DescentBB

http://bluenationreview.com/ben-carson- ... ar-crimes/

wow. Wouldn't have believed him to be this unqualified if they hadn't provided the video as proof. Wow!

Wow, what a porn ridden website you dredged up. What were you just saying about predicting things? Jesus Christ could run for office and if he was a conservative you would be actively seeking to degrade him.

if he advocated for no laws of war, or the like, yes I would. Not that Jesus would ever be considered a conservative, but still.

I suspect there is some context missing here. What was said before the clip?

woodchip wrote:Wow, what a porn ridden website you dredged up. What were you just saying about predicting things? Jesus Christ could run for office and if he was a conservative you would be actively seeking to degrade him.

Jesus Christ wouldn't be a conservative. He'd be a humanitarian, an ideology conservatives have actively demeaned as liberal propaganda.

vision wrote:I suspect there is some context missing here. What was said before the clip?

would have to dig the whole text up.....might have time to do so later this evening. He was going on about the need to protect US soldiers from prosecution by war crimes tribunals, but what led to that discourse, I frankly don't know.

This link will flesh out what Carson was saying as I doubt slick will do anything more:

whee, an edited Faux News link.....

Whee...prove it. And what was your link?

slick this thread is proof you have gone left of MSNBC. You don't know the context and don't care. You are a DNC spambot.

under what 'context' does one call for US troops to be exempt from punishment for war crimes?

callmeslick wrote:under what 'context' does one call for US troops to be exempt from punishment for war crimes?

Well arent you coming a little late to that party since you already passed judgement after freely admitting you don't know the context of the comment?

As to the question in general, one might call for exemptions under the same criteria your beloved hero Obama did, as one example...

But none of that examination of context matters to you since the whole purpose of your thread was for your own amusement not to stimulate a discussion.

I asked the question for the same reason I declared him unfit. There are NO such conditions, unless we wish to be seen as a rogue nation. None.

callmeslick wrote:unless we wish to be seen as a rogue nation.

I had a dream the other night that we were seen as a rogue nation. I was so relieved when I woke up and it has just been a dream!!

woodchip wrote:Wow, what a porn ridden website you dredged up. What were you just saying about predicting things? Jesus Christ could run for office and if he was a conservative you would be actively seeking to degrade him.

you found porn there? where?

callmeslick wrote:under what 'context' does one call for US troops to be exempt from punishment for war crimes?

He's not talking about real war crimes like what Lt Calley did at Mai Lai, Carson is talking about what people like you slick think should be crimes. Kinda like how you stated if you were there, you would of "shot on the spot" the marines who peed on a enemy corpse. Or Code Pink trying to arrest people like Henry Kissinger or Dick Cheny. The problem is slick, there are enough nut jobs like you that really despise American soldiers that will look for any excuse to humble America by figuratively dragging a soldier thru the war crimes mud. People like you, slick, were standing around the LA airport calling returning Vietnam soldiers "Baby Killers" and spitting on them and would of had them arrested for war crimes if they had the power to do so. Made up political scoring war crimes points by the liberal fanatics is what Carson is looking to prevent.

uh-huh.......carte blanche for peeing on corpses. What a shining moral light for the world.

Shooting soldiers on the spot without due process, What a shining moral light for the world. But hey, CYA however you see fit.

Woody 2
slick 0

I guess you can say that if that is the direction you wish the nation to head. I'll pass, and I suspect, so will the American public.

And so slick bows out gracefully with no apologies. I think you'll find the majority of Americans will understand our troops actions unless it reaches a level of Mai Lai. If you don't like our troops pissing on corpses, then don't send them to fight tied down by ridiculous rules of engagements. Most of our troop aren't going to shoot children as they just don't have it in them and were raised better.

apologies for what? Wanting to maintain a military under civilian leadership that upholds high moral standards? That is called American and I'm not apologizing for defending that notion.

It is clear you never served in a war zone or you would realize the high morals you ascribe to would only get you or someone else killed.

Unfortunately slick, your shoot on site remark turned your stand on the high ground into quicksand.

woodchip wrote:He's not talking about real war crimes...

Can someone please find an unedited video of the interview. I would like some context here. The Fox news video will not load for me, probably because I have browser extensions that stop unsafe content. I know most of the people here just fall for every kind of click-bait article that get posted, but I don't visit garbage organizations who violate my privacy when I visit their sites. Can any of you deliver?

woodchip wrote:It is clear you never served in a war zone or you would realize the high morals you ascribe to would only get you or someone else killed.

Neither have you woodchip. You have no qualifications to tell us otherwise. Shut the ★■◆● up.

Z.. wrote:

woodchip wrote:It is clear you never served in a war zone or you would realize the high morals you ascribe to would only get you or someone else killed.

Neither have you woodchip. You have no qualifications to tell us otherwise. Shut the ★■◆● up.

Obviously you have not read all these thread on the forums. Now you look like a complete ass.

woodchip wrote:Obviously you have not read all these thread on the forums. Now you look like a complete ass.

Show him.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Obviously you have not read all these thread on the forums. Now you look like a complete ass.

Show him.

Naw, I'm not about to prove myself to someone like Zurick. If he wants to look, it's there.

Cop out. Dog Tags or it didn't happen.

Of course vision you will prove what you did in life also. I was curious if I still had my dog tags but couldn't find them. I did find my Honorable Discharge Certificate. Something else I found that kinda relates to todays VA problems is a letter from my congressman dated 1971 who resolved getting payment for medical needs from the VA. So even back then vets were having issues with the VA.

Dont feel a need to defend yourself woodie. These pussies that didnt serve have nothing better to do then what most liberals do . Knocks down those that did. They can kiss my ass for all I care.

woodchip wrote:Of course vision you will prove what you did in life also. I was curious if I still had my dog tags but couldn't find them. I did find my Honorable Discharge Certificate. Something else I found that kinda relates to todays VA problems is a letter from my congressman dated 1971 who resolved getting payment for medical needs from the VA. So even back then vets were having issues with the VA.

I dont have my tags. Do have my shellback card, my cruise book, and my boot grad pic.
besides any poser can go to a local 5 and dime and get a dog tag.

A veteran - whether active duty, retired, or national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America," for an amount of "up to and including THEIR LIFE."

Thanks for your definition Cuda. I guess I should think better about Tim McVeigh now huh?

Z.. wrote:Thanks for your definition Cuda. I guess I should think better about Tim McVeigh now huh?

I'm thinking you have a boatload of thinking about yourself that needs to be sorted out before you focus on more people you don't know....

And that's the opinion of a fellow civilian....so I guess I'm qualified huh?

I guess Will, perhaps you could be more specific. My point was that someone that has spouted vile madness for at least the 14 years I've been reading it has absolutely no standing on which to tell us about morality. ROE are what separate us from them. Yes, why don't we just drop atomic weapons on everyone and we won't lose a single soldier?! Why not that??

Conducting ourselves in a just manner, even if vastly more dangerous and difficult, was what I thought this country stood for. I'm just wondering how you guys are able to walk with absolutely no backbone.

Z.. wrote:I guess Will, perhaps you could be more specific. My point was that someone that has spouted vile madness for at least the 14 years I've been reading it has absolutely no standing on which to tell us about morality. ROE are what separate us from them. Yes, why don't we just drop atomic weapons on everyone and we won't lose a single soldier?! Why not that??

Conducting ourselves in a just manner, even if vastly more dangerous and difficult, was what I thought this country stood for. I'm just wondering how you guys are able to walk with absolutely no backbone.

I think you have created a convenient bogeyman out of the caricature of Woody that you formed from who and what he really is.
So you have exactly what you want, it might not be very close to who he is but you have exactly the nemesis you desire. I'm not going to try and talk you down from your perch. I'm just highlighting it for general perspective sake. Carry on 'soldier'.

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Obviously you have not read all these thread on the forums. Now you look like a complete ass.

Show him.

Naw, I'm not about to prove myself to someone like Zurick. If he wants to look, it's there.

You did with Sigma. why not Z?

Maybe he has to push the right buttons.

I think there's a good topic in here somewhere, behind all the personal crap...

...let's get back to it.