Clever Anti-War Posters

[assholebythedoor]

they give you a sling blide as big as your rist. and your on your own.

 

[assholebythedoor]

it weighs any where from 5 to ten lbs, but that could be over essasurate. because I don't know how much it weighs.

 

[Facetious]

1) When there is an immediate, clear and present threat to the safety and security of my country.

2) When that threat is plainly identified and the responsible parties presenting the threat are clearly defined.

3) When there is absolutely no diplomatic, economic or alternative preemptive approach that would negate the need for a military response to avert said threat.

It's that simple in my book. So....Georges and any other "pro war" people.....do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, then what other justification for military force would be in place for you to be willing to commit your nation's troops to the obvious dangers of war?

Likewise, other anti-war advocates....are there absolutely NO circumstances under which you would consider a military response to be appropriate? If there are, how would they differ from the simple conditions I outlined?

I'd like to know if all of the "anti-war" and "pro-war" people are really in totally separate mindsets or if, after all is said and done, we are really just bogging ourselves down in semantics. My suspicion is the latter....at least as far as the majority of us are concerned.

Now, as to what would actually constitute components of the justifiable conditions for war that I submitted....that's where I would imagine the real debate would be waged.

Am I wrong here? If so, set me straight, everyone.

The terms 1 2 3 will ALWAYS be debated between the two parties, before during and after the war. The only time that there is a consensus is when an attack is fresh on our minds e.g. 11, September, 2001. Other than that, the one party must always oppose the other party. ! Isn't that correct Jag ?

 

[assholebythedoor]

you could lose a commanding officer, or someone higher in the ranks. If you pulled out at the wrong time. and left a commandnig officer by himself. It could mean we lose the war.

 

[assholebythedoor]

so...

 

[assholebythedoor]

I don't want to tell my side of the story, but I would like to tell it if someone would like to listen, but all I've heard so far that I don't make sense.

 

[assholebythedoor]

I don't know how to say it

 

[assholebythedoor]

I was there and I fought all there was. and they kept coming. After I went through 500 of them. There was another 200, and after I went through them. They just kept getting bigger and stronger to clash with. Then they stopped coming at me. and I saw there were only a hundred or more left. Then they just dropped their weapons and walked away. I didn't know what to think.

 

[assholebythedoor]

it was only me five hundred yards out

 

[assholebythedoor]

but that was my mission because there only a few of us. maybe 4 and If I didn't make it then someone else would go in after me.

 

[assholebythedoor]

I jumped through this barrier and There a troop of mine, that had hiding there, and they thought they had been found. and thats was the only time I felt fear. they thought the world was going to end.

 

[assholebythedoor]

I went around this stoop and they try to talk to you like they your friend, they say open your hand. and drop your weapon. But I remember I had to keep my hand closed. So, I didn't have much of a choice. at the end. I stepped on a bear trap and they stuck a nife in me. but I made it out. I'm not sure how that happened.

 

[assholebythedoor]

this all happened within two hours. the same time it took for the people to pull out.

 

[assholebythedoor]

I got a call that was on the walkier talkie, saying. are you there? if your there say something. thats how they found me.

 

[assholebythedoor]

it started off we were ambushed.

 

[assholebythedoor]

I waved the american flag after that. then I threw it as far as I could. And it stuck in the ground. and thats where I went.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

God Damn thread troll. Get your thoughts in one post and stop fucking around.

 

[assholebythedoor]

well, should I do some editing, I think it makes a thoughtful read

 

[calpoon]

hey asshole, didn't you used to have a different username, like middlefingerluv?

at least he finnally learned to use spacing between paragraphs... too bad he apparently only knows how to do it by making a new post.

 

[Jagger69]

God Damn thread troll. Get your thoughts in one post and stop fucking around.

Yes! :thumbsup:

:ban:

The terms 1 2 3 will ALWAYS be debated between the two parties, before during and after the war. The only time that there is a consensus is when an attack is fresh on our minds e.g. 11, September, 2001. Other than that, the one party must always oppose the other party. ! Isn't that correct Jag ?

I don't know. It sure seems that way. I'm not sure why either....other than the obvious reason being that some put advancement of political philosophy above welfare of country (a certain bombastic corpulent ego-maniacal radio talk show host immediately comes to mind but there are also others on the left who do the same thing).

Has there ever been a significant debate after the fact that the USA should not have become involved in WWII? The definition of what constitutes terms 1-2-3 as I mentioned would certainly seem to be where the rub would be so I would say that your statement is correct, F.

Would the following conflicts satisfy those terms?

- American Revolution
- War of 1812
- Mexican War
- American Civil War
- Spanish-American War
- World War I
- World War II
- Korean War
- Vietnam War
- 1st Gulf War
- Iraq War

Out of all those, only the ones highlighted would qualify in my view. I'm fairly certain many will disagree. I didn't even mention "incursions" like Bosnia, Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama, etc.