|
|
Post by BOLO on Nov 26, 2004 18:54:36 GMT -5
Let me know when you decide to bury that horse.
More does not equate to loss.
More>loss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edge on Nov 26, 2004 19:03:26 GMT -5
Bolo,
How can you honestly believe that the American military has not deteriorated over the years? Show me another Gunny Hath. As far as I'm concerned we don't need "MORE" riff raff to join the ranks of the American military. What we do need is a few highly, highly selective units to retain their mystique.
Just watching all the hype over the one hero we have produced, Jessica Lynch, made me sick. Imagine the laughter Al Quaeda got out of that one. Are we now adding "ass-rape" to the qualification for bronze star? Where are our legends when we need them?
Edited to remove picture.
There she is, sir. This is what womens' rights and loose recruitment policies have finally brought us. The laughter of the entire world.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 27, 2004 0:23:23 GMT -5
It's perfectly reasonable to discuss whether or not she had any business being where she was in the first place. You obviously don't think so and I'm inclined to agree with you on that. What you will not do is post semi pornographic pictures that reduce her to a piece of meat and ridicule. Her captors did enough of that.
Imagine the laughter Al Quaeda got out of that one.
With that attitude about women, you may as well join them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edge on Nov 27, 2004 0:32:14 GMT -5
Mo,
"What you will not do is post semi pornographic pictures that reduce her to a piece of meat and ridicule. Her captors did enough of that."
That was a picture taken by Playboy. I see you have elected to delete it. Obviously you weren't aware that Lynch took advantage of her "wartime horrors" to make size-able profits by posing for semi-nude photographs. She's the one who chose to reduce herself in such a manner. Not me. I posted it because it behooves any audience to know the truth.
"With that attitude about women, you may as well join them."
Don't tell me you're so naive as to think that a violated woman, portrayed as the biggest wartime hero by American media, wouldn't have been grounds for hilarity and ridicule by our enemies. My attitude about women is that they don't belong anywhere near the front lines. That happens to be an attitude shared by VMI, The Citadel, and a great many other military schools.
The bottom line is that our military stature was greatly undermined in my opinion thanks to this display of weakness. She would have been more of a hero staying out of the way. This is the unfortunate repercussion of womens' rights in the military. They think they're tough but when the rubber meets the road, they're not. Meanwhile the world watches as the Superpower decorates GI Jane for getting raped in the ass. Pathetic, really.
Thank you for your most valuable input.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 27, 2004 0:39:00 GMT -5
I don't think women belong in battle either. That's not the point. Pictures from Playboy don't belong on this Forum. You shouldn't expect things like that to go over well in mixed company, whether she posed for a men's magazine or not. It's disrespectful for you to post them on this forum. "We miss you."  Except for my father, I missed out on men that opened doors, stood up when a lady entered a room and didn't act like cads around women. It's crap like what you are pulling that has certainly helped the women's movement along. It sure as hell seems like ya'll aren't worth counting on anymore when you pull that kind of garbage. This isn't an all male forum and it isn't even restricted to adults. |
|
|
|
Post by Edge on Nov 27, 2004 0:47:22 GMT -5
Mo,
The "We Miss You" photo was a picture of Carlos H-a-t-h-c-o-c-k (can't even spell the name normally thanks to your censoring of "c-o-c-k"). You of course don't have a damn clue who he was, but Bolo does, and that's why I posted it. Gunny Hath, as we have been calling him, was the most decorated Marine Sniper in Nam with over 90 confirmed kills. I posted his pic in contrast to that of Lynch to demonstrate how far we've fallen, as it were, in terms of who we call a "Hero" in today's military. The media has no one like Hath to highlight these days, and even if they did, why choose a true blue sniper over a victimized woman like Lynch?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 27, 2004 0:54:16 GMT -5
Believe it or not, I can follow the thread without an extra explanation!
I did not censure any of your words. The owner of the site has a filter that does it automatically. Yes, It filters out words that shouldn't be at times.
Point is, you can't really whine about the women's movement and all the crap that has come from it if you're going to behave that way. If you're not going to bother to be a gentleman, don't expect ladies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edge on Nov 27, 2004 0:59:56 GMT -5
you can't really whine about the women's movement and all the crap that has come from it if you're going to behave that way. If you're not going to bother to be a gentleman, don't expect ladies. Oh please. Just for your information, the womens' movement emerged not against unruly men, but as a backlash against the Victorian stringencies placed on them. It continues in that veign today against the traditional aspects in western culture. But please do not try using that topic to deflect from the subject at hand. We are all too accustomed to seeing the media do that. I would be the first to rejoice if you ladies simply evacuated the thread.  |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 27, 2004 1:02:36 GMT -5
It means that I'm not a feminist and I'm insulted when you talk trashy and post porn. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edge on Nov 27, 2004 1:10:26 GMT -5
Post porn? Good Lord. Something is missing here, namely, an understanding of the greater issue. Like I said, that pic of Lynch was something she degraded herself for. I thought it was disgraceful, not only to her but to the army. Hence my comments. As for my other "trash", I suppose a little raw humor will never be seen for what it is. How many turns of the rosary will it take to procure official forgiveness? Or should I be thinking in Protestant terms here?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 27, 2004 1:21:02 GMT -5
Just as you're incensed at the behavior of modern women, I'm disgusted with the crassness and lack of gentlemen in the culture. A lady can't expect to be around gentlemen if she behaves like a cursing, gum snapper. Men can't expect women to act like ladies if they don't act like gentlemen. It has nothing to do with Catholicism or Protestantism. It has to do with having a little bit of a standard towards gentility. This isn't the appropriate place to post semi-nude pictures from Playboy, no matter the context. This is a mixed forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edge on Nov 27, 2004 1:30:00 GMT -5
Mo,
I beg your pardon if this degree of bluntness supercedes what you are acccustomed to. Nonetheless,
please rub your 2 IQ points together to make enough sparks enabling you to realize that you can simply send me a private message about whatever bothers you in regard to my posts. For the second time in a row, I'm requesting that you not drag this thread off topic from war to feminine topics. You're the first one who should know that there's a specific forum for that!
Incidentally, I am not incensed by the behavior of modern women. What does anger me is that our G-o-ddamned country (quite literally) has become so weak that we can't even wage a regular war on "ethical" grounds. Maybe you could shack up with Vinny in the Feminism forum so this thread can continue in its current veign. This is a place to rant, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 27, 2004 1:49:02 GMT -5
If you had two neurons to rub together, you wouldn't be a newbie on a board giving the moderator a hard time. Particularly since you've already been banned once for posting porn and other foolishness. I can see your IP and I know your other account was banned.
How about I make the rules and you have a nice hot cup of shut the hell up!
|
|
|
|
Post by Edge on Nov 27, 2004 1:58:37 GMT -5
Mo,
I will simply ignore you from now on if that's okay with you. Frankly I have no idea what you're even referring to. My IP happens to be a chain segment, so there's no way anything you just said holds validity.
Oh well. Maybe it's just that time of the month.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 27, 2004 2:40:46 GMT -5
|
|
