For Those I love I will Sacrifice : pics

Comics
/r/comics	/r/webcomics
/r/vertical	/r/f7u12
/r/ragenovels	/r/AdviceAtheists
Image macros	Screenshots/text
/r/lolcats	/r/screenshots
/r/AdviceAnimals	/r/desktops
/r/Demotivational	/r/facepalm (Facebook)
/r/reactiongifs	/r/DesktopDetective
Wallpaper	Animals
/r/wallpaper	/r/aww
/r/wallpapers	/r/cats
The SFWPorn Network	/r/TrollingAnimals
	/r/deadpets
	/r/birdpics
	/r/foxes
Photography	Un-moderated pics
/r/photography	/r/AnythingGoesPics
/r/photocritique	/r/images
/r/HDR
/r/windowshots
/r/PictureChallenge
Misc	New reddits
/r/misc	/r/britpics
/r/gifs	Imaginary Network
/r/dataisbeautiful	/r/thennnow
/r/picrequests	/r/SpecArt
	/r/LookWhoIMet
	/r/timelinecovers
	/r/MemesIRL
	/r/OldSchoolCool
	/r/photoshopbattles

[–]WarPhalange 24 points25 points26 points 5 months ago

permalink

[–]puskunk 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago

permalink

[–]CptBubbles 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago

permalink

[–]EseJandro 19 points20 points21 points 5 months ago

permalink

[–]rasputine 8 points9 points10 points 5 months ago

[–]thekimmygibbler 4 points5 points6 points 5 months ago

[–]EseJandro 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago

[+]Nemo84 comment score below threshold (22 children)

[–]Nemo84 -6 points-5 points-4 points 5 months ago

joined the military and yet despise the idea of war

Sounds like a bunch of hypocrisy or easing of conscience to me. Without people joining the military, there simply would be no wars. It's like saying you despise the idea of drunk driving yet still decide to drive home drunk every night.

however we understand that it is a necessary evil.

A shame this hasn't been the case for US wars for the past 70 years. You'd think people would start seeing a pattern by now.

As much as we deplore war and violence we also realize that tyranny and oppression of innocent people are worse

A shame the US hasn't fought a war whose goal was to end tyranny and oppression since it's own war of independence. And even that one is highly debatable. You seem to be confusing wartime propaganda with the actual reasons for going to war.

We hope that if we fight hard enough other people wont have to fight at all

Cause we all know how many foreign armies are just sooooo anxious and eager to invade and occupy the US if only the US military wasn't standing in the way. Usually, other people are forced to fight to protect their homes and families from you noble and brave US "liberators".

it's our sacrifice

Hmmm, usually it's mostly the sacrifice of your local allies and all the innocent civilians of whatever country you invade. For every dead US soldier in Afghanistan, 3.6 of your Afghan allies and at the very least 14-15 Afghan civilians are killed. Nobody even bothers counting the amount of wounded. And after you go happily back home after your short tour of duty, they get to spend the rest of their lives in the mess you created. It's outright sickening that you even dare call your behaviour, for which you are very well paid, a sacrifice.

it's what allows us to embody both everything good and bad about humanity.

You're a soldier in an army well-known for invading helpless nations, supporting the worse dictators in the world and actively engaging in countless human rights abuses. You embody nothing even remotely good about humanity.

If you really want to support the troops elect people who seek diplomatic solutions and oppose war.

If you really want to support the troops, stop revering them as heroes and start treating them as the corporate mercenaries they are. Maybe then your country can finally extract its head from out of its patriotic ass and stop messing up the world.

[–]Izawwlgood 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago

Sounds like a bunch of hypocrisy or easing of conscience to me. Without people joining the military, there simply would be no wars.

This is alarmingly false. Without people volunteering, they'd simply stretch those who did thinner. By volunteering, you are protecting your fellow soldiers.

You're a soldier in an army well-known for invading helpless nations, supporting the worse dictators in the world and actively engaging in countless human rights abuses. You embody nothing even remotely good about humanity.

And you're depressingly naive if you think the only thing a soldier in any of the myriad branches of the armed forces does is murderize people.

If you really want to support the troops, stop revering them as heroes and start treating them as the corporate mercenaries they are.

Yes, just like what happened with Vietnam. Good thinking.

And after you go happily back home after your short tour of duty, they get to spend the rest of their lives in the mess you created. It's outright sickening that you even dare call your behaviour, for which you are very well paid, a sacrifice.

Those US soldiers are just ROLLING in cash for their service?

[–][deleted] 5 months ago

[–]Nemo84 -4 points-3 points-2 points 5 months ago

However, I do believe that we must have a military to protect ourselves,

Except you've never once used it that way.

and it's a tragedy that many of us signed up to protect the US

Then you've signed up to something you absolutely knew nothing about. Willful ignorance is no excuse.

It's unreasonable to say that we could ensure our safety without a military

I'd say it's something everyone with a basic concept of maths could quite easily say. There is no army on this planet large enough to occupy the US, there are not enough transport ships to carry such an army across the ocean and there is definitely not enough money to pay for such a war. So who exactly are you ensuring safety from?

but if you believe we don't make sacrifices as well then you're wrong

Stuff you volunteer for is not making a sacrifice, especially given how well you are paid for it.

(side note- we're not paid that well)

You are not paid that well when merely looking at salary, you are paid extremely well when all the additional benefits are taken into account.

I think WWI and WWII count as wars to end tyranny.

Then you admit you know absolutely nothing about the reasons for WWI and WWII beyond the wartime propaganda. You didn't even play any significant role in WWI and you wouldn't have been a part of WWII either if your government was not actively provoking Germany and Japan.

[–]thekimmygibbler -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago

[–]Nemo84 -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 months ago*

[–]thekimmygibbler 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago*

[–]Izawwlgood -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago

[–]Nemo84 -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago*

You think this might have something to do with the fact that America has a standing army? A standing army composed of volunteers?

More that the US has a population of 300 million. The US military, second largest in the world with 1.5 million actives and 1.5 million reserves, can't even keep 30 million Afghanis pacified despite extensive local collaboration and a large amount of international allies. So where would any nation find enough troops to occupy 300 million people? The US could disband its entire military and still be perfectly safe from foreign invaders. Invaders who couldn't even reach US soil, because there's not enough cargo capacity in the world to transport them there for an invasion.

You have A LOT of reading to do if you think this is true. Salary, benefits, education; these are all things that the armed forces does NOT supply in abundance to soldiers. You are ALARMINGLY incorrect about this assertion of yours.

The main source of US military personnel comes from the poorest strata of the population. The military offers a steady paycheck, housing, food, solid education, healthcare and a lot of prestige. In the US, there are few poor people who can find a better deal than that.

Are you suggesting that the conspiracy of the US's foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor is true?

Not that nonsense. I'm talking about the facts that the US imposed an extensive embargo on Japan, knowing full well such an embargo has always been considered a de facto casus belli, especially given the Japanese war in China. Japan did not want war with the US and knew it could not win such a conflict. Pearl Harbour was especially designed to keep the US out of the Pacific theatre for a couple of years so the Japanese could secure the oil fields and then sue for peace.

Furthermore, there are many documented cases of supposedly neutral US ships attacking German submarines in international waters and providing military escorts for British convoys months before the official declaration of war. Such is considered by historians a clear attempt at provoking the Germans into sinking an US ship and using that as a reason to interfere in the war.

[–]Izawwlgood 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago

More that the US has a population of 300 million. The US military, second largest in the world with 1.5 million actives and 1.5 million reserves, can't even keep 30 million Afghanis pacified despite extensive local collaboration and a large amount of international allies. So where would any nation find enough troops to occupy 300 million people? The US could disband its entire military and still be perfectly safe from foreign invaders. Invaders who couldn't even reach US soil, because there's not enough cargo capacity in the world to transport them there for an invasion.

Because protecting a country is more than just preventing it's occupation? Since 9/11, whether or not you approve of or support the wars (which I don't), there hasn't been an attack on American soil. Your original claim was something about how America is perfectly safe all the time, and I'm telling you that is in part because of the standing army we keep.

The main source of US military personnel comes from the poorest strata of the population. The military offers a steady paycheck, housing, food, solid education, healthcare and a lot of prestige. In the US, there are few poor people who can find a better deal than that.

Huh... It's almost like you've just made a point for why serving in the military, for the poor, ISN'T actually compulsory! But no, service in the military is NOT a high paying position; people don't do it because they want to be rolling in the big bucks, with the stellar health plan and education breaks, and the bitches who be linin' up for that uniformed physique. Service generally falls into two categories; those who have no other options financially, and those who do it to protect their country. Calling American Armed Forces members 'mercenaries' is insulting and ignorant.

Furthermore, there are many documented cases of supposedly neutral US ships attacking German submarines in international waters and providing military escorts for British convoys months before the official declaration of war.

Yes, the the US also promised Britain an enormous quantity of resources for the war effort. Your point was something about how we wouldn't have participated in WWII unless we provoked Germany... Maybe you need to clarify what exactly your point is; that America entered the war sneakily?

But also, as an aside, you still need to respond to the fact that the military, and serving in the military, means more than just shooting people.

[–]Nemo84 -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago*

Since 9/11, whether or not you approve of or support the wars (which I don't), there hasn't been an attack on American soil.

There hasn't been a military attack on US soil since WW2. In contrast to what your nation's propaganda proclaims, 9/11 was not a military attack but merely a large crime. Terrorism is a job for the police and not the military. Besides, in that case you should have invaded Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 terrorists actually came from.

Your original claim was something about how America is perfectly safe all the time, and I'm telling you that is in part because of the standing army we keep.

And I'm telling you that standing army is utterly irrelevant in keeping your nation safe. It certainly did not prevent 9/11 nor had any possibility of ever possibly preventing it, did it? In fact, the US army is right now vastly increasing the chance of new terrorist attacks on US soil simply by creating huge amounts of people with very good reasons to hate the US.

those who have no other options financially

So wait, now which is it? First you claim the financial benefits are actually bad, and then you claim many people have no other financial option but to enlist. Seems rather contradictionary.

and those who do it to protect their country.

For which military service is utterly irrelevant, as explained above.

Calling American Armed Forces members 'mercenaries' is insulting and ignorant.

Insulting? Perhaps, especially if you're used to everyone worshipping you for killing innocent people. Ignorant? I'd say it's a rather accurate term for someone who kills for money, and you yourself admitted a few lines back that many US citizens become soldiers because it is their only financial option.

Your point was something about how we wouldn't have participated in WWII unless we provoked Germany

Try actually reading my posts sometimes, then you'd know what my point is. I'm saying your nation was actively seeking war with both Japan and Germany, and that if it hadn't you wouldn't even have been involved in WW2.

But also, as an aside, you still need to respond to the fact that the military, and serving in the military, means more than just shooting people.

And you've never said what else you actually do?

continue this thread

[–]fapsterr -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago

[–]metalearn 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago

[–]froschkonig -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 months ago

[–]Nemo84 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago*

[–]froschkonig -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago

[–]Nemo84 -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago*

Russia wasnt the USAs ally beyond the sense that they were both fighting Germany. Russia started out on Germany's side until Germany decided to invade Russia. Mao for China was much the same way, The only way we count as "allies" is that they were fighting Japan and we were too.

Semantics and excuses, nothing more. It's not as if these were somehow exceptions necessitated by a world war and that post-WW2 the US never closely associated with all manner of despicable dictators and tyrants.

We were fighting a Dictator that was bent on wiping out an entire ethnic group.

Germany declared war in december 1941. The Wannsee conference, announcing the plans for organized extermination of the Jewish race, was in january 1942. Must have been some pretty impressive time machine, causing the US to seek war with Germany months before what you claim was the reason for the US seeking war with Germany.

See, that's the beauty of hindsight. You start mistaking the unforeseen but benificial side-effects of an event for the main cause that initiated said event.

[–]froschkonig -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago

[–]Nemo84 -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago

Persecution of Jews was not unique to Germany, and concentration camps of that period were not the death camps that the name now implies. Large-scale coördinated extermination did not happen until after january 1942. Also note that by april 1941, when the US actively started interfering in the war, there was another country happily exterminating Jews and Poles and none of the allied nations ever declared war on them. In fact, they became your most important ally a few months later.

The final solution had been decided upon well before the conference, the conference was just spreading the word to the rest of the leaders of the NAZI party.

So if even most of the Nazi party members did not know about it yet, how could the US not only apparently know every detail, but even consider this the main reason to seek war with Germany?

continue this thread