why would you support troops that occupy countrys, exploit their natural recourses, slaughter, terrorize and rape the innocent iraqi and afghani population? why jeff??
@kaleed32 All I will say is where not the United States Of America and the strongest country on the planet by standing around waiting for good to come our way...Those accusations might represent an insignificant portion of our military...Not the whole or its integrity...
care packages were the best thing in the world when I was deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.... just a tip: odds are we won't get them for a while (maybe a few weeks or even months) so dont send anything that can spoil. Speaking for the the United States Marines, thank you!
@punkkrockkk said "Okay, just look at it this way. if the troops didn't volunteer then you'd be drafted. dick"
They might try to draft you, but you could deny them another brainwashed drone by claiming conscientious objection. Besides, I very much doubt the US government would attempt such a strategy because it's citizens are far more intelligent and well informed nowadays - the government would actualy have to justify their position and they don't want people picking holes in their STORY.
@Brickman93 said "those brave men and women are giving their lives"
Remember, they're also taking lives in the process and without clearly defined justification too, which essentially makes them mercenaries. Having returning troops surrounded by fanfares and waving flag doesn't make their actions any less aberrant. Also, how have their actions given us more freedom, and if indeed you are correct, then what has this supposed freedom cost in lives and dignity?
@GMPresents Iraq, nothing. Afghanistan, the US went in and destroyed it as a base of terrorism. Its not so much anti-terrorism that is being fought now but if the coalition withdraws the Taliban will regain power and Afghanistan could be used for terrorism again. And its not necessarily the wars soldiers are fighting that is protecting your freedom but they are passively protecting it simply by being there to deter anything and be there if anything does come up that might threaten your freedom.
@mrrobotica said "Afghanistan, the US went in and destroyed it as a base of terrorism"
Many places in this world that can be labelled as breeding grounds for terrorism. When pointing fingers and shouting "terrorist" - much like the cold war when people shouted "communist" - perhaps we should be objectively accusing ourselves too. After all, we're the ones with the greater arsenal, we're the ones attacking and forcing our beliefs onto other tribes. Terrorism is a widely misused word nowadays.
@mrrobotica At some point we must remove the veil and realise that the terrorist threat has been created AND exaggerated by our own government to help support a political and financial agenda. Let me ask you this: how have you been directly affected by the so-called terrorists who are supposedly based in Iraq or Afghanistan? I've never met or even seen one personally and I'm pretty sure my freedom is threatened more by my government eroding my human rights and civil liberties each and every day!
i was affected when i watched the twin towers burn and crash to the ground
my father was NYPD ill never forget how he was that week, thank god they didnt call him down to help.
i dont care about exageration or financial aggenda. i belive we should have mandatory military service in this country so we can have less pussys running around talking shit on you tube
@thewarrior1989 said "dont care about exageration or financial aggenda. i belive we should have mandatory military service"
Many were horrified by the events that occurred that day, but that doesn't mean we should abandon objectivity and rationality, then act childishly upon our emotions and invade countries without justification. The Coalition of the Willing has maimed and killed thousands upon thousands of people and it's done so without good reason. We are the greater terrorists in this game
I care enough to say that the people of the United States should not allow our friends and family to be used as mercenaries for the international Banksters who profit from war. For people who still believe that the WTC was demolished by Moslem fundamentalists living in Iraq or Afghanistan I feel sorry for you.
The best way to support troops is not to send them to die for nothing fighting pointless wars (ie. Iraq). The second best way to support them is cover fire with a machinegun.
@RevolverLover101 i could give a fuck , plenty of rapists and piece shits worked and served in iraq as well , i dont know u from adam and u dont know me either, the point i was making is that , i will not support troops as a whole, thats why were still there playing off my guilt, im done feelin' sorry. weather or not the individual (man) soldier is good or not doesn't take away from the fact that unconstitutional and illegal orders are given and followed. i don't support treachery.
@lynette1953 No doubt. There are piece of shit everything and soldiers aren't an exception. But it's what they are doing as a whole which should be supported. Being there to protect your country. It doesn't matter some of them are pieces of shit. Unconstitutional and illegal orders are neither given nor followed by the vast overwhelming majority of soldiers. Current wars are neither of those. Maybe illegal by the UN but the UN is bullshit and a way for strong countries to control small ones.
@mrrobotica oh, for sure, just as i know most soldiers wont fire on Americans if ordered to. they are not here to protect me. i am. the only threats to our country have been setup and payed to attack us. you dont have to look much further than racist hate groups like la raza and mecha to see that mexico is our threat. hello where are the f ' in troops at the border?
Thank you for this video it was short but sweet. My brother is in afghanistan for his second tour over seas, We all really need to support our troops because alot of us dont really know what they go through over there. Thanks again!
@lynette1953 Yes. During the Vietnam era, it didn't mean that. One of the chants was: "we're not against the soldiers, we're against the war!". That doesn't apply today because the soldiers are all volunteers; there's no draft.
Considering it's an illegal, unjustifiable and senseless war, and the troops are the lapdogs of a corporate funded bunch of tyrannical murderers, I choose not to support the troops. If you're told to threaten or kill someone and you fail to reasonably question why, then why do you deserve support?
@GMPresents Illegal? By nature, 'war' has no element of legality in it whatsoever; to even suggest that jus ad bellum constitutes some objective moral statutes for the waging of war is just naive; in addition, the invasion of Iraq met the six essential criteria of jus ad bellum, based on the information gleaned up to that point. Hindsight is always 20-20. Soldiers don't question orders, because questioning an order during an engagement will get you and your fellow soldiers killed.
@GMPresents May I remind you that the UN kept their mouths shut, and were quite happy to let the US and UK lance the infection that was Saddam and his party. The US is not subservient to any multinational government; therefore their actions cannot be deemed 'illegal', as they are not bound to a higher governing body. True the US signed the UN charter, but the UNSC never ruled the invasion as a breach of treaty. Putting the decision to wage war to referendum is just laughably stupid.
1) It wasn't self defence because Iraq never attacked the U.S, so Bush argued for a pre-emptive strike instead, a strike based on lies (or intelligence as Colin Powell would claim).
2) As the intelligence was bogus, so too was the justification. From a humanitarian point of view you cannot invade another country until you are absolutely sure they they are a threat to you.
3) The UN didn't pass a 2nd resolution and the US ignored them!
@RebelWrestler45 said "The US is not subservient to any multinational government; therefore their actions cannot be deemed 'illegal'"
"The UN Charter is the highest treaty in the world, superseding states’ conflicting obligations under any other international agreement."
The US signed the UN Charter but decided to arbitrarily ignore it and attack another nation. Like I said before, the illegality may not be currently proven, but we know invading Iraq was a crime against humanity. Peace.
@illogicalmethod said "Ah right, crimes against Humanity... because the U.N. is so good at preventing those"
The US committed crimes against humanity by invading these countries and supporting it's dictators, and the UN did try to stop them but the US - being the arrogant bully that it is - ignored the advice. Besides, this isn't a debate about the effectiveness of the UN, it's a debate about the US committing terrorism and genocide under the guise of protecting our freedom.
1.) If U.N. can advise people to "not commit" crimes against humanity, but can't stop them, it is an ineffective body of people who gather to bitch(much on the U.S.'s own dime") about world affairs.
2.) Genocide? U.S. has not committed genocide. Terrorism? Yeah, o.k. I'll give you that. Every war is terrifying, especially to people not directly involved that are none the less affected by it.
@illogicalmethod said "If U.N. can advise people to "not commit" crimes against humanity, but can't stop them, it is an ineffective body"
Signing the UN charter is a significant step towards a better world. But the US decided to twist the rules, defy the council and attack anyway, thereby forcing the world to consider what the US actually represents. Without doubt, George Bush (Snr and Jnr) and Co are certified despots with their own agenda, an agenda that has nothing to do with our freedom.
LOL, I like how you say the U.S. defied U.N. sanctions. Iraq, more specifically, Suddam and other leaders, prior to the 2003 invasion, were twisting U.N. policies and charters. OIl for food comes to mind, amongst other things. He was very definitely ignoring many sanctions.
@illogicalmethod So because Saddam defied the UN, that makes it ok for the US to follow suit? Please! Two wrongs don't make a right, a point proven by the mindless loss of life in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Let's try logic 101: Saddam defied U.N. orders consistently. The only way to force him to start complying, was through military action, because frankly, the sanctions against him weren't working. Conversely, those same sanctions were helping kill Iraqi's in Saddam's controlled territory. It's estimated to somewhere around over 1 million died because of those sanctions. You're right though, we should of just left those sanctions in place and not done anything about Saddam.
1.) Saddam had WMD's: Incorrect. What is correct is he had defied U.N. Council orders and had weapons that were banned by U.N. Sanctions.
2.) U.S. and U.K. had backing from the U.N. council that Iraq WAS NOT complying with the U.N. The inspectors themselves stated they were not getting full cooperation from Saddam's regime.
3.) No, Saddam didn't have ties to Al Qaida, but there were Al Qaida in Iraq.
4.) LOL, absurd dude. Being funded by a someone in the PAST..
@illogicalmethod having viewed your profile and read through your comments again I can now see that I'm dealing with someone who likes guns and favours unjustified aggression. You also seem unable or unwilling to grasp the simple fact that the reasons given for going to war in Iraq are unfounded. I cannot help you if you refuse to listen.
lol... Because I like guns I favor unjustified aggression? LOL, can't utilize logic so we resort to the personal attacks. You don't even know me bud, stop trying to judge what you DON'T KNOW.
As for "the reasons given for going to war in Iraq are unfounded..." U.S. had plenty of reason to go into Iraq, just because some were wrong, or "unfounded" doesn't negate the whole fact that Saddam was openly defying U.N. Sanctions...
@GMPresents ... but this is the part of hypocrisy on your part. You see, you can't turn around and say "Hey, the U.S. is ignoring the U.N" and simultaneously say "Well, Iraq was ignoring the U.N. sanctions and resolutions" but that's O.K. The U.S. is the only one at fault here.
@GMPresents ... is neigh a reason to accuse the funder of being guilty. Maybe some in our country at some point in time was accepting of his crimes against humanity. However, to even blame the U.S.? LOL, what can't any other country/regimes take responsibility for their actions? Or will it take the U.S. disappearing off the face of the planet before you dishonest fools stop blaming us? LOL.
@illogicalmethod said "will it take the U.S. disappearing off the face of the planet before you dishonest fools stop blaming us?"
Admittedly, I'd like your military complex and the corrupt tyrants who run your country to disappear from this planet. What would Saddam have been able to do without the funding and support of the US? Not much, so the US is just as guilty as Saddam as the US knew exactly what he was doing with their support. Alternatively, your ignorance is truly bliss.
1.) I'd like our military complex to disappear as well. The defense of the nation was supposed to be left to the Militia.
2.) I'd like the corrupt politicians to disappear too. Guess what though, they're in every country's Government.
3.) LOL Saddam would of got his funding from somewhere, some how. His country has FRIKKIN OIL, if not the U.S. it would of been Russia, or China. As for why, yeah U.S. was funding him because Iran went south.
Logical reason was for the control of oil? lol, you mean just like Russia and China didn't agree to go to war with Iraq? Both countries having agreements with Saddam for oil? Oh right, but the U.S. isn't benefiting from the Iraqi oil. Who's getting it?
Next, we murdered thousands of human beings for money? We were killing millions with the U.N. imposed sanctions... But hey, that's o.k... Cut off aid and kill millions and it's all good? Kill thousands in war and it's "bad".
@GMPresents I will say, all deaths are bad. With that said, sometimes death is necessary for freedom. You think we just went in there and murdered innocent people(while you don't seem to acknowledge, or somehow think it's o.k. that those people can murder their own, murder us and anyone that disagrees with them and it's o.k.).
@RebelWrestler45 said "and were quite happy to let the US and UK lance the infection that was Saddam and his party"
Hmm, you are aware that the US backed Iraq during the Iraq Iran conflict in the 80's and in fact helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs? This savage dictator was created and nurtured by the US. And what a coincidence that as soon as Saddam turned his back on Greenbacks, the US decided to overthrow their own creation. Get a grip, please.
@RebelWrestler45 said "Soldiers don't question orders, because questioning an order during an engagement will get you and your fellow soldiers killed."
What's the difference between being asked to jump off a cliff and being asked to fire upon a target without question?
If you don't question why then you're basically a drone, and drones can be programmed to do anything they're told - a very dangerous weapon in the wrong hands, don't you think?
I cannot respect senseless killing in any shape or form. If terrorism is defined as the use of fear and intimidation in order to forward a political agenda then is it irrational to conclude that the real terrorists are actually the U.S and U.K? Who invaded who? How many people have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan because under 3,000 lost theirs in the U.S? Also, where is the proof that the 'official' report is indeed accurate?
they deserve respect for what is happening to them. its not their fault that they have to fight if it is unjust. i think you should respect what they are going through. evem if you dissagree why
@MATTNATTMATT said "its not their fault that they have to fight if it is unjust"
Believe me, I understand the need for compassion in these difficult times, but how compassionate can one be when faced with such criminal behaviour? Any troop - despite the chain of command - must consider their orders before following them. It's a question of moral responsibility. All-to-often, failing to question results in incidents of terror, the very thing the U.S & Co claims to be fighting against.
Great video in the uk u can get these braclets and mugs that say help for heroes on. Some of the money goes to soldiers and there famillies we also have the poppy apeal on rememberance day.
It's awsome that Britain, America and it's Allies are fighting for this cause.
Nicely said! There are a number of organizations that will do that, but the best way is either through the links on the Army's website or the USO's website. Thanks for posting this vid!
my dad was in the airforce for 23 years. im damn proud of him. i try to support the troops whenever i can. one of my buddys also came back from iraq this year. he made it out. some dont. thank you all. wherever you may be.
stupid CoD references... you guys just have no respect do you? this isn't a joke, this is for our troops, the people that defend YOUR lives, so you actually have the freedom to do what you want. Our troops deserve more recognition, and thanks for what they do! GOD BLESS THE MEN AND WOMEN IN SERVICE.
@rustypondify Defend my life my fucking ass. Fuck yourself you military white knight, this is a pointless war which yields no progression and no end. I don't support this war, I don't support the troops fighting in it.
@bre4dfish Destruction of the Taliban, Al Qaeda recruitment at an all time low, no terrorist attacks on America in 9 years; yeah, this war is pointless.
@RebelWrestler45 said "no terrorist attacks on America in 9 years; yeah, this war is pointless"
The word 'terrorism' has been heavily misused in order to convince the people that they're in serious danger. What evidence identifies the actual perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks? You believe what you're told and what you're told doesn't ring true, not by a long shot. Also, how many have died as a result of the occupation? 100,000+ perhaps? How much death is needed to appease the dogs of war?
@GMPresents I would call 3,000 dead in one way serious danger. From first hand independent accounts, to terrorist correspondence, to photos, to licenses, to the mouth of Al Qaeda itself, there is overwhelming evidence substantiating the fact that the 9/11 attacks were indeed orchestrated, funded, and executed by Al Qaeda; the conspiracy theories about remote control planes and thermite are even less founded than the moon landing or JFK assassination conspiracy theories.
@RebelWrestler45 said " I would call 3,000 dead in one way serious danger"
A small one-off attack by an unknown foe isn't much of a danger to the US, relatively speaking. What first hand accounts? What terrorist correspondence? Did you research this information yourself or was it handed to you on a silver platter? There is also overwhelming evidence against the official 9/11 report, so where do you stand now? Do the words 'tower 7' and 'free-fall speed' mean anything to you?
@illogicalmethod said "There's no over-whelming evidence against the official 9/11 report."
Read the official report and the reputable conflicting evidence and you will understand why the official report is highly, highly suspect. It's up to you to educate yourself, I'm just trying to dispel the lies we've been fed thus far.
I've read many reports, no here, why don't YOU point me to what reports you consider "reputable" and we'll go from there? Everything is highly highly suspect to those of you who just don't want to admit that there are people out there that hate the U.S. and would do such an act.
Actually I'm not a conspiracy theorist, although I'm objective enough to consider alternative versions. It doesn't make you a mad hatter just because you question or disagree with the commonly accepted version.
In order to disbelieve the commonly accepted version, you, by nature, have to accept one of many conspiracy theories, there by making you a conspiracy theorist. Call it objectivity, call it clairvoyance, call it a gift from God.
@illogicalmethod said "In order to disbelieve the commonly accepted version, you, by nature, have to accept one of many conspiracy theories"
I'm drawing into question the official story based upon counter evidence, a logical step to take in any form of analysis. Demonise this analysis with labels like 'conspiracy theorist' if you wish, but that doesn't make the arguments any less valid, You seem to be acting under the delusion that's it's somehow wrong to question what we are told to believe?
Counter evidence... Or counter claims? There's a difference. Some ass-hat 20 year old that got his theories debunked, for instance, does not equate to counter evidence. I seem to be acting under the delusion that it's somehow wrong to question what we are told to believe? Not at all. What I am suggesting is that there is no logical or rational excuse to stop believing the official story of events, especially considering there is no evidence(yeah, where is it?)
I agree with you there. The official story is nothing but a set of claims. If truth be told, neither the officials/governments concerned nor the public can be absolutely sure about who and why the 9/11 incident occurred. But this uncomfortable state of uncertainty didn't stop the US and UK from invading now did it. If someone attacked my family, using conjecture as justification, I'd be pretty annoyed.
The official story is a set of claims, backed up with evidence. Denial of the existence of that evidence does not mean it isn't there. So why didn't the so called uncomfortable state of uncertainty stop anyone from invading Afghanistan, for instance? Because in that instance, EVERYWHERE was convinced and most of us still are convinced, that the U.S. was attacked by Osama. We know that we have been attacked by him in the past as well, through many attacks.
@illogicalmethod said "So why didn't the so called uncomfortable state of uncertainty stop anyone from invading Afghanistan"
Let's assume you're correct and that Osama was indeed responsible. In response to around 3,000 deaths on 9/11 is it morally acceptable to then slaughter over 100,000 people? If a force entered your country trying to find a suspect, were unable to locate that suspect and killed everyone around you in the process, would you consider their actions just or perhaps criminal?
Osama was responsible for quite a few attacks all over the world. Where we supposed to sit by and let him keep attacking us? See how long it takes for them to rack up a death toll larger than 100,000? Really? Besides, why don't you put up the numbers... It's not exactly the U.S. that is doing all the killing, though yes there are plenty of mistakes and accidentally killing civilians, as what happens in ANY war.
@illogicalmethod said "The official story is a set of claims, backed up with evidence. Denial of the existence of that evidence does not mean it isn't there"
There is evidence for and against the official story, but as of yet there is no proof, and proof is necessary to decide matters in a civilised forum. You cannot send an aggressive force to another country based on anecdotal evidence and heresy... it's simply barbaric and idiotic (much like our those who claim to be our leaders actually).
@GMPresents I guess we could of just kept waiting around and seeing how many times our people got attacked by Al Qaida and how many people(not just Americans) were killed in the attacks, do nothing and hope that "clarity(the ability to ignore evidence)" came to us all....?
@illogicalmethod said "I guess we could of just kept waiting around and seeing how many times our people got attacked by Al Qaida"
Transparency is key. First, you must investigate the crime in public with full disclosure. Second, once the case is ready you must let the people decide what action to take, not leave it to spoilt little brats like Geroge Bush Jnr. After all, you live in a democracy and the decision to declare war shouldn't be left up to your guardians, it's your decision and mine.
Many of Al Qaida's attacks are well documented and very well investigated. It's the public's decision to go to war? Since when... It's the job and within the power of the U.S. Congress to both raise an army and declare war based upon what they believe to be in the best interest of the United States. Doesn't mean they don't make bad decisions.
@illogicalmethod said " It's the public's decision to go to war?...It's the job and within the power of the U.S. Congress to both raise an army and declare war"
It should be a public decision because such decisions effect us all. The government represent our interests (or are supposed to), but the failure in the existing democratic system is that we've given them too much power, and as we have witnessed time and time again this power is often abused with fatal consequences. Take the power back
On the other hand, if all citizens had a "say" over all things, we'd have divided countries and likely civil wars in our own back-yards. Hell, it's not like many of us to stand around and simply watch genocides as they happen(even if you do, rightly or wrongly, accuse the U.S. of such)... yet that is what the world expects us of, of course unless it benefits them. Corruption is every-where, to some extent.
@illogicalmethod said "if all citizens had a "say" over all things, we'd have divided countries and likely civil wars in our own back-yards"
The people today are far more sensible and civilised than our ancestors in the dark ages my friend. We need a new system and giving the power back to the people in a well-run, democratic system is nothing to be scared of. Personally, I don't like being a slave to the government, especially when they do a terrible job of representing my interests.
I'm not scared of it, I'm just telling you why it'll never happen. You also say people are far more civilized? Really....? Yet there are plenty of people calling for the deaths of all of Islam, burning Qur'ans and trying to keep Muslims from building Mosques in NYC because they're too stupid to realize it wasn't Islam that attacked us, merely a bunch of nut jobs...? Hell, many people here in the states voted for Obama simply because he's "black" ... Sound civilized...?
@illogicalmethod said "You also say people are far more civilized?"
Publicising minority groups through the twisted channels of corporate-funded mass media doesn't reflect the opinions of an entire nation. If you truly crave a democratic society (which I believe is the best system we have at this time) then the people, together, must make the important decisions. To do this, complete transparency will be required and once lies are no longer tolerated, we may find ourselves in a brave new world.
@illogicalmethod said "Doesn't mean they don't make bad decisions."
That's putting it mildly. The unjustified killing of over 100,000 human beings isn't a minor error, it's a crime against humanity, unless of course you don't value foreign life in the way I do. You're defending people who've made terrible decisions based upon unfounded intelligence. Are these the people you wish to represent your best interests?
They made decisions based upon evidence, some of it false, some if it not. Hindsight can be 20/20, but please, spare me the b.s. about humanity and crimes against it. If there is no one to enforce the so called crimes against humanity, how in the hell can it be a crime? You see, you say you can't justify "100,000 humans dying", but in order to stop threats, deaths happen. Yes, even foreign ones.
I value everyone's life equally. I do not, however, hold any illusions to the fact that people won't die in war. Civilians have died in every war(whoa with the body count of WW2 for example). Does it suck? Yeah, it does suck, it sucks a whole lot. You know what else sucks? Knowing there are genocides happening on the earth right now, far greater than anything the U.S. has done and we sit back and watch it....
@illogicalmethod said "Knowing there are genocides happening on the earth right now"
I agree. Parts of the world are in complete disarray, which is why the UN is such an important organisation and should be honoured, yet the gun-ho US government feels the need to defy the UN and support dictators for financial and power gains. You wish to help the world? Then tell the US to change their construct, work with other civilised nations, then take the lawful, moral and justifiable course. Evolution.
How has the U.N. helped any other nation? How has the U.N. stopped genocide in any country? They haven't. When Saddam commits genocide in his country, everyone yawns rather boringly. When the U.S. goes in to stop it, we get accused of going against the U.N. For the U.N. to be important, it has to agree and work together to stop genocide. Stopping hostile activities usually means, using hostile activities to stop an aggressor.
@illogicalmethod said "Stopping hostile activities usually means, using hostile activities to stop an aggressor."
I imagine the UN were placed in a rather difficult position. On one hand we have Saddam committing genocide, on the other hand we have a well armed super-power funding Saddam's genocide who then declare they wish to invade based upon spurious claims of WMD's and terrorism. The UN were prepared to act, but only after ensuring it was the right decision. The US ignored common sense.
U.S. funded Saddam in the past, to counter-balance Iran, when it was known that Iran was nuts. The problem of in the now is, you can't be too terribly certain, until after the fact, if someone is going to be crazy or not. However, the military adage always applies, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We used to be on good terms with Iran and not so much with Iraq. People change, their position changes, or in some cases, it is merely the choosing between two lesser evils.
@illogicalmethod said "U.S. funded Saddam in the past, to counter-balance Iran"
Common sense dictates that arming other countries will never yield peace. The US fully understands this, but the US usually has ulterior motives (e.g. oil, money, further expansion of it's industrial military complex etc). I find it sad that a nation with so much potential is led by those who adopt such conniving practices. The citizens of the US (and the UK) must prevent these atrocities from happening again.
With this, you are correct, to an extent. Though I do believe being armed can deter violence and at the very least, allow one to protect themselves. That's been a part of U.S. policy for awhile... We do believe in our guns and the right to keep and bear them, for the most part. I personally don't think anyone should be disarmed... but yeah, funding Saddam and giving him the chemical weapons in the first place, was fool-hardy on our Gov's part and you are right... We should..
@GMPresents ...neigh, nix should, we need to work harder not to allow atrocities to happen. With all that said, sadly, there are those in the government that do have ulterior motives and still others have ideologies that mean well; I.E. they believe they are trying to do good, or fighting for good of the world and of our nation. Rightly or wrongly on that. It would also make it much easier if all, or most countries, did a little more, themselves, to help the situations.
I think with the exception of the war and 9/11, you and I actually do agree on quite a bit. By the way, I like my guns because;
1.) I've been kidnapped before, had guns, knives, bats and other weapons pulled on me, more than a few times. I refuse to be a victim, or more importantly, sit around and watch my family be victimized
2.) Shooting at the range helps clear stress from my over-all peaceful existence(I haven't been in a fight since 2000 and it wasn't of my own choosing).
Just know that despite our differences in opinion, you are welcome if you ever find yourself in my neck of the woods, to come visit. Otherwise, anytime hit me up for any discussion and we can go back and forth on what we disagree on. You kind of insulted me once, but you didn't really and the discussions are always fun(you know, a lot of my friends, I've had heated arguments with before lol).
@illogicalmethod it's been a thoughtful and interesting debate illogicalmethod, and yes, we may disagree on certain points but I feel we're heading in the same direction (we both hope for a more peaceful world). Thanks for the kind offer by the way - perhaps I'll pop by for a cuppa and a friendly chat next time I visit the states. I extend the same offer should you ever visit the UK. All the best to you and your family. GM
@illogicalmethod Oh, isn`t that so. Please tell me where in the world is the country where the US stopped a genocide. Exclude Iraq, the US gave chemical weapons to Saddam when he first did genocide on the Curds back in the 80s. Exclude Serbia, the NATO forces invaded Serbia after more than 4000 Kosovars were killed, not to mentions Muslims and Croats. Now where in the world, was it in the WWII, or was it in the Korea, no it must be in Vietnam, or was it in Cambodia, Kongo, Nigeria, Ruanda?
I said "When the U.S. goes in to stop it, we get accused of going against the U.N."
I never said we were effective at stopping genocide. On the contrary, I said when we go in to stop it. Big difference in words there, pal. I know, I know, English is not your first language..
Sigh.
However, the U.N. DOES NOT try and stop genocide , they merely whine about it hoping the U.S. WILL do something about it.
@illogicalmethod Oh, I apologize for not being capable of getting the point, however, if the U.S. goes to stop the genocide and does not succeed than there must be that the U.S. agenda is somewhat different. "We are never effective in stopping the genocide but we decide to do it by placing our forces in countries where our companies have a permanent interest(oil - Iraq, opium - Afghanistan)". I understand that you have a "steel triangle" you have to maintain, yet if it runs on human corpses...
Neigh, many countries don't even see the U.N. as legit, many countries in Africa where genocide has and is happening, included. Now, why can that be? It's not because of the U.S....
@illogicalmethod said "regardless of what you think of me and my stance. Peace."
Peace, it seems, is something that we both desire. Although we may disagree, it's good that we're having this debate because others will read it and perhaps start to think for themselves rather than adopting the opinions of others.
Terrorist attack on 9/11 against Americans was just ONE attack, of many that were ADMITTED by Osama's mouth himself. Ring true? Because conspiracy theories are just so much easier to take in, right? Because "Thermite paint, missiles and army planes" are just so much more credible, am I right?
"Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest," said bin Laden on September 16, 2001, just five days after the attacks.
as i saw the last seconds i thougt: as always, god bless....you know the tex "f*cking" grebner thing :D
TheSteini2610 2 months ago
why would you support troops that occupy countrys, exploit their natural recourses, slaughter, terrorize and rape the innocent iraqi and afghani population? why jeff??
kaleed32 1 year ago
@kaleed32 All I will say is where not the United States Of America and the strongest country on the planet by standing around waiting for good to come our way...Those accusations might represent an insignificant portion of our military...Not the whole or its integrity...
cutlerylover 1 year ago
@cutlerylover I have no idea what the heck did you just say. Do you even know how to talk, or write?
bepino355 6 months ago
@kaleed32 how can you Blame the Military for just a few sick bastards
Infantrymyers 5 months ago
care packages were the best thing in the world when I was deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.... just a tip: odds are we won't get them for a while (maybe a few weeks or even months) so dont send anything that can spoil. Speaking for the the United States Marines, thank you!
LedZeppelin13k7 1 year ago
im doing a food drive for our troops in my AFJROTC class next weekend
TheUV123 1 year ago
Hooah! Support the troops "Down Range"!
PFC Woodward, 94R, U.S. Army
zchats 1 year ago
Comment removed
zchats 1 year ago
nice hair :D
corakmoon 1 year ago
And don't forget... support our troops *weird smile*
MrEinZwei 1 year ago
They all got 4 Killstreaks
Dookiii 1 year ago
@Dookiii HELL YA
Longboarders999 1 year ago
I support our troops; however, I do not support US foreign policy.
wrxbungle 1 year ago
cool vid man
USMC poolee
schumacher Jason
delta261 1 year ago
That looks more like an Emergency Air Drop.
That's actually great to see. It's good that even if not everyone can support the war, the troops are still getting some love.
m415mike 1 year ago 2
@bre4dfish Okay, just look at it this way. if the troops didn't volunteer then you'd be drafted. dick
punkkrockkk 1 year ago
@punkkrockkk Lol, you pricks are very persistent
bre4dfish 1 year ago
@punkkrockkk said "Okay, just look at it this way. if the troops didn't volunteer then you'd be drafted. dick"
They might try to draft you, but you could deny them another brainwashed drone by claiming conscientious objection. Besides, I very much doubt the US government would attempt such a strategy because it's citizens are far more intelligent and well informed nowadays - the government would actualy have to justify their position and they don't want people picking holes in their STORY.
GMPresents 1 year ago
4 kill streak, cause someone had to.
taylorferry7 1 year ago
Amen Brother.
wflccb83 1 year ago
I just made two care packs. Still gotta get off my lazy butt to send them though. But its well worth it. :) Thanks for all your vids!
CODMASTER4846 1 year ago
Good work Jeff...strength to kill more haji's to all that serve.
ODgr33n 1 year ago
@ODgr33n Amen
GoBeArS939 1 year ago
U.S.A !
CaptainBerz 1 year ago
I have sent many care boxes to my friends that are in the military. I know how much a little box from home can mean. God bless our troops.
bigrob911 1 year ago
@Brickman93 said "those brave men and women are giving their lives"
Remember, they're also taking lives in the process and without clearly defined justification too, which essentially makes them mercenaries. Having returning troops surrounded by fanfares and waving flag doesn't make their actions any less aberrant. Also, how have their actions given us more freedom, and if indeed you are correct, then what has this supposed freedom cost in lives and dignity?
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents Iraq, nothing. Afghanistan, the US went in and destroyed it as a base of terrorism. Its not so much anti-terrorism that is being fought now but if the coalition withdraws the Taliban will regain power and Afghanistan could be used for terrorism again. And its not necessarily the wars soldiers are fighting that is protecting your freedom but they are passively protecting it simply by being there to deter anything and be there if anything does come up that might threaten your freedom.
mrrobotica 1 year ago
@mrrobotica said "Afghanistan, the US went in and destroyed it as a base of terrorism"
Many places in this world that can be labelled as breeding grounds for terrorism. When pointing fingers and shouting "terrorist" - much like the cold war when people shouted "communist" - perhaps we should be objectively accusing ourselves too. After all, we're the ones with the greater arsenal, we're the ones attacking and forcing our beliefs onto other tribes. Terrorism is a widely misused word nowadays.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@mrrobotica At some point we must remove the veil and realise that the terrorist threat has been created AND exaggerated by our own government to help support a political and financial agenda. Let me ask you this: how have you been directly affected by the so-called terrorists who are supposedly based in Iraq or Afghanistan? I've never met or even seen one personally and I'm pretty sure my freedom is threatened more by my government eroding my human rights and civil liberties each and every day!
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
i was affected when i watched the twin towers burn and crash to the ground
my father was NYPD ill never forget how he was that week, thank god they didnt call him down to help.
i dont care about exageration or financial aggenda. i belive we should have mandatory military service in this country so we can have less pussys running around talking shit on you tube
thewarrior1989 1 year ago 2
@thewarrior1989 said "dont care about exageration or financial aggenda. i belive we should have mandatory military service"
Many were horrified by the events that occurred that day, but that doesn't mean we should abandon objectivity and rationality, then act childishly upon our emotions and invade countries without justification. The Coalition of the Willing has maimed and killed thousands upon thousands of people and it's done so without good reason. We are the greater terrorists in this game
GMPresents 1 year ago
semper fi
MrLaxaddict1 1 year ago
This video is an insult to your non USA audience.
Gungrave123 1 year ago
If you like to support them, get them home...remember Vietnam dude...!
Roboflux 1 year ago
I care enough to say that the people of the United States should not allow our friends and family to be used as mercenaries for the international Banksters who profit from war. For people who still believe that the WTC was demolished by Moslem fundamentalists living in Iraq or Afghanistan I feel sorry for you.
oudaoua 1 year ago
@oudaoua
... and I feel sorry for you.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
hes doing care package glitch
BUTTERFLYKNlFE 1 year ago
support american troops so they can keep on fighting?? no
bring them home to there loved ones and stop this damn pointless war??? yes
EphraimRodrigez 1 year ago
The best way to support troops is not to send them to die for nothing fighting pointless wars (ie. Iraq). The second best way to support them is cover fire with a machinegun.
Angyal269 1 year ago 11
i like that, it's important
dokeyjones 1 year ago
GO AMERICA!
sabaths1fan 1 year ago
what about vets like my self?
RevolverLover101 1 year ago
@RevolverLover101 YOU SERIOUSLY THINK YOU CAN TRY TO DIVIDE THE TROOPS FROM US? WE ARE THE ARMY WE MAKE UP THIS COUNTRY. YOU SON OF BITCH.
lynette1953 1 year ago
@lynette1953 dude i served in iraq.so shut your mouth yoy failed abortion
RevolverLover101 1 year ago
@RevolverLover101 i could give a fuck , plenty of rapists and piece shits worked and served in iraq as well , i dont know u from adam and u dont know me either, the point i was making is that , i will not support troops as a whole, thats why were still there playing off my guilt, im done feelin' sorry. weather or not the individual (man) soldier is good or not doesn't take away from the fact that unconstitutional and illegal orders are given and followed. i don't support treachery.
lynette1953 1 year ago
@lynette1953 No doubt. There are piece of shit everything and soldiers aren't an exception. But it's what they are doing as a whole which should be supported. Being there to protect your country. It doesn't matter some of them are pieces of shit. Unconstitutional and illegal orders are neither given nor followed by the vast overwhelming majority of soldiers. Current wars are neither of those. Maybe illegal by the UN but the UN is bullshit and a way for strong countries to control small ones.
mrrobotica 1 year ago
@mrrobotica oh, for sure, just as i know most soldiers wont fire on Americans if ordered to. they are not here to protect me. i am. the only threats to our country have been setup and payed to attack us. you dont have to look much further than racist hate groups like la raza and mecha to see that mexico is our threat. hello where are the f ' in troops at the border?
lynette1953 1 year ago
Jeff,
Thank you for this video it was short but sweet. My brother is in afghanistan for his second tour over seas, We all really need to support our troops because alot of us dont really know what they go through over there. Thanks again!
coryc18 1 year ago
@coryc18 troops got pulled out of afaganistan
RevolverLover101 1 year ago
@RevolverLover101 YOUR SOOO FULLA SHIT THE TROOPS HAVEN'T GOTTEN PULLED FROM AFGHANISTAN !!!!!!! LYING SHIT SACK!!!
lynette1953 1 year ago
Comment removed
ArtisanTony 1 year ago
@ArtisanTony The troops haven't protected anything else than the politicians money. Not since ww2.
Grandpasfriend 1 year ago
we should deploy them here to get rid of ALL the illegals.........
mrbeligos 1 year ago
People need to stop making cod jokes this is not funney people die over there and your making childish jokes about it.
javagood2 1 year ago
DOES SUPPORTING THEM MEAN SUPPORTING WARS?
lynette1953 1 year ago
@lynette1953 Yes. During the Vietnam era, it didn't mean that. One of the chants was: "we're not against the soldiers, we're against the war!". That doesn't apply today because the soldiers are all volunteers; there's no draft.
tsilavivrus 1 year ago
@lynette1953 no supproting the troops means what it sounds like
RevolverLover101 1 year ago
@RevolverLover101 fuck off u NWO cocksuckin WHORE
lynette1953 1 year ago
Considering it's an illegal, unjustifiable and senseless war, and the troops are the lapdogs of a corporate funded bunch of tyrannical murderers, I choose not to support the troops. If you're told to threaten or kill someone and you fail to reasonably question why, then why do you deserve support?
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents that is the best comment period!! amen!!
lynette1953 1 year ago
@GMPresents iv got nothing to say to you.
RevolverLover101 1 year ago
@GMPresents Illegal? By nature, 'war' has no element of legality in it whatsoever; to even suggest that jus ad bellum constitutes some objective moral statutes for the waging of war is just naive; in addition, the invasion of Iraq met the six essential criteria of jus ad bellum, based on the information gleaned up to that point. Hindsight is always 20-20. Soldiers don't question orders, because questioning an order during an engagement will get you and your fellow soldiers killed.
RebelWrestler45 1 year ago
@RebelWrestler45 said "Illegal?"
Did the decision to wage war violate the UN charter? Yes.
Was the decision to wage war put to a referendum in the UK or the US? No.
Has the wisdom of the invasion been proven to this day? No.
Considering that the 9/11 Commission Report is full of holes and no WMD's were found, what were the reasons for invasion?
You may not be able to securely label the war as 'illegal' right now, but from a moral standpoint it certainly doesn't hold water.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents May I remind you that the UN kept their mouths shut, and were quite happy to let the US and UK lance the infection that was Saddam and his party. The US is not subservient to any multinational government; therefore their actions cannot be deemed 'illegal', as they are not bound to a higher governing body. True the US signed the UN charter, but the UNSC never ruled the invasion as a breach of treaty. Putting the decision to wage war to referendum is just laughably stupid.
RebelWrestler45 1 year ago
@RebelWrestler45 said "the UN kept their mouths shut"
1) It wasn't self defence because Iraq never attacked the U.S, so Bush argued for a pre-emptive strike instead, a strike based on lies (or intelligence as Colin Powell would claim).
2) As the intelligence was bogus, so too was the justification. From a humanitarian point of view you cannot invade another country until you are absolutely sure they they are a threat to you.
3) The UN didn't pass a 2nd resolution and the US ignored them!
GMPresents 1 year ago
@RebelWrestler45 said "The US is not subservient to any multinational government; therefore their actions cannot be deemed 'illegal'"
"The UN Charter is the highest treaty in the world, superseding states’ conflicting obligations under any other international agreement."
The US signed the UN Charter but decided to arbitrarily ignore it and attack another nation. Like I said before, the illegality may not be currently proven, but we know invading Iraq was a crime against humanity. Peace.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
Ah right, crimes against Humanity... because the U.N. is so good at preventing those:
1.) Attack against the U.S. and 9/11 was a crime against humanity.
2.) Saddam Hussein committed many crimes against humanity through-out his entire career(whether the U.S. was backing him on it or not).
3.) Crimes of humanity happen all over the damned world, U.N. is not involved in stopping any of it. U.N. is a dysfunctional body.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said "Ah right, crimes against Humanity... because the U.N. is so good at preventing those"
The US committed crimes against humanity by invading these countries and supporting it's dictators, and the UN did try to stop them but the US - being the arrogant bully that it is - ignored the advice. Besides, this isn't a debate about the effectiveness of the UN, it's a debate about the US committing terrorism and genocide under the guise of protecting our freedom.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
1.) If U.N. can advise people to "not commit" crimes against humanity, but can't stop them, it is an ineffective body of people who gather to bitch(much on the U.S.'s own dime") about world affairs.
2.) Genocide? U.S. has not committed genocide. Terrorism? Yeah, o.k. I'll give you that. Every war is terrifying, especially to people not directly involved that are none the less affected by it.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said "If U.N. can advise people to "not commit" crimes against humanity, but can't stop them, it is an ineffective body"
Signing the UN charter is a significant step towards a better world. But the US decided to twist the rules, defy the council and attack anyway, thereby forcing the world to consider what the US actually represents. Without doubt, George Bush (Snr and Jnr) and Co are certified despots with their own agenda, an agenda that has nothing to do with our freedom.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
LOL, I like how you say the U.S. defied U.N. sanctions. Iraq, more specifically, Suddam and other leaders, prior to the 2003 invasion, were twisting U.N. policies and charters. OIl for food comes to mind, amongst other things. He was very definitely ignoring many sanctions.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod So because Saddam defied the UN, that makes it ok for the US to follow suit? Please! Two wrongs don't make a right, a point proven by the mindless loss of life in Iraq and Afghanistan.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
Let's try logic 101: Saddam defied U.N. orders consistently. The only way to force him to start complying, was through military action, because frankly, the sanctions against him weren't working. Conversely, those same sanctions were helping kill Iraqi's in Saddam's controlled territory. It's estimated to somewhere around over 1 million died because of those sanctions. You're right though, we should of just left those sanctions in place and not done anything about Saddam.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said "Let's try logic 101"
Ok:
1) Saddam has WMD's: Incorrect
2) The US and UK had the backing of the United Nations Security Council: Incorrect
3) Saddam has links to Al Qaeda: Incorrect.
4) Saddam's was FUNDED by the US, allowing him to further his crimes against humanity: Correct.
...etc
The most logical reason for war was the control of oil and support of the precious Dollar currency.
Your country (and mine) have simply murdered thousands of human beings for MONEY!
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
1.) Saddam had WMD's: Incorrect. What is correct is he had defied U.N. Council orders and had weapons that were banned by U.N. Sanctions.
2.) U.S. and U.K. had backing from the U.N. council that Iraq WAS NOT complying with the U.N. The inspectors themselves stated they were not getting full cooperation from Saddam's regime.
3.) No, Saddam didn't have ties to Al Qaida, but there were Al Qaida in Iraq.
4.) LOL, absurd dude. Being funded by a someone in the PAST..
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod having viewed your profile and read through your comments again I can now see that I'm dealing with someone who likes guns and favours unjustified aggression. You also seem unable or unwilling to grasp the simple fact that the reasons given for going to war in Iraq are unfounded. I cannot help you if you refuse to listen.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
lol... Because I like guns I favor unjustified aggression? LOL, can't utilize logic so we resort to the personal attacks. You don't even know me bud, stop trying to judge what you DON'T KNOW.
As for "the reasons given for going to war in Iraq are unfounded..." U.S. had plenty of reason to go into Iraq, just because some were wrong, or "unfounded" doesn't negate the whole fact that Saddam was openly defying U.N. Sanctions...
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@GMPresents ... but this is the part of hypocrisy on your part. You see, you can't turn around and say "Hey, the U.S. is ignoring the U.N" and simultaneously say "Well, Iraq was ignoring the U.N. sanctions and resolutions" but that's O.K. The U.S. is the only one at fault here.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@GMPresents ... is neigh a reason to accuse the funder of being guilty. Maybe some in our country at some point in time was accepting of his crimes against humanity. However, to even blame the U.S.? LOL, what can't any other country/regimes take responsibility for their actions? Or will it take the U.S. disappearing off the face of the planet before you dishonest fools stop blaming us? LOL.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said "will it take the U.S. disappearing off the face of the planet before you dishonest fools stop blaming us?"
Admittedly, I'd like your military complex and the corrupt tyrants who run your country to disappear from this planet. What would Saddam have been able to do without the funding and support of the US? Not much, so the US is just as guilty as Saddam as the US knew exactly what he was doing with their support. Alternatively, your ignorance is truly bliss.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
1.) I'd like our military complex to disappear as well. The defense of the nation was supposed to be left to the Militia.
2.) I'd like the corrupt politicians to disappear too. Guess what though, they're in every country's Government.
3.) LOL Saddam would of got his funding from somewhere, some how. His country has FRIKKIN OIL, if not the U.S. it would of been Russia, or China. As for why, yeah U.S. was funding him because Iran went south.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@GMPresents
... by the way, saying my ignorance is bliss, is an argument befit of a 10 year old. I don't agree with you, so I'm ignorant.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@GMPresents
Logical reason was for the control of oil? lol, you mean just like Russia and China didn't agree to go to war with Iraq? Both countries having agreements with Saddam for oil? Oh right, but the U.S. isn't benefiting from the Iraqi oil. Who's getting it?
Next, we murdered thousands of human beings for money? We were killing millions with the U.N. imposed sanctions... But hey, that's o.k... Cut off aid and kill millions and it's all good? Kill thousands in war and it's "bad".
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@GMPresents I will say, all deaths are bad. With that said, sometimes death is necessary for freedom. You think we just went in there and murdered innocent people(while you don't seem to acknowledge, or somehow think it's o.k. that those people can murder their own, murder us and anyone that disagrees with them and it's o.k.).
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@GMPresents
Maybe if we got lucky, the whole country would of withered and died off by itself(sarcasm).
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@RebelWrestler45 said "and were quite happy to let the US and UK lance the infection that was Saddam and his party"
Hmm, you are aware that the US backed Iraq during the Iraq Iran conflict in the 80's and in fact helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs? This savage dictator was created and nurtured by the US. And what a coincidence that as soon as Saddam turned his back on Greenbacks, the US decided to overthrow their own creation. Get a grip, please.
GMPresents 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RebelWrestler45 said "Soldiers don't question orders, because questioning an order during an engagement will get you and your fellow soldiers killed."
What's the difference between being asked to jump off a cliff and being asked to fire upon a target without question?
If you don't question why then you're basically a drone, and drones can be programmed to do anything they're told - a very dangerous weapon in the wrong hands, don't you think?
GMPresents 1 year ago
NICE VIDEO
Knife4life123 1 year ago
maybe they will get a chopper gunner :P
0xXCSSXx0 1 year ago 2
I support our Troops 100%!!!
hakjason 1 year ago
woah that like your shortest video ever!
orangechicken210 1 year ago
Everyday I try to thank someone :)
krazy45cat 1 year ago
Would of been better if you were like "Care package, Incoming.."
PoliticalDisaster 1 year ago
@PoliticalDisaster "Would of" been been better if you were like, "would've" or "would have", because "would of" doesn't make a tiny bit of sense.
tsilavivrus 1 year ago
tell you what mate, ill join em! give them a helping hand. we should all support them in one way or another. they deserve ALOT of respect.
MATTNATTMATT 1 year ago
@MATTNATTMATT said "they deserve ALOT of respect"
I cannot respect senseless killing in any shape or form. If terrorism is defined as the use of fear and intimidation in order to forward a political agenda then is it irrational to conclude that the real terrorists are actually the U.S and U.K? Who invaded who? How many people have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan because under 3,000 lost theirs in the U.S? Also, where is the proof that the 'official' report is indeed accurate?
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
they deserve respect for what is happening to them. its not their fault that they have to fight if it is unjust. i think you should respect what they are going through. evem if you dissagree why
MATTNATTMATT 1 year ago
@MATTNATTMATT said "its not their fault that they have to fight if it is unjust"
Believe me, I understand the need for compassion in these difficult times, but how compassionate can one be when faced with such criminal behaviour? Any troop - despite the chain of command - must consider their orders before following them. It's a question of moral responsibility. All-to-often, failing to question results in incidents of terror, the very thing the U.S & Co claims to be fighting against.
GMPresents 1 year ago
I support the troops, just not the war...
m3phisto666 1 year ago 7
nice jeff :)
IchBinDeiVadder 1 year ago
lol im guessing these are CoD jokes >.>
koopaatroopa 1 year ago 2
They use care packages...........NOOBS!
mrboredguy2 1 year ago
kill streaks of 4?
wat.
Keep going guys, and we'll send over an AC130.
CheeezMaster 1 year ago
Good job Jeff. Always!
Mr45Bullitt 1 year ago 4
Great video in the uk u can get these braclets and mugs that say help for heroes on. Some of the money goes to soldiers and there famillies we also have the poppy apeal on rememberance day.
It's awsome that Britain, America and it's Allies are fighting for this cause.
longtoes12 1 year ago
@longtoes12
in america some soldiers walked into a show i was at and everyone cheered them, im from the UK, we should do that here.
MATTNATTMATT 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@longtoes12 said "It's awsome that Britain, America and it's Allies are fighting for this cause."
What cause? The death and destruction of two remote countries people and infrastructure?
GMPresents 1 year ago
Nicely said! There are a number of organizations that will do that, but the best way is either through the links on the Army's website or the USO's website. Thanks for posting this vid!
thebudgetarmory1 1 year ago
carepackage incoming!
lewie180 1 year ago
good stuff. I give to operation gratitude
f60w 1 year ago
my dad was in the airforce for 23 years. im damn proud of him. i try to support the troops whenever i can. one of my buddys also came back from iraq this year. he made it out. some dont. thank you all. wherever you may be.
PavlovSandor 1 year ago
★★★★★
MadBadVoodo 1 year ago
@MadBadVoodo how did you do that
CAIDMASTEROFPYRO 1 year ago
stupid CoD references... you guys just have no respect do you? this isn't a joke, this is for our troops, the people that defend YOUR lives, so you actually have the freedom to do what you want. Our troops deserve more recognition, and thanks for what they do! GOD BLESS THE MEN AND WOMEN IN SERVICE.
rustypondify 1 year ago
@rustypondify Defend my life my fucking ass. Fuck yourself you military white knight, this is a pointless war which yields no progression and no end. I don't support this war, I don't support the troops fighting in it.
bre4dfish 1 year ago
@bre4dfish Destruction of the Taliban, Al Qaeda recruitment at an all time low, no terrorist attacks on America in 9 years; yeah, this war is pointless.
RebelWrestler45 1 year ago
@RebelWrestler45 said "no terrorist attacks on America in 9 years; yeah, this war is pointless"
The word 'terrorism' has been heavily misused in order to convince the people that they're in serious danger. What evidence identifies the actual perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks? You believe what you're told and what you're told doesn't ring true, not by a long shot. Also, how many have died as a result of the occupation? 100,000+ perhaps? How much death is needed to appease the dogs of war?
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents I would call 3,000 dead in one way serious danger. From first hand independent accounts, to terrorist correspondence, to photos, to licenses, to the mouth of Al Qaeda itself, there is overwhelming evidence substantiating the fact that the 9/11 attacks were indeed orchestrated, funded, and executed by Al Qaeda; the conspiracy theories about remote control planes and thermite are even less founded than the moon landing or JFK assassination conspiracy theories.
RebelWrestler45 1 year ago
@RebelWrestler45 said " I would call 3,000 dead in one way serious danger"
A small one-off attack by an unknown foe isn't much of a danger to the US, relatively speaking. What first hand accounts? What terrorist correspondence? Did you research this information yourself or was it handed to you on a silver platter? There is also overwhelming evidence against the official 9/11 report, so where do you stand now? Do the words 'tower 7' and 'free-fall speed' mean anything to you?
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
Oh a conspiracy theorist. There's no over-whelming evidence against the official 9/11 report.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said "There's no over-whelming evidence against the official 9/11 report."
Read the official report and the reputable conflicting evidence and you will understand why the official report is highly, highly suspect. It's up to you to educate yourself, I'm just trying to dispel the lies we've been fed thus far.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
I've read many reports, no here, why don't YOU point me to what reports you consider "reputable" and we'll go from there? Everything is highly highly suspect to those of you who just don't want to admit that there are people out there that hate the U.S. and would do such an act.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said "Oh a conspiracy theorist"
Actually I'm not a conspiracy theorist, although I'm objective enough to consider alternative versions. It doesn't make you a mad hatter just because you question or disagree with the commonly accepted version.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
In order to disbelieve the commonly accepted version, you, by nature, have to accept one of many conspiracy theories, there by making you a conspiracy theorist. Call it objectivity, call it clairvoyance, call it a gift from God.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said "In order to disbelieve the commonly accepted version, you, by nature, have to accept one of many conspiracy theories"
I'm drawing into question the official story based upon counter evidence, a logical step to take in any form of analysis. Demonise this analysis with labels like 'conspiracy theorist' if you wish, but that doesn't make the arguments any less valid, You seem to be acting under the delusion that's it's somehow wrong to question what we are told to believe?
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
Counter evidence... Or counter claims? There's a difference. Some ass-hat 20 year old that got his theories debunked, for instance, does not equate to counter evidence. I seem to be acting under the delusion that it's somehow wrong to question what we are told to believe? Not at all. What I am suggesting is that there is no logical or rational excuse to stop believing the official story of events, especially considering there is no evidence(yeah, where is it?)
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said "Counter evidence... Or counter claims?"
I agree with you there. The official story is nothing but a set of claims. If truth be told, neither the officials/governments concerned nor the public can be absolutely sure about who and why the 9/11 incident occurred. But this uncomfortable state of uncertainty didn't stop the US and UK from invading now did it. If someone attacked my family, using conjecture as justification, I'd be pretty annoyed.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
The official story is a set of claims, backed up with evidence. Denial of the existence of that evidence does not mean it isn't there. So why didn't the so called uncomfortable state of uncertainty stop anyone from invading Afghanistan, for instance? Because in that instance, EVERYWHERE was convinced and most of us still are convinced, that the U.S. was attacked by Osama. We know that we have been attacked by him in the past as well, through many attacks.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said "So why didn't the so called uncomfortable state of uncertainty stop anyone from invading Afghanistan"
Let's assume you're correct and that Osama was indeed responsible. In response to around 3,000 deaths on 9/11 is it morally acceptable to then slaughter over 100,000 people? If a force entered your country trying to find a suspect, were unable to locate that suspect and killed everyone around you in the process, would you consider their actions just or perhaps criminal?
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
Osama was responsible for quite a few attacks all over the world. Where we supposed to sit by and let him keep attacking us? See how long it takes for them to rack up a death toll larger than 100,000? Really? Besides, why don't you put up the numbers... It's not exactly the U.S. that is doing all the killing, though yes there are plenty of mistakes and accidentally killing civilians, as what happens in ANY war.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@illogicalmethod said "The official story is a set of claims, backed up with evidence. Denial of the existence of that evidence does not mean it isn't there"
There is evidence for and against the official story, but as of yet there is no proof, and proof is necessary to decide matters in a civilised forum. You cannot send an aggressive force to another country based on anecdotal evidence and heresy... it's simply barbaric and idiotic (much like our those who claim to be our leaders actually).
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents I guess we could of just kept waiting around and seeing how many times our people got attacked by Al Qaida and how many people(not just Americans) were killed in the attacks, do nothing and hope that "clarity(the ability to ignore evidence)" came to us all....?
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@illogicalmethod said "I guess we could of just kept waiting around and seeing how many times our people got attacked by Al Qaida"
Transparency is key. First, you must investigate the crime in public with full disclosure. Second, once the case is ready you must let the people decide what action to take, not leave it to spoilt little brats like Geroge Bush Jnr. After all, you live in a democracy and the decision to declare war shouldn't be left up to your guardians, it's your decision and mine.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
Many of Al Qaida's attacks are well documented and very well investigated. It's the public's decision to go to war? Since when... It's the job and within the power of the U.S. Congress to both raise an army and declare war based upon what they believe to be in the best interest of the United States. Doesn't mean they don't make bad decisions.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said " It's the public's decision to go to war?...It's the job and within the power of the U.S. Congress to both raise an army and declare war"
It should be a public decision because such decisions effect us all. The government represent our interests (or are supposed to), but the failure in the existing democratic system is that we've given them too much power, and as we have witnessed time and time again this power is often abused with fatal consequences. Take the power back
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
On the other hand, if all citizens had a "say" over all things, we'd have divided countries and likely civil wars in our own back-yards. Hell, it's not like many of us to stand around and simply watch genocides as they happen(even if you do, rightly or wrongly, accuse the U.S. of such)... yet that is what the world expects us of, of course unless it benefits them. Corruption is every-where, to some extent.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said "if all citizens had a "say" over all things, we'd have divided countries and likely civil wars in our own back-yards"
The people today are far more sensible and civilised than our ancestors in the dark ages my friend. We need a new system and giving the power back to the people in a well-run, democratic system is nothing to be scared of. Personally, I don't like being a slave to the government, especially when they do a terrible job of representing my interests.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
I'm not scared of it, I'm just telling you why it'll never happen. You also say people are far more civilized? Really....? Yet there are plenty of people calling for the deaths of all of Islam, burning Qur'ans and trying to keep Muslims from building Mosques in NYC because they're too stupid to realize it wasn't Islam that attacked us, merely a bunch of nut jobs...? Hell, many people here in the states voted for Obama simply because he's "black" ... Sound civilized...?
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said "You also say people are far more civilized?"
Publicising minority groups through the twisted channels of corporate-funded mass media doesn't reflect the opinions of an entire nation. If you truly crave a democratic society (which I believe is the best system we have at this time) then the people, together, must make the important decisions. To do this, complete transparency will be required and once lies are no longer tolerated, we may find ourselves in a brave new world.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said "Doesn't mean they don't make bad decisions."
That's putting it mildly. The unjustified killing of over 100,000 human beings isn't a minor error, it's a crime against humanity, unless of course you don't value foreign life in the way I do. You're defending people who've made terrible decisions based upon unfounded intelligence. Are these the people you wish to represent your best interests?
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
They made decisions based upon evidence, some of it false, some if it not. Hindsight can be 20/20, but please, spare me the b.s. about humanity and crimes against it. If there is no one to enforce the so called crimes against humanity, how in the hell can it be a crime? You see, you say you can't justify "100,000 humans dying", but in order to stop threats, deaths happen. Yes, even foreign ones.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@GMPresents
I value everyone's life equally. I do not, however, hold any illusions to the fact that people won't die in war. Civilians have died in every war(whoa with the body count of WW2 for example). Does it suck? Yeah, it does suck, it sucks a whole lot. You know what else sucks? Knowing there are genocides happening on the earth right now, far greater than anything the U.S. has done and we sit back and watch it....
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said "Knowing there are genocides happening on the earth right now"
I agree. Parts of the world are in complete disarray, which is why the UN is such an important organisation and should be honoured, yet the gun-ho US government feels the need to defy the UN and support dictators for financial and power gains. You wish to help the world? Then tell the US to change their construct, work with other civilised nations, then take the lawful, moral and justifiable course. Evolution.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
How has the U.N. helped any other nation? How has the U.N. stopped genocide in any country? They haven't. When Saddam commits genocide in his country, everyone yawns rather boringly. When the U.S. goes in to stop it, we get accused of going against the U.N. For the U.N. to be important, it has to agree and work together to stop genocide. Stopping hostile activities usually means, using hostile activities to stop an aggressor.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said "Stopping hostile activities usually means, using hostile activities to stop an aggressor."
I imagine the UN were placed in a rather difficult position. On one hand we have Saddam committing genocide, on the other hand we have a well armed super-power funding Saddam's genocide who then declare they wish to invade based upon spurious claims of WMD's and terrorism. The UN were prepared to act, but only after ensuring it was the right decision. The US ignored common sense.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
U.S. funded Saddam in the past, to counter-balance Iran, when it was known that Iran was nuts. The problem of in the now is, you can't be too terribly certain, until after the fact, if someone is going to be crazy or not. However, the military adage always applies, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We used to be on good terms with Iran and not so much with Iraq. People change, their position changes, or in some cases, it is merely the choosing between two lesser evils.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said "U.S. funded Saddam in the past, to counter-balance Iran"
Common sense dictates that arming other countries will never yield peace. The US fully understands this, but the US usually has ulterior motives (e.g. oil, money, further expansion of it's industrial military complex etc). I find it sad that a nation with so much potential is led by those who adopt such conniving practices. The citizens of the US (and the UK) must prevent these atrocities from happening again.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
With this, you are correct, to an extent. Though I do believe being armed can deter violence and at the very least, allow one to protect themselves. That's been a part of U.S. policy for awhile... We do believe in our guns and the right to keep and bear them, for the most part. I personally don't think anyone should be disarmed... but yeah, funding Saddam and giving him the chemical weapons in the first place, was fool-hardy on our Gov's part and you are right... We should..
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@GMPresents ...neigh, nix should, we need to work harder not to allow atrocities to happen. With all that said, sadly, there are those in the government that do have ulterior motives and still others have ideologies that mean well; I.E. they believe they are trying to do good, or fighting for good of the world and of our nation. Rightly or wrongly on that. It would also make it much easier if all, or most countries, did a little more, themselves, to help the situations.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@GMPresents
I think with the exception of the war and 9/11, you and I actually do agree on quite a bit. By the way, I like my guns because;
1.) I've been kidnapped before, had guns, knives, bats and other weapons pulled on me, more than a few times. I refuse to be a victim, or more importantly, sit around and watch my family be victimized
2.) Shooting at the range helps clear stress from my over-all peaceful existence(I haven't been in a fight since 2000 and it wasn't of my own choosing).
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@GMPresents
Just know that despite our differences in opinion, you are welcome if you ever find yourself in my neck of the woods, to come visit. Otherwise, anytime hit me up for any discussion and we can go back and forth on what we disagree on. You kind of insulted me once, but you didn't really and the discussions are always fun(you know, a lot of my friends, I've had heated arguments with before lol).
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod it's been a thoughtful and interesting debate illogicalmethod, and yes, we may disagree on certain points but I feel we're heading in the same direction (we both hope for a more peaceful world). Thanks for the kind offer by the way - perhaps I'll pop by for a cuppa and a friendly chat next time I visit the states. I extend the same offer should you ever visit the UK. All the best to you and your family. GM
GMPresents 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod Oh, isn`t that so. Please tell me where in the world is the country where the US stopped a genocide. Exclude Iraq, the US gave chemical weapons to Saddam when he first did genocide on the Curds back in the 80s. Exclude Serbia, the NATO forces invaded Serbia after more than 4000 Kosovars were killed, not to mentions Muslims and Croats. Now where in the world, was it in the WWII, or was it in the Korea, no it must be in Vietnam, or was it in Cambodia, Kongo, Nigeria, Ruanda?
bepino355 6 months ago
@bepino355 lol.
I said "When the U.S. goes in to stop it, we get accused of going against the U.N."
I never said we were effective at stopping genocide. On the contrary, I said when we go in to stop it. Big difference in words there, pal. I know, I know, English is not your first language..
Sigh.
However, the U.N. DOES NOT try and stop genocide , they merely whine about it hoping the U.S. WILL do something about it.
illogicalmethod 6 months ago
@illogicalmethod Oh, I apologize for not being capable of getting the point, however, if the U.S. goes to stop the genocide and does not succeed than there must be that the U.S. agenda is somewhat different. "We are never effective in stopping the genocide but we decide to do it by placing our forces in countries where our companies have a permanent interest(oil - Iraq, opium - Afghanistan)". I understand that you have a "steel triangle" you have to maintain, yet if it runs on human corpses...
bepino355 5 months ago
@bepino355 haha wow when have you seen the US drilling for Oil since the war?
Infantrymyers 5 months ago
@GMPresents
Neigh, many countries don't even see the U.N. as legit, many countries in Africa where genocide has and is happening, included. Now, why can that be? It's not because of the U.S....
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@GMPresents
With all that said, I gotta run, so regardless of what you think of me and my stance. Peace.
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@illogicalmethod said "regardless of what you think of me and my stance. Peace."
Peace, it seems, is something that we both desire. Although we may disagree, it's good that we're having this debate because others will read it and perhaps start to think for themselves rather than adopting the opinions of others.
GMPresents 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@illogicalmethod said "...how many times our people got attacked by Al Qaida and how many people(not just Americans) were killed in the attacks"
Google "Young American Soldier Confesses to Murder of Unarmed Afghan Civilians". I'd be interested to hear your opinion on this story.
GMPresents 1 year ago
@GMPresents
Terrorist attack on 9/11 against Americans was just ONE attack, of many that were ADMITTED by Osama's mouth himself. Ring true? Because conspiracy theories are just so much easier to take in, right? Because "Thermite paint, missiles and army planes" are just so much more credible, am I right?
illogicalmethod 1 year ago
@illogicalmethod said "ADMITTED by Osama's mouth"
"Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest," said bin Laden on September 16, 2001, just five days after the attacks.
GMPresents 1 year ago