried to make it all turn out perfectly, you couldn’t have done better, and if you’d really tried, you would have made a mess of the whole thing.

Using Wu Wei, you go by circumstances and listen to your own intuition. "This isn’t the best time to do this. I’d better go that way." Like that. When you do that sort of thing, people may say you have a Sixth Sense or something. All it really is, though, is being Sensitive to Circumstances. That’s just natural. It’s only strange when you don’t listen.”
― Benjamin Hoff, The Tao of Pooh
 
Perhaps I should have used the word spiritual then ...I dislike rabid Atheists as much as rabid religious types (like that guy that keeps suing the government over In God We Trust on the money )
As long as I don't have to wake up in my airplane to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouFJxN4lPIo :D

BTW, "In God we Trust" on public/state money should be as offensive a stance as "There is No God" (which would never stand) and it wasn't on our bills until the Red Scare of the 1950s where Atheists were persecuted as suspect communists.

Before 1952 "God" was never in the pledge of allegiance, and before 1956 there was no National Prayer at the White House, no "So Help Me God" added to federal oaths, and "In God We Trust" was ""E Pluribus Unum" ("Out of many, one").

They were added in a fear campaign of religious persecution during a cold war that threatened nuclear holocaust, not like some people like to pretend are somehow part of our history that our nation was founded on (which was quite the opposite and is the only nation to go out of its way to separate church and state and were themselves almost all against organized religion, after all every single senator voted unanimously in 1797 in favor of the statement "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."). How pissed do you think the founding fathers would be upon hearing of the changes in the 1950s based on the below:
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." - Thomas Paine

"Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" - John Adams

"The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained." - Thomas Jefferson

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison

"That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words. I am denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." - Ethan Allen

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity" - Benjamin Franklin
 
Blocking data??? REALLY????

I thought these guy's were blowing everything up, didn't realize they even had internet.

According to Wikipedia "IPv4: 243,712 addresses allocated, 108th in the world, less than 0.05% of the world total, 7.8 addresses per 1000 people (2012)"

See that 7.8 addresses per 1000 people...... Yeeeaaaahhhhh... Their not blocking much of anyone because most people in Iraq don't have internet....

Most people in Iraq get on the net with a mobile device, probably Android, and are using IPv6 connections. Many more than 1 in 100 Iraqis regularly use the internet.
 
As long as I don't have to wake up in my airplane to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouFJxN4lPIo :D

BTW, "In God we Trust" on public/state money should be as offensive a stance as "There is No God" (which would never stand) and it wasn't on our bills until the Red Scare of the 1950s where Atheists were persecuted as suspect communists.

Before 1952 "God" was never in the pledge of allegiance, and before 1956 there was no National Prayer at the White House, no "So Help Me God" added to federal oaths, and "In God We Trust" was ""E Pluribus Unum" ("Out of many, one").

They were added in a fear campaign of religious persecution during a cold war that threatened nuclear holocaust, not like some people like to pretend are somehow part of our history that our nation was founded on (which was quite the opposite and is the only nation to go out of its way to separate church and state and were themselves almost all against organized religion, after all every single senator voted unanimously in 1797 in favor of the statement "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."). How pissed do you think the founding fathers would be upon hearing of the changes in the 1950s based on the below:

While I consider myself agnostic, I firmly believe our founding fathers would be up in arms at the level of religious integration of our government, even if its very little in relation to other governments. I guess being men without allegiance to any particular faith, we see the reasoning for removing religious references but religions are like a sports team, devoted fans root for their team....even if they suck.

With that said though, times change and people and societies change. I think our founders would have issues with a lot of the ways our country has changed since their deaths. Though I think, above all, they'd have a great deal of pride knowing their ideals gave birth to a superpower who's overt desire is to bring peace, freedom, and prosperity to all corners of the world....though they may be appalled at the covert desires or methods that we use.
 
As someone who's been there and was part of training their security forces, everything that's happening there now is...heartbreaking. I spent years of my life dedicated to getting the people in that country trained to be able to protect themselves and the newfound freedom we were presenting them and they just turn tale and run at the first site of trouble. Regardless of the reasons for the invasion or the real motive in us being there, that was a big part of my job and to watch it crumble so easily sucks.

As the Chinese proverb goes, the fish stinks from the head. The Army officers fled, and what are the troops supposed to do without officers? Once the command is gone they had the choice of a disorganized clusterfuck leading to their certain, grisly death, or saving their own asses. You can't blame someone for not wanting to die pointlessly when even their own commanders couldn't give a shit.

The depressing part of this is that ISIS basically rolled down one highway and knocked off every town on the way. I bet one Marine battalion dug in on the road would have stopped them. They're just a bunch of douchebags in pickup trucks, they don't have air or armor to break through anything. The Iraqi army could have stopped them easily if it wasn't headed by people who never joined to fight for the country.
 
As the Chinese proverb goes, the fish stinks from the head. The Army officers fled, and what are the troops supposed to do without officers? Once the command is gone they had the choice of a disorganized clusterfuck leading to their certain, grisly death, or saving their own asses. You can't blame someone for not wanting to die pointlessly when even their own commanders couldn't give a shit.

The depressing part of this is that ISIS basically rolled down one highway and knocked off every town on the way. I bet one Marine battalion dug in on the road would have stopped them. They're just a bunch of douchebags in pickup trucks, they don't have air or armor to break through anything. The Iraqi army could have stopped them easily if it wasn't headed by people who never joined to fight for the country.

While that may be typical doctrine, its rarely the case, at least it was in my experience. One of our deployments saw our unit with not only a strategically worthless platoon commander but also a lazy, non-existent company commander who, no shit, compared himself to the burning bush. The enlisted ran the show and directed the company and we did damn fine work. In the following deployment, when shit hit the fan, our officers lost control of themselves multiple times and flooded the unit comms with doom and gloom. We in turn disconnected comms and took over the show and saved a lot of people. Men that have been combat hardened being led by men that are fresh out of officer training are not superior anymore just because they've got a shiny piece of paper from a college.

It's nice to see how flippantly you fuckers joke about genocide.

The world has tried every other recourse over how many thousands of years? It's not like we'd be the kind of evil that Hitler was, we are offering many the chance for death within the blink of an eye and for a few unlucky million, a slow, painful death through radiation poisoning. That'll teach those bastards to radicalize!
(This was all made in jest, and I in no way support the idea of genocide)
 
It's nice to see how flippantly you fuckers joke about genocide.

Using nuclear weapons on countries that have exhibited hostilities towards us is not genocide ... it is an act of war ... genocide would be if we occupied the country and rounded up all the citizens and killed them ... we are not at war with all Islam (as some try to make the conflict out to be), we are at war with a small group of extremists who wish nothing more than to exterminate us from the earth ... using a tried and true weapon in our arsenal to eliminate that threat is only prudent (even if people's twisted sensibilities have made it an impossible weapon to use now) ... Total war worked in the American Civil War, it worked in WW2, and it could work here and now (if people could get over their desire to fight a "civilized" war) ... as General Sherman once so eloquently stated, "War is all hell, the only good thing is its ending" ;)
 
Comparing the Marines to the Iraqi Army of course is not fair. The Marines have 200 years of institutional culture, including an understood backbone of senior NCOs keeping the show running through experience passed down. The Iraqi Army was built new, and without someone calling the shots, has basically no chance of cohesion.
 
Using nuclear weapons on countries that have exhibited hostilities towards us is not genocide ... it is an act of war ... genocide would be if we occupied the country and rounded up all the citizens and killed them ... we are not at war with all Islam (as some try to make the conflict out to be), we are at war with a small group of extremists who wish nothing more than to exterminate us from the earth ... using a tried and true weapon in our arsenal to eliminate that threat is only prudent (even if people's twisted sensibilities have made it an impossible weapon to use now) ... Total war worked in the American Civil War, it worked in WW2, and it could work here and now (if people could get over their desire to fight a "civilized" war) ... as General Sherman once so eloquently stated, "War is all hell, the only good thing is its ending" ;)

You are contradicting yourself.

Using nuclear weapons on countries that have exhibited hostilities towards us is not genocide ... it is an act of war ...

Just because some people in Iraq would like the USA to disappear doesn't mean the entire country would.

we are at war with a small group of extremists who wish nothing more than to exterminate us from the earth

So, are we fighting the country (as you stated previously) or a small group of extremists? Which one is it?

using a tried and true weapon in our arsenal to eliminate that threat is only prudent

It's cool with you to kill thousandths of innocent people to get a couple of bad boys?
 
Total war worked in the American Civil War, it worked in WW2, and it could work here and now (if people could get over their desire to fight a "civilized" war) ... as General Sherman once so eloquently stated, "War is all hell, the only good thing is its ending" ;)

No such thing as civilized war and having media embedded has been catastrophic to Marine Corps warfighting...at least that's how I've always seen it....war is never meant for the civilized world to see, its barbaric, nasty, and disgusting. Those of us that take on the mantle of warrior should not be judged and held to the standards of society when we are unleashed.

Comparing the Marines to the Iraqi Army of course is not fair. The Marines have 200 years of institutional culture, including an understood backbone of senior NCOs keeping the show running through experience passed down. The Iraqi Army was built new, and without someone calling the shots, has basically no chance of cohesion.

Actually, 237 years, 217 days, and a few hours till beer-thirty....but who's counting :D

While I definitely see your point, I was an untrained civilian less than a year before I had bullets whizzing past my brain bucket and retreat was never a thought that crossed my mind, and I was fighting for someone else's freedom. I couldn't imagine being faced with the choice of fight and die, or live and lose my freedom, and choose to live without freedom. I guess that can be chalked up to being a societally different creature than those in the Middle East. Of all people, Walt Disney once said, "Once a man has tasted freedom he will never be content to be a slave." Americans (well most) have never been slaves and are very much attached to their freedom, I'd wager most would die fighting before giving in to slavery. Many in the middle east know nothing of what freedom is...its just sad that they refuse to fight for it.

I digress, Iraq is just doing what is a common military tactic, take away the enemy's ability to communicate, you take away their ability to coordinate and fight cohesively. Unfortunately, identifying friend from foe in these kinds of wars is difficult so all of the citizens suffer.
 
It's cool with you to kill thousandths of innocent people to get a couple of bad boys?

I've got a harsh reality for you, in war the innocent die along with the guilty ... that is why we have all kinds of solutions to try before it raises to that level ... again, to quote General William Tecumseh Sherman, "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." ... Did innocent people die in the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo in WW2 (certainly), did that make it an invalid act of war because of that (it did not) ... Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved far more lives than they cost ...

we tried to civilize war during the cold war because we had the nuclear Sword of Damocles hanging over our head and the USA and the Soviets felt the need to fight limited wars by proxy ... these limited "civilized" wars only prolonged the suffering of war... the harsh reality is that in war, people die ... the quicker you end the war the fewer that die overall and the use of remote weapons like saturation bombing and nuclear weapons reduce your own casualties ... reducing the number of enemy combatant deaths or collateral civilian casualties should only be a consideration if it will not prolong the conflict or put your own soldiers or civilians at risk ;)
 
The US has earned all the enemies it has in the middle east. Funny how people get upset when you support coupes against their governments and install pro-western leaders.
 
I've got a harsh reality for you, in war the innocent die along with the guilty ... that is why we have all kinds of solutions to try before it raises to that level ... again, to quote General William Tecumseh Sherman, "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." ... Did innocent people die in the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo in WW2 (certainly), did that make it an invalid act of war because of that (it did not) ... Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved far more lives than they cost ...

we tried to civilize war during the cold war because we had the nuclear Sword of Damocles hanging over our head and the USA and the Soviets felt the need to fight limited wars by proxy ... these limited "civilized" wars only prolonged the suffering of war... the harsh reality is that in war, people die ... the quicker you end the war the fewer that die overall and the use of remote weapons like saturation bombing and nuclear weapons reduce your own casualties ... reducing the number of enemy combatant deaths or collateral civilian casualties should only be a consideration if it will not prolong the conflict or put your own soldiers or civilians at risk ;)

The ends DO NOT justify the means. History is full of examples of this type of belief.
 
I couldn't imagine being faced with the choice of fight and die, or live and lose my freedom, and choose to live without freedom.

So, how many Oil lives have you saved during you altruistic stay over there? I guess it's true villains sometimes believe they are doing good.
 
The ends DO NOT justify the means. History is full of examples of this type of belief.

Note, I believe we should never go to war except as a last resort ... however, once we have crossed that bridge we should be all in ... that is all I am saying ... war should always be your last and most extreme solution to a problem, but there are a few problems that only can be solved by war ... again, unfortunately the harsh reality of human nature ... trying to make war less cruel is going to ultimately result in more deaths, not less, as it becomes a palatable solution to more problems ;)
 
I hope they game planned for all the new tech ISIS got from Benghazi. You know the world has gone to shit when Iran is sending help to Iraq to fight the terrorists that the US helped fund and create.
 
So, how many Oil lives have you saved during you altruistic stay over there? I guess it's true villains sometimes believe they are doing good.

To those of us on the ground, the reason a war is started matters very little when your carrying out a mission. The missions I went on had zero impact on any part of the oil supply chain. I was deployed near the Syrian border and in the town of Ramadi, places that have no oil production. I acted with a clear mission of protecting the native population and my brothers from terroristic activities as well as training the native population in being able to carry on once we left. We never engaged in missions that the American people would feel were in total disregard of their freedoms if they were aimed at them. The grossest violation of freedom I took part in was kicking down the door of every single house and searching every room and person for illegal weapons. I believe this to be pretty minor when a town is infested with people who want to kill and subjugate the masses to radicalized ideas.
 
Blocking youtube is actually a decent idea considering that is where the ISIS is posting videos of mass killings and beheadings. I seriously doubt the government is trying to silence people who have legitimate concerns but rather to prevent the broadcasting of the violence and the additional violence it could possibly cause.
 
Comparing the Marines to the Iraqi Army of course is not fair. The Marines have 200 years of institutional culture, including an understood backbone of senior NCOs keeping the show running through experience passed down. The Iraqi Army was built new, and without someone calling the shots, has basically no chance of cohesion.

The flaw in the Iraqi military is a lack of 'give-a-fuck' not because of a lack of 200 year of Military culture.
 
The ends DO NOT justify the means. History is full of examples of this type of belief.

Lasting Peace has rarely occurred without completely scattering and decimating the enemy. Two Exceptions are Germany and Japan at the end of WWII. By the end, the Germans were as sick of war as any European. Defeat Broke Japan's spirit and Obedience to the Emporer Endorsement of Surrender took care of any desire to continue.
 
No such thing as civilized war and having media embedded has been catastrophic to Marine Corps warfighting...at least that's how I've always seen it....war is never meant for the civilized world to see, its barbaric, nasty, and disgusting. Those of us that take on the mantle of warrior should not be judged and held to the standards of society when we are unleashed.



Actually, 237 years, 217 days, and a few hours till beer-thirty....but who's counting :D

While I definitely see your point, I was an untrained civilian less than a year before I had bullets whizzing past my brain bucket and retreat was never a thought that crossed my mind, and I was fighting for someone else's freedom. I couldn't imagine being faced with the choice of fight and die, or live and lose my freedom, and choose to live without freedom. I guess that can be chalked up to being a societally different creature than those in the Middle East. Of all people, Walt Disney once said, "Once a man has tasted freedom he will never be content to be a slave." Americans (well most) have never been slaves and are very much attached to their freedom, I'd wager most would die fighting before giving in to slavery. Many in the middle east know nothing of what freedom is...its just sad that they refuse to fight for it.

I digress, Iraq is just doing what is a common military tactic, take away the enemy's ability to communicate, you take away their ability to coordinate and fight cohesively. Unfortunately, identifying friend from foe in these kinds of wars is difficult so all of the citizens suffer.
No dude. It's not about American exceptionalism. The USMC (btw apple corrects that to USC) knew how to train and command you.
 
I already said that, thanks for playing.

PsyGangnamStyleNoFucksGiven-400x224.gif


More obvious.
 
Back
Top