HawkGold
Well-Known Member
Yes, it's pretty simple and childish to be direct.
Is the Iowa vax rate off limits or something?
- Thread starter SwirlinLingerie
- Start date
SmokeTownHawk
Well-Known Member
Agreed but it accomplished the task of getting people out of there.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
In a stampede..
I'm not sure what my opinion is on wars like that anymore. But say you were walking down the road and you saw some scrawny 5'5" dude beating the piss out of a woman. You know you could help easily, but it's none of your business. What do you do? Half of me thinks that way. The other half thinks you can't help everyone. And I sure wouldn't want my kids over there.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
Not the same. Can't help easily. We have upwards of million dead from Iraq and Afghanistan. You seriously don't think we were there for altruistic reasons?
99topdawg
Well-Known Member
I'd definitely help out. Between the two of us we could easily kick the crap out of her.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
I would let the guy keep going. Main reason is say you interject. Bystander sees it and thinks "oh, oh, oh, I better get this on tape." Of course, they don't have the beginning on tape, so then Fake News gets ahold of the story and shows you beating the ever living shit out of some manlet and next thing you know you are the internet's villain for 15 minutes. You get fired. You get dragged through the mud. The truth doesn't matter.
Sorry lady, you're on your own.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
I intervened in a guy trying to pull a woman who was fighting like hell into a car. As she was fighting I asked if she was OK. She said yes. It was dark and I was behind my car headlights away from the door. They couldn't see me. To my surprise she answered me as she was still fighting like hell. I left and immediately called the police. Nothing in the news about it.
Overseas once I saw an old lady beating the hell out of an drunk young guy with a big stick. Thought he was going to die. The guy with me said he thought it was that old woman's responsibility to beat sense into the guy.
We can't occupy a nation we don't understand unless it was total defeat with few holds barred. That isn't who we think we are and occupying a nation otherwise is foolish.
You can't blow people up and occupy without anger unleashed.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
Oh, back to the original question, the United States should be very reluctant to ever put boots on the ground in any nation where it is unwilling to inflict total war. Unless you are willing to completely break a nation, you probably shouldn't invade it. And as the invaded nation becomes poorer, total war becomes harder. You don't break the spirit of most of Afghanistan by taking out three power plants. Places like Afghanistan today or VIetnam in the '60s and '70s are less developed than Germany and Japan were before we started dropping bombs on them in the 1940's.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
We have a way of thinking everyone is envious of us and that we are smarter. We run into people who are much more determined and motivated....and highly intelligent. What is sort of ironic is that as a society we consider ourselves superior because we have more stuff, but that stuff makes us in some ways more lazy as we don't have to fight as hard to get what is important to us (speaking generically as a society).
I was shocked internationally to see how much we are hated for of all things USDA policies which many overseas understand the impact far greater than most of us in ag...as an example.
We broke Japan and Germany albeit differently. The Germans were forced to look at what they'd done. The Japanese we took a different approach and instituted more western ideas in a nation that was isolated.
In my ww2 history research, I was surprised at how much US soldiers were conflicted as they wanted to hate the Germans, but found them to be more like us than anyone else including the Brits. That is except for the SS. Unequivocally the US soldiers didn't think they were redeemable. The Germans were also terrified of Soviet occupation for good reason and thus were more cooperative. The was more afterwar terror activity that we read about, but it was quickly dispersed. US soldiers were also wary about the Dutch civilians being armed though that isn't talked about in history books. Dutch collaborators did cause harm to US soldiers. That said the majority were thrilled with the arrival of the Americans. The Brits didn't get to enjoy that as they dropped right into SS armored divisions.
Last edited:
