americunt soldiers = racist genocidal maniacs

from article at
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2758829.ece

...
Through a combination of gung-ho recklessness and criminal behaviour born of panic, a narrative emerges of an army that frequently commits acts of cold-blooded violence. A number of interviewees revealed that the military will attempt to frame innocent bystanders as insurgents, often after panicked American troops have fired into groups of unarmed Iraqis. The veterans said the troops involved would round up any survivors and accuse them of being in the resistance while planting Kalashnikov AK47 rifles beside corpses to make it appear that they had died in combat.
...
"I'll tell you the point where I really turned... [there was] this little, you know, pudgy little two-year-old child with the cute little pudgy legs and she has a bullet through her leg... An IED [improvised explosive device] went off, the gun-happy soldiers just started shooting anywhere and the baby got hit. And this baby looked at me... like asking me why. You know, 'Why do I have a bullet in my leg?'... I was just like, 'This is, this is it. This is ridiculous'."
...
Sgt Dougherty described her squad leader shooting an Iraqi civilian in the back in 2003. "The mentality of my squad leader was like, 'Oh, we have to kill them over here so I don't have to kill them back in Colorado'," she said. "He just seemed to view every Iraqi as a potential terrorist."
...
"[The photo] was very graphic... They open the body bags of these prisoners that were shot in the head and [one soldier has] got a spoon. He's reaching in to scoop out some of his brain, looking at the camera and smiling."
...
"A lot of guys really supported that whole concept that if they don't speak English and they have darker skin, they're not as human as us, so we can do what we want."
...

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2758829.ece

From now until the end of my life, if I EVER meet any americunt that participated in this war, I WILL cave their fucking skull in.  I don't give a fuck about the consequences.  These fucking americunt asshole soldiers are worse than Nazi death-camp guards, and probably even stupider.  At this point, I think it's obvious who the REAL TERRORISTS on this earth are.

Retarded americunt soldiers AND supporters are an enemy of human decency and ought to all be disposed of in the harshest manner possible.  If one lives next door to you, run them over in the street with your car if you have to.  Poison their food, burn their house down, or even just take a bat to their skull.  Feel free to target their entire family while you're at it.  If you don't, one day they'll be pointing their gun at YOU.

>>40

BULL. SHIT.

>>40

BULL. SHIT.

Spread the gospel, #39!  Yes indeed, what did the American people expect their military to do in Iraq -- hand out flowers and candy bars?  Like I said before, armies hurt people and break things.  An army is not an instrument of foreign relations.

Considering that American military involvement in Vietnam was roughly a 9-year clusterfuck (of the Vietnamese people, largely), then we have to roll the idea around in our heads that the "Second Imperial Rape of Iraq" is probably going to go on until at least 2012 if Iran is also roped into the picture.  After all, the "Vietnam War" also involved Cambodia and Laos for the full 9-year fucking.  It also required 2 Presidents and strong Congressional support.  Recall firmly that Kerry in 2004 was all for the rape of Iraq and he wanted to even increase troop levels (as BusHitler finally did, anyway).  No doubt from the current rhetoric, the Dem candidate in 2008 will continue ass-raping Iraq, and the Repub candidate will have an actual BONER for fucking Iran.  Yes, right up there on the stages and podiums, the Republican candidate will sport a stiffy when he mentions invading Iran.

I've reread >>40 three times, and I don't see how it relates to >>39...

>>40, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that wars are necessary? What does that have to do with how soldiers behave under pressure (>>39)?

Someone help me here.

>>44
Soldiers need to be put in these situations.

>>43
>>45

Wrong across the board. You dumbfucks and samefags still don't get it. This isn't about the side effect savagery of an armed force or the unfortunate collateral bloodsheed of some civilians.

This is about the taking of innocent lives- children, mind you -  and doing so in the name of genocide and racism. Any form of downplaying this as anything BUT that will be justly seen as support for genocide.

Who should I trust? The soldiers who put everything they have on the line for no other reason than to serve their country or a bunch of whiny cocksuckers posting on 4chan under the name Anonymous??

Is this the part where you tell me your "for the soldiers but against the war"?

piss off.

>>47
Officers do it because of the pay check.
Privates do it because they were told too.
Ok maybe I am being a bit overly cynical but I don't think thier intentions aren't as clear as that, especially with the government. I think you should go over to /k/.

You're being overly cynical and stupidly naive. Maybe you should go over to /an/

Soldiers suck.

>>49
I was kind of joking....
But anyway, you go to a website, insult its members saying that anyone who posts there are whiny cocksuckers (kind of self-defeating eh?) and you tell US to piss off then you act like a total idiot, So I think you're a Troll and you're the one who should "gtfo", we can either go back to a decent debate or carry on with petty name calling till one of us go's to /an/ or /k/.

>>50
The system sucks. A system that supports HAVING to join the armed forces to feed your family and pay the bills. It's like joining the postal service and skipping the paperwork...

>>51

Yes, I can see where you might consider attacking honest
men and women in an anonymous forum as a "decent debate". /b/terbation and suicide bombings are also "decent debates". I especially enjoyed the ops vow to "cave in their fucking skulls" to cure them of their violent tendencies.

>>50 and >>52 just illustrate the point . /newpol/ is like jerking off and leaving the evidence behind for public viewing.

im gone.

BAWWWWWW!  WAR INVOLVES KILLING IN COLD BLOOD!


BAWWWWWW!  SOMETIMES NON-COMBATANTS GET KILLED


BAWWWWWW!  LETS JUST CONVERT TO ISLAM TO HAVE PEACE!

#46:  I've told you before, anonyfuck, that I'm just telling you the consequences of what invoking an army does.  At least 50 million American voters in 2004 thought that that was perfectly fine.  Now tell me again how that my simple recounting is in any way similar to the support that those Imperialist fuckos have done.

Armies hurt people and break things.  Those who want them must face that fact.  This doesn't mean I want them, either, you fucknoses!  REPORTING NEWS ISN'T THE SAME AS MAKING THE NEWS!  (At least, not for the general public.  Real reporters these days slant the news any way they can in order to fall into line with whatever their personal philosophy is.)

>>55
US isn't imperialist. They turn the countries they conquer into modern sophisticated civilised peaceful demoracies. Compare South Korea with South Vietnam. Compare East Germany with West Germany. It's you Stalinists and Maoists who are the imperialists!!

>US isn't imperialist. They turn the countries they conquer into modern sophisticated civilised peaceful demoracies

Wrong. Everything the US touches becomes a socialist shithole that hates freedom of speech. Just take a closer look at France, Japan, Germany and South Korea.

>>57
Granted they still have problems, but they aren't as screwed as nations conquerred by Maoists.

Face it, the US Armed Forces are currently the worlds most expensive train wreck. And yet you keep pouring more gasoline on the fire.

Fire as a metaphor.

>>59
They are the most technologically advanced on the planet and nations in the next technology sphere are their bound allies.

>>60
WTF does that have to do with them being imperialist? If anything, you're proving the point, because the empire in charge tends to be in that position due to technological advancements. Nowadays, however, the Christfags are running the country, and they can't stand science because it doesn't mention God. Thus, learn fuckin' Chinese buddy, they're the inheritors of the world if shit keeps going this way.

They are the most technologically advanced on the plane
You don't "get" it.

Technology is useful, but it's an exponential cost for diminishing returns. The problem is that the US military has decided to treat soldiers as dumb feet that move gun platforms, which means that the soldiers aren't particularly well-trained, and are increasingly being loaded down with useless techno-gizmo pizzazz.

This is why the US often gets thumped in war games against other Western countries. The opponents have somewhat shittier technology (yet substantially cheaper) but better trained soldiers. In reality if the US ever had to face a Western power (it'll never happen) it would have to win the Soviet way: numbers.

And then, of course, asymmetric warfare completely changes everything. All that technology is useless pork-barrel bullshit unless you decide to simply raze entire towns.

tl;dr: technology is useful, but not as much as the US likes to believe it is.

>>60
Uh yeah, hence my expensive comment. That doesn't change the fact that their ranks are riddled with thugs, criminals and other uneducated lowlives.

>>60
USA is way behind in technologically. Even South Korea is ahead.

>>63
Yes.