yall

Of course, everyone seems to be assuming his denial is a lie. Not sticking up for the guy, but could the accuser be lying?

You are aware that a traditional conservative doesn't really like wasteful spending right? The war, right or wrong, can be logically seperated from the fleecing of our tax dollars with bad government contracts. But you already knew that, right?

Touche!

Waaaahhh! I didn't even have that. I did OSUT (One Station Unit Training) at Knox. 19 weeks, left post once. So stop your whining... And just because you think you had it rough doesn't mean others weren't getting off easy. My second duty station was back at Knox, and the trainees got more breaks. Sorry it wasn't that way for you. But just because you didn't notice it doesn't mean it wasn't begining to happen.

Well he got the KP part right. After basic no one ever had to actually work in the chow hall (at least in any of my units we never did, and I was regular Army)... Anyway, the point is Kerry was cracking jokes to a college crowd that was probably filled with kids that were anti-war and down on the military. I'm sure he figured he could get away with some pot-shots at what those college kids (in Kerry's mind anyway) perceived as an under educated segment of society. A stupid remark meant to entertain some kids who most likely think they are "better than that". As a vet he should have a little more respect. edit: And by the way Jarhead, what he said wasn't that inaccurate. Nobody does KP anymore (at least not in the Army), and the culture IS very different. There were no programs like BOSS (better opportunities for single soldiers) and basic trainees didn't get to go on break to see Bon Jovi (as a friend of mine did). Hell, there was a noticable difference between when I went in in 90 and when I got out in 93. To quote the DS from Stripes "Lighten up Francis".

Pretty much what Simon said... But seriously, your logic is still very flawed. What comes after hard liquor? Is scotch a gateway drug? How about beer? Obviously people build up tolerances, no one is arguing that point. But to make the leap from having a high tolerance to substance to saying that it's likely you'll move onto to a sreonger substance is BS. If that was the case, why aren't career alcoholics moving onto heroin?

My argument is weak? Please... By your logic, any intoxicating substance is a gateway drug. That makes no sense. Your reasoning assumes that any user of any intoxicating substance will feel the need to get a better buzz the next time around. This is more of a personality disorder than a specific issue with the intoxicant.

From your link: Pros/Cons Pro: Cannabis is less addictive than amphetamines, tobacco or alcohol, and does less harm to the body Con: It may be psychologically addictive. Heavy users can display aggressive impulses if their supply suddenly stops, a side effect similar to that of anabolic steroids Never known anyone to be extra angry when their supply drys out. Pro:A government report found that high use of cannabis isn't associated with major health or sociological problems, unlike other harder drugs Con:Cannabis may be a 'gateway' drug to more harmful substances like heroin and cocaine Yeah, becaue it's illegal. Alcohol would be the same if it were illegal. You have to go to an illicit source to get it, and guess what they have other stuff. Not the fault of the product. Pro:Its effects are beneficial to sufferers of various medical conditions, including cancer, HIV, multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma Con:It has a higher tar content than tobacco, so smoking cannabis presents the same health problems: bronchitis, emphysema and lung cancer Yeah, if you smoke the equivalent of a pack of joints per day it might be a problem. Do you know anyone that smokes 20 joints a day? I know people that eat way too many chips and burgers per day, not to mention smoke. Nearly anything in excess can be harmful to your health. Cannabis has an effect on the heart, similar to the effects of exercise. It may be just as good for the heart as going to the gym It can disrupt the control of blood pressure increasing the risk of fainting. Even occasional use is bad for people with heart and circulation disorders, and for those predisposed to schizophrenia Not every pharmacutical is good for everyone. Would you expect a plant to be any different?

Blued for the truth...

Well, we didn't get worse this week. That's almost like getting better.

How's that saying go? "Agruing on the internet is like running in the special olympics.... even if you win, you are still a retard."

Bump for safety

Its was a good episode. I enjoyed the fact that it mocked the whole "sweet 16" nonsense on MTV.

Yes.

Our troop levels in Iraq have very little to do with why we can't invade. It has more to do with the fact that the South Korean population (the bulk of which reside within 100 miles of the DMZ) would be decimated by chemical weapons.

But again most of those incidents are at least debatable as far as strategy goes. You may not think they were good military options, but obviously some people didn't think that way, and hindsight is always 20/20. That being said, we are trying to discuss NK. If we can't (or simply shouldn't) invade, what can be done? Wait til Kim and a few generals and higher up party members are the only ones left alive?

I'm interested to hear what you have to say... I thought this was gonna be a dud, and the reviews weren't kind, but this now makes 3 or 4 people I've heard from that seemed to really enjoy it.

Meant to respond to that earlier... Could you be more specific? I can only assume you are talking about Dresden and/or Hiroshima/Nagasaki. I guess that's what I meant by debatable. You may see it as being done for no good reason. Plenty of people would agree. The flip side is that there are plenty of good arguments for why both were strategic operations important to bringing WW2 to an end. But that's for another thread... And I also wasn't calling for an invasion of NK. It would be a bloodbath of unimaginable proportions, mostly for the North and South Koreans. But shouldn't some measure be taken to stop the wholesale slaughter of the people in NK?

I guess that was my point. It isn't "voting" when option 1 is "maybe your entire family goes to the gulag, or maybe you starve" and option 2 is "yeah, you are going to the f'n gulag and if you are lucky you'll die in the first 6 months or so and not have to suffer and watch your family members do the same".

Does anyone???

That's precisely what I do, and I don't have snow-ies.

Understood, but again strategic use of overwhelming force, while very debatable, is a far cry from testing VX on political prisoners and killing newborn babies, is it not? And I don't think the OP was meant to take a holier than thou approach to a general notion of "others" but at a very specific group of people led by a madman. My 2 cents anyway...

But isn't this thread about widespread, government sanctioned atrocities? That seemed to be the initial theme anyways. There will always be murderous d*ckheads with or without war. It's more than unfortunate that things like My Lai happen, but I think we need to make a distinction between the actions of (bad) soldiers and leaders.

True, but only if you ignored the "last century" part of his post.

I heard they'll even toss it for you!