"War is good for my son"????

MarkG · January 15, 2003, 06:49

found on another forum, in a discussion about bush and war and t-shirts against bush and war......

Quote:

Honestly, it makes me sick. Nothing personal but I have a son in the Navy and people scream "Baby Killer" at him not realizing who much that hurts him and his mother when he joined to get an education. He would have never got the same pay and chance at the education he is getting now if a democrat would have been in office. I am not trying to start a politic debate but remember when you make shirts like that - their are some of us out here who you could really hurt. I could see one of the protest wearing that shirt and screaming "Baby Killer" at my 19 year old son and then him calling me upset because he would never kill a baby and then I cry myself to sleep feeling sorry for him having to be called a "Baby Killer."

All I am saying it thinking before you act when making something like that... at least make it humorous!

Just being honest

aaglo · January 15, 2003, 06:53

"Babykiller" is not another name for soldier.

alva · January 15, 2003, 07:37

What are you doing on other forums!!!

aahz_capone · January 15, 2003, 08:00

pathetic that people have such a view of the military, when they should critisize the civilian leadership that sends the military if they are against a war. baby killer my ass.

I also find it a shame that the woman in question and her son would be so offended by the opinions of people who obvioulsy don't know jack.

As to why is Markos on another forum... yes... explain that please

was it industrial espianoge?

General Ludd · January 15, 2003, 08:11

Quote:

Originally posted by aahz_capone
pathetic that people have such a view of the military, when they should critisize the civilian leadership that sends the military if they are against a war. baby killer my ass.

Yes, because the soldiers are just unwitting pawns that never signed up for military duty.

They joined the military, they decided to make a living of killing people.

I might agree with you if we where talking about a drafted military.

Oerdin · January 15, 2003, 08:13

Now, now. Maybe Markos was just recruiting new members from other forums. It doesn't mean he's cheating on us.

Oerdin · January 15, 2003, 08:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld
Yes, because the soldiers are just unwitting pawns that never signed up for military duty.

They joined the military, they decided to make a living of killing people.

I might agree with you if we where talking about a drafted military.

Killing uniformed soldiers whos' intent was to kill you doesn't mean you're a baby killer. Also if you show me a person who says modern countries don't need a military then I will show you a fool.

MikeH · January 15, 2003, 08:22

They should scream baby killer at the politicians.

Alex · January 15, 2003, 08:24

We have to decide if this thread will be about baby killers or Markos wandering in another forums...

General Ludd · January 15, 2003, 08:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

Killing uniformed soldiers whos' intent was to kill you doesn't mean you're a baby killer. Also if you show me a person who says modern countries don't need a military then I will show you a fool.

Baby killer is an exagerated term, I don't think it's neccisarily ment to be taken litterally.

Still, in a modern military (I believe) you're working mostly with heavy-explosives, bombs, missles, ect... those don't pick out the enemy soldiers. They blow up everything, babies and all.

aaglo · January 15, 2003, 08:25

Alexnm - are you sure they are not the same

Alex · January 15, 2003, 08:54

aaglo - what? Markos is killing babies in another forum?

aaglo · January 15, 2003, 09:11

Didn't you know?

Markos is the greek version of the name Herodes (who was a notorious baby-killer about 2000 years ago)

MichaeltheGreat · January 15, 2003, 09:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld

Baby killer is an exagerated term, I don't think it's neccisarily to be taken litterally.

Still, in a modern military (I believe) you're working mostly with heavy-explosives, bombs, missles, ect... those don't pick out the enemy soldiers. They blow up everything, babies and all.

You're working with a whole range of munitions, from small arms up. And if the enemy soldiers don't hide among their civilian population and use them as human shields, then killing or wounding of civilians can be pretty rare.

orange · January 15, 2003, 09:36

B
O
O

H
O
O

Best line is this:

Quote:

He would have never got the same pay and chance at the education he is getting now if a democrat would have been in office.

You know, a Republican comes in and all of a sudden you can join the military and get your education paid for...didn't exist before good ol' Dubya!

Buck Birdseed · January 15, 2003, 09:36

The imperative word being "can" I believe.

Twice as many civilians were killed in the last Gulf war by american missiles and good-old-fashioned carpet bombing than Saddam has killed during his entire reign.

Vesayen · January 15, 2003, 09:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
The imperative word being "can" I believe.

Twice as many civilians were killed in the last Gulf war by american missiles and good-old-fashioned carpet bombing than Saddam has killed during his entire reign.

I call your bullshit, I want a source.

rah · January 15, 2003, 09:42

LINK?

aaglo · January 15, 2003, 09:43

Weakest link?

Sava · January 15, 2003, 10:14

my comments:

killing civilians in war is rare?

what are you smoking?

individual soldiers aren't the bad guys, it's the politicians calling the shots...

In the US military, only about 10% of troops are assigned for combat (according to a military recruiter I recently spoke with). With all the technology, there are big needs in communications, computers, etc...

General Ludd · January 15, 2003, 10:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
my comments:

killing civilians in war is rare?

what are you smoking?

individual soldiers aren't the bad guys, it's the politicians calling the shots...

In the US military, only about 10% of troops are assigned for combat (according to a military recruiter I recently spoke with). With all the technology, there are big needs in communications, computers, etc...

The people making up the cogs of the machine are just as much to blame as the people running it.

MichaeltheGreat · January 15, 2003, 10:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
my comments:

killing civilians in war is rare?

what are you smoking?

Learn to read, honey. Go back and look at the conditional statement. There, you can do it. I knew you could.

DinoDoc · January 15, 2003, 11:04

Quote:

The people making up the cogs of the machine are just as much to blame as the people running it

So you support killing civilians during war?

SpencerH · January 15, 2003, 11:06

Nobody ever called me a baby-killer, at least not to my face. In any case, if it looks like spam and smells like spam, and tastes like spam, it must be spam.

DinoDoc · January 15, 2003, 11:08

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
In any case, if it looks like spam and smells like spam, and tastes like spam, it must be spam.

Admins, by definition, do not spam.

Ben Kenobi · January 15, 2003, 19:01

"Baby killer?"

Don't know about that. Military soldiers do not intend to kill non-combatants, many some do not work with the bombing or munitions that would kill babies, so this would be inaccurate term for the entirety of the military.
All wars kill some non-combatants, regardless of how 'smart' your bombs are. That's what they call collateral damage

Numbers don't really matter, if you kill one baby, you are still a baby killer.

"Also if you show me a person who says modern countries don't need a military then I will show you a fool."

-Oerdin

Wish this were otherwise. Pacifism is universalisable, but untenable so long as the world remains violent.

Pekka · January 15, 2003, 19:20

Osweld, do you pay taxes? your money pays for these killing machines. Now you help to kill civilians, you should stop paying taxes, right?

Also by doing that , stop using any services paid by tax money.

Flatlander Fox · January 15, 2003, 19:27

Technology has really reduced the civilian casualties of war.

If the U.S. WANTED to kill civilians, we could do a very effective job doing so, just by using cluster munitions instead of expensive "Smart" weapons. Take out the whole Grid-Square, instead of the building.

Being a baby killer is a good thing, as long as you throw out the enemy with the bathwater too...

General Ludd · January 15, 2003, 19:31

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Quote:

The people making up the cogs of the machine are just as much to blame as the people running it

So you support killing civilians during war?

I don't support war.

I'd say it gets iffy once you start geting out of the realm of military volunteers and politicians, though.

Pekka, that is in principal the same thing as drafting - people forced into it unwitingly are obviously not to blame. ('though, it's always better if they stand against it)

Dis · January 15, 2003, 19:36

hey I was in the navy and I did not work to kill babies.

I worked in the propulsion plant. I make ships go through water.... to allow the ship to kill babies