Christian Gaming Community

Note: I have edited the original post to try to clarify the stated positions, and to distinguish my opinion ( in bold type ) from the satirical portion ( in italics ). The satire was written, by me, to drive home a message of bureaucratic mishandling, in my opinion, of our foreign policy in certain situations. The thrust of my post is that I do not believe that America should occupy countries when a majority of it's citizens do not want us there, such as Afghanistan. We do this with, what I believe is false hope that we can democratize them. Countries where a large majority of it's citizens truly wanted our presence, ( a country we could trust to be our allies ) would be, altogether a different argument. I may disagree, or agree with sending forces in such a friendly request scenario, but my arguments and objections would be completely different from this discussion.

I have also added a better link ( Fox News ) for the story www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/25/2-nato-troops-killed-at-ministry-afghan-officials-say/, but kept the original BBC link, ( below ) so as not to cause confusion for late readers of the discussion.
Democratists bag two more of your sons for their cause.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17163322





A democratist is, generally speaking, a government official or a well known member of the media that is a follower, and true believer in the religion of global democracy. A democratist believes that through constrained military occupation ( just enough attacks on the enemy to let them know you are there, but not enough to win a "war" ), he can democratize any unfriendly, and sometimes enemy, nation's unwilling citizens ( see George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, to name but a small portion of their group. On the media side there are several, as well, but William Crystal, and Fred Barnes, ( publishers of "The Weekly Standard" ) are two major democratists ( democratist and neocon are often synonomous ).

A citizen can be a democratist, of course, but I am discussing here those with the power to implement ( or influence the implementation of ) forced democracy on another nation. In the case of China it would be the power to implement unfettered free trade on the citizens of America with a Chinese partner who does not play by the same rules that bind, by law, the American citizens ( An American company's owner and their employees are forced to compete with China and it's workers' dramatically lower wage ).

A democratist, believes that, contrary to proclamations by many non-democratic peoples, everyone, deep in their hearts, wants to live in a democracy. The democratist is only there to help them achieve their subconcious dream of democracy. A democratist believes in using limited military force to enforce the acceptance of this democracy. If a little money can be made by opening up a few factories and moving a few more American jobs to this "newly democratic" foreign nation, or to it's neighbors ( see Pakistan ), that is fine, as well. Cheap products for the american people are a major selling point of this philosophy, brought about by the dramatically lowered wages of the new workers in the new "democracy". It is new "democracies" doing the work that Americans don't want to do, and if the new "democracies'" citizens are working, and buying more products themselves, they won't have the time to be attacking America.

Democratists, also believe, as in the case of China, that free trade with a communist nation wil change that nation into an ally. A democratist realizes that several generations of Americans will have to be condemned to live sub-standard lives, economically speaking, until the Chinese achieve equality in pay with American workers. The true democratist bureaucrat believes that this is a sacrifice that he does not mind making. Of course, he doesn't actually make the sacrifice, nor, rarely do his descendants.


I removed the satire part. I think that ( tell me if I am wrong ) is what you ( Rooster ) found offensive. I never in my life meant to offend any military person, and I am sorry it offended you. That satire could do that, I saw after you said something, but I did not intend it that way. I, in fact meant it just the opposite way. I meant, through my arguments in this post, to be protecting, in my opinion, those very same soldiers by disagreeing with the way they are deployed in non-friendly nations.




Historically, other than America, what nation has ever conducted itself, internationally, in the way which she has for the last several years? Find one which freely gave her sons, by the thousands, and her treasure by the billions, so that unfriendly, and sometimes enemy nations might be, theoretically freer, when these nations nations do not want a democracy.

Show me a nation, other than America ( one which cared about her people ) that has ever put soldiers on the ground amidst a hostile and volitale enemy, without truly waging war with that enemy. Show me a nation ( one which cared about her people ) that has allowed the enemy to remain armed, or in the case of our "allies" in Afghanistan, armed the enemy. Show me a nation ( one which cared about her people ) that has given this enemy the power to vote, into office, people who are themselves our enemies. Savage people elect savage people. But, now we're just splitting hairs.

Are you angry, yet? Remember that anger when you vote, and vote for people who will not sacrifice your sons to other nations for the religion of democracy. We may, or may not vote to aid a democratic ally in defending itself against invaders, or converting an occupied enemy nation to democracy with our military applying overwhelming force. In Afghanistan, I would argue, we are doing neither.

See, for once, I'm going to post because I could not disagree with this statement more.

I served 4 years, well according to my medical retirement 3 yrs, 11 months, and 25 days, Heaven forbid I get the 4yr pay when I was 5 days short of it.

I chose to server, just as every one of my brothern did. I never landed on foreign soil, but I enlisted during desert shield/desert storm as a 45E (that's military talk for an M1 MBT Tank Turret Systems Analyst). In laymen's terms I was a hydraulic, electronic and computer systems mechanic. When not busy with that, I also tended to the 'hull' of the tank, M113's, Bradley's, our M88 recovery vehicle, and pretty much any wheeled vehicle that could be thrown at us (Hummers, Duece and a half, HEMMITT's, etc). When I enlisted, I did so to serve and protect my country. I had aspirations of either making a career of it, as my 2nd uncle LTG Tim Maude, who was killed in the Pentagon during 9/11 and father who also served in Germany before I was born, or law enforcement, after a stint in the Army if it wasn't all I hoped it would be. As you know, military medical retirement ended both of those options.

Thing is, no matter where you come from, and you now my my history if ya didn't before, that post from wherever you got it is a big slam in the face of any and every solider of any rank, grade or choice of service (Army, Navy, etc). Whether you were gung-ho or just in it to make a living for yourself, you serve to protect God and Country. Period. If that means doing the unpopular in the HOPES, and I do mean HOPES of giving someone a better live, so be it. I'm not going to preach to you that the US's interest is all about the people. We both know that's not always the case. But let me ask you this. There are missionaries all over the world, from the US and every possible country that can offer assistance to others, right? I've not looked it up, but I'm sure if we dug around even now, we'd find missionaries and/or organizations working in the Middle East countries to build / rebuild houses and try and restore some form of normality to their people, the people who want help. If it weren't for the soldiers who went over there to fight for their freedom (and yeah, oil), just think of the conditions those people, if not slain by their leaders would be in now. You may not agree with us "helping out" other countries to the extent we do, and like I said, I'm not saying we're the good big brother who's JUST looking out for the little guy who can't defend him/herself. But you need to look at the bigger picture and realize the good it's done.

I'm going to leave you with another story. Not about my 2nd uncle who served pretty much all his life, coined the phrase "Army of One" (and ironically, no joke, is buried opposite of the man who was responsible for "Be All that you can be"), but instead about the little guy.. A Lance CPL in the Marine Reserves. It's gonna be long. Read it in, understand the man. Then dare to hop on TS and say Praise Allah to my ears.

Brian Paul Montgomery was a young 20's fireball of life. He was in every way the kind of person that could make anything he wanted happen. You know those movies where there's always some guy who can slick talk just about anyone? Not the sleezy kind, the kind with the upmost respect and honor. That truly was him. He would look at you, tell you he's gonna do something, and no matter how outlandish or crazy it seemed, you KNEW in the pit of your stomach, he was telling you the truth.

I met Brian in roughly 1997, at a contract manufacturing shop called APSCO. I was a tech there and responsible for oversee'ing the test and troubleshoot dept, training new people etc.. One day my manager brings this punk looking kid and says, he's worked here summers, he's coming to work perminently, get him set up. She pulls me aside and tells me his step-mom works here, and is a manager, and his dad some some serious pull, as well, he's a great kid, but messes around, etc.. Not the stay on task kind.

Long story short, he was. He and I wound up in trouble often for working on side electronics projects, etc.. But he was a really great guy, and despite some many years of difference in age, he really becamse a really good friend. Soon after I met him, I told him of my dreams of opening what's now commonly called a LAN center. (a place where you could come jump on a non-existant at the time high speed internet connection, play on some of the best custom pc's, again, not common at the time, as well as consoles, etc).. A couple years later he essentially made my dream come true, as I said, he was the guy who could talk anyone into anything, and lined up several small investors to fund the project.

We went to work with another common-friend who we were introduced to some years ago by another business owner. We went through every aspect together, as as mundane as it may sound, there is nothing, absolutely NOTHING common about designing your space, contracting some of it out, and doing some of it yourself. Even Brian fought to keep up with the craziness that is permits and inspections and making it all come together.

Finally, we prevailed. And between Nov. 2003 and Jan. 2004 we officially opened (you know, opening, soft opening, official grand opening). Also in Jan., however, Brian found out he and his brother, both reservists, were going to be deployed to Iraq for one year.

I spoke to him from time to time while he was over there. A couple phone calls, a couple emails. He was a sniper. His group would come and go alot, not that it was uncommon on unusual. But he was a trooper, and never for a second doubted why he was there. He wasn't raised, nor did he live a live like I did. He was a party animal in every extent of the word. He married his girlfriend before he left, and they had a child together. He had a previous son, as I found out, in high school, a son who is the same age as my oldest son. (He used to always ask me what my oldest (only son at the time) was doing. Crawling etc.. and I always found that odd, as he didn't seem like the type who'd care at all about what some guys kid is doing.. Till he told me why he was always so curious, some years later). Anywho.. So many things to say, tough to filter.

Brian died on Aug 1st., 2004 when his teams Hummer was hit by explosives and then filled with gun fire. He never had a chance.

He was a reservist for the same reasons why I, and MANY citizens pick up the call to arms and join the service. It doesn't matter whether you're a grunt, a sniper, a mechanic/electronics specialist, intelligence, or what. That's just a job. You join to defend your Country and give others a chance to realize some of the freedoms, many in fact, that we take for granted. (unless it's jail or service!) To try and give others a life worth living, even if it means through blood and sacrifice. I cry ofren for these two guys that I knew that gave it all, and for every one that I didn't know. Men and women who like me, who had a desire to make the world a better place, and died while doing it. But you know what, I know for a fact that he would have done the same exact thing had he known he was going to die. Someone's gotta look out for those who cannot protect and defend, and ultimately give them a better live. He wasrweligiously motivated, he wasn't trying to take Allah from them, he wasn't trying to force Christianity or Buddahism on them, he just said, look at how these people are living. Afraid and unable to change their situation. We (the US) can make a difference. We SHOULD. It's the right thing to do.

So, I know you didn't write that Naz, but you did reprint it here. I call to you, sir, to question the person who wrote it, and ask them what THEY are doing not just for their almighty US, but for the people of the world. And tell him his story can kiss.. you know what IMO.

First, let me say that I am very sorry to hear about your friend Brian. He sounds like a great guy and a wonderful friend.



Note: I have edited the original post ( and added a better source-link for the story ) to try to clarify the stated positions, and distinguish my opinion from satire.

The "Praise be to Allah" statement is a part of a satirical portrayal of a western bureaucrat ( not a member of the U.S. military ) being condescending toward another culture. The kind of individual who soul-shakes a black man's hand, because that is what he thinks makes that black man happy. It is a satirical portrayal of a condescending, disengenuous ( usually white ) liberal, in this instance a liberal/neocon democratist. You should re-read it in that light. I am not saying "Praise be to Allah". Notice that I put the satirical portion in italics in order, I thought, to clarify it as such.
About my choice of links; the BBC is a radical propagandist news source, and I only used it to deliver the story of the deaths of the two Americans. Don't read anything else into the choice, other than it's being a vehicle for the announcement of the murder of two more Americans at the hands of our "so called" allies. I usually try to find a more reasonable source to deliver a point. This time I just grabbed the first link reporting the murders. I am sorry for any distress it caused.

Back to the reason for my post, namely the murder of two Americans. This is something these "allies" have done many times - I am appalled at the savagery in the killing of these two men and the past attacks and murders of many more U.S. and NATO soldiers by these "allies". As I write this, the news just reported that seven of our soldiers were just seriously injured by a grenade attack. All because we burned a few books, books being used by our enemies to pass messages to one another. It is not just a few Afghans rioting and attacking our soldiers, it is clearly a large majority of the Afghanistan population who do not like us, and want us out.

The Afghanistan people, in large numbers do not want us there, and I think we should leave. A clear majority of Americans, as shown in almost all polls, hold the same view. President Obama's reasons differ from mine, but on the basic premise of our military leaving Afghanistan, he agrees.

Many Americans believe that we should bomb our enemies into submission with overwhelming force ( including massive ground force attacks ), when we truly need to, and by vote of congress only.
Many Americans do not, however, agree that it is proper for us to be there without actually fighting the enemy with the full, untethered, massive force of the entire Armed Forces of the United States of America. Many Americans do not see this as a good way for a country to conduct itself. The citizens of Afghanistan do not want us there, and many American citizens, myself among them, think that we should leave now. If the Taliban regains power and attacks us again, we should deal with them as an enemy nation and destroy their country with a massive armed forces action - full scale war. If the enemy regroups, and attacks us again, we do have nuclear weapons.

Many feel that if a foreign, sovereign, country is having trouble keeping it's people secure, we as a nation may decide, and our congressman should vote to sell ( or give, in some extreme cases ) arms, in order to help them against the bad guys. Hopefully, we can find some group with which to be decent allies, arm them, and let them sort it out themselves. Our intelligence services, historically have been the ones to operate in this type of environment, and as such should be put to use training Afghanistan's own people to fight their enemies. Assasination of hostile foreign leaders by our intelligence agencies should, once again be put on the table. This, again should only be done via congressional vote.

I am sorry these two men died , but I do not think the men gave their life for America. I think these two officers gave their life for Afghanistan, and possibly for no discernible good national outcome ( in any case, an outcome, equally beneficial to the United States ) in Afghanistan. Soldiers who died ousting the Taliban, however, did, in my opinion give their lives for the defense of America. That job has been halted midway, and is one of my main complaints. We are not properly fighting the Taliban, and given their popularity, may never be able to properly remove them from the scenario. Therefore my reason for wanting to bring the military home today. Leave intelligence services there; give the intelligence services some more recruits ( from the military ) if necessary, but bring our military home. This way, Americans that wanted to join the intelligence services, and help stabalize an unstable, unfriendly nation, could do so. Americans who don't want a standing army on foreign soil, unless it is fighting a full scale war in true defense of our country against an attacking enemy, such as England, the first round, and again in 1812, or the Barbary Pirates ( smaller scale, but same general parameters - i.e. truly threatening our citizens, and/or our national interests ), or unless we are truly occupying a nation, such as we did in Japan and Germany during WWII. I am not agreeing with our involvement in WWII here, more precisely the way foreign affairs were handled by the West, chiefly Britain's, and in some cases France's blunders on the international stage for the latter part of the 19th century through WWI. That is another argument, entirely. I am agreeing with the way the West handled the taming of those two nations ( Germany, and Japan ), and how we conducted the occupation of those countries as defeated enemies . Make the enemy pay for this process, and very few Americans, in my opinion, would disagree.

These are foreign wars, and have not been proven to make us any safer at home. Before we commit our armed forces, I believe we should be certain that war is required, and a sizable majority of us should agree, through the constitutionally correct vote by our elected representatives, before we go to war. When we start that war, we should not hold back, nor should we let up, unless and until we own the enemy's country. Then our military would leave, in some instances allowing western charities to come in ( where practicle and possible ), and help any agreeable survivors to rebuild their lives. In most instances we could make the defeated enemy nation, through forced aquisition of it's national resorces, pay for this process.

Helping others is noble, and a goal which most Americans share, myself included, but that is not what our military is, constitutionally bound to do. A military is meant to defend our borders at home, and destroy the enemy, or when required, take the war to the enemy on his soil. When we have defeated the enemy in his land, our military is required to go home, or annex the enemy country. Historically, we are the only superpower that does not annex other countries, but building bases there is essentially the same thing. They don't want us there, so our staying in Afghanistan is occupying their country against their wishes. Again, I have no problem with owning the enemy country when necessary, I just don't think keeping a force in an unfriendly country, while tying that forces hands, is advisable.

Note: I have edited the original post to try to clarify the stated positions, and to distinguish my opinion ( in bold type ) from the satirical portion ( in italics ). The satire was written, by me, to drive home a message of bureaucratic mishandling, in my opinion, of our foreign policy in certain situations. The thrust of my post is that I do not believe that America should occupy countries when a majority of it's citizens do not want us there, such as Afghanistan. We do this with, what I believe is false hope that we can democratize them. Countries where a large majority of it's citizens truly wanted our presence, ( a country we could trust to be our allies ) would be, altogether a different argument. I may disagree, or agree with sending forces in such a friendly request scenario, but my arguments and objections would be completely different from this discussion.


Let me clarify another point. I was not talking about Desert Storm in my original post, nor the initial attack and defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I'll even concede the Iraq war ( but, not our long, drawn out constrained occupation of Iraq ) to the Clinton and Bush beliefs that European intelligence was correct, and had them convinced that Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction, ( WMD ) and as such, was a threat to America. True, or not, I think it is obvious that both Republican and Democrat leaders believed the European, and British Intelligence reports to be true. As far as Desert Storm goes, Kuwait was our ally, and Sadaam invaded them. We had an obligation to defend them. We could argue over whether or not that war guarantee should ever have been given to Kuwaiit, but I agree that once it was given we were obligated to act.

Naz, you need a Twitter account..... This is a Christian gaming clan website.

The website was almost dead. I am trying to give people a reason to log into the website; give them something to read. I don't need a twitter account for that.
If you want me to stop I will.