So would you rather see you fighter take a knee or die fighting????

[MindBat]

Die on his knees like a Samurai warrior.

[Dknight]

Nothing wrong with taking a knee or quitting the fight, whatever you want to call it. Only the boxer really knows how much he has left in the fight, and if you're done, better to quit while still conscious than continue and risk permanent injury or even death as the worst case scenario.

It's always tragic when it happens. Of course, it is all relative to the boxer's condition at the moment he decides quit. But in Cotto's case, it was the right thing to do. Only a world class idiot would say otherwise. In De La Hoya's case against Manny, it was also the smartest thing for him to do, for health's sake.

But believe it or not, there are morons out there who think they shouldn't quit and looked down on those fighters because of it, and think they should instead go out there, "give it your all" and land flat on the canvas KTFO'd like a "true warrior."

[Stickman]

the vast majority are young kids with no concept of what war is with no other choices being from inner city communities and poorer backgrounds there are exceptions but that is not the majority.

You've obviously never been in the military.

By the time they finish training, they know what war is. And that crap about most being from inner cities/poor backgrounds is....crap. A disproportionately large population of the U.S. military are from rural or suburban areas of the midwest. That's right, most of the guys who fight your wars are farm boys (I'm one myself, saw combat in Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Desert Shield).

Where are you getting your info? Or are you just guessing?

[ny123]

You've obviously never been in the military.

By the time they finish training, they know what war is. And that crap about most being from inner cities/poor backgrounds is....crap. A disproportionately large population of the U.S. military are from rural or suburban areas of the midwest. That's right, most of the guys who fight your wars are farm boys (I'm one myself, saw combat in Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Desert Shield).

Where are you getting your info? Or are you just guessing?

do you honestly believe that most of these 18 and 19 year old kids have any idea about what real war is and if they did do you think they would still sign up? i agree that there is a large population of soldiers that come from the rural areas of the country and are willing to go but the majority of people that i have grown up with have joined the military out of not having many options and without a real idea of what there getting into. george w. bush served during the vietnam war and avoided combat fact but yet still sends many young men and women into harms way without neccesity(iraq was not a threat to the us). much respect to you for your service and i have a lot of respect for those serving

[George W Bush]

An idiot

It takes a real man to admit defeat

Signed, the French.

[Stickman]

And do you honestly think that, in these days and times, with our wars being fought in an urban environment against an enemy that uses guerilla and ********* tactics, that they'd even remotely consider having anyone there that wasn't 100% willing to be where they are? Nobody who doesn't want to go to Iraq or Afghanistan will end up there, with very few exceptions.

And I think an 18 or 19 year old kid understands the concept of war, certainly. They may not know what war actually is (nobody truly does until they're actually in the **** themselves), but understand it. You sound like you think everybody but you is ****** and incompetant.

And those people you talk about who enlist because they had few options, generally come in two types: The first type is the one who knows a good thing when they see it, and do very well in the military, and the other type is a "****bird" who is constantly in trouble of one kind or another and usually ends up either getting tossed out, or at best, never entrusted to any vital role (such as a fire team) in any way, and just bides their time until their enlistment is up.

I spent a bit over 10 years in the service, starting in 1982, and have seen it many hundreds of times.

Also, RE: Bush...I don't like the bastard either, never did, and yes, he avoided actual combat while he served. So have most other career politicians (with only very few exceptions). Our current President hasn't even had an actual job of any kind, but has been nothing more than a prefessional student, and politician his entire life. Not the sort of person I want making decisions concerning the lives of ordinary people, when he's never even been exposed to any sort of reality himself.

In my own humble opinion, our entire government needs to be fired and new elections need to be held, with the only disqualifiers for the job being a background in law, politics, banking or prefessional students. All others welcome, so long as they're US Citizens and truly intend to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which happens to be the entire basis of our little republic here, and the reason we've been so successful for so long.

[ny123]

And do you honestly think that, in these days and times, with our wars being fought in an urban environment against an enemy that uses guerilla and ********* tactics, that they'd even remotely consider having anyone there that wasn't 100% willing to be where they are? Nobody who doesn't want to go to Iraq or Afghanistan will end up there, with very few exceptions.

And I think an 18 or 19 year old kid understands the concept of war, certainly. They may not know what war actually is (nobody truly does until they're actually in the **** themselves), but understand it. You sound like you think everybody but you is ****** and incompetant.

And those people you talk about who enlist because they had few options, generally come in two types: The first type is the one who knows a good thing when they see it, and do very well in the military, and the other type is a "****bird" who is constantly in trouble of one kind or another and usually ends up either getting tossed out, or at best, never entrusted to any vital role (such as a fire team) in any way, and just bides their time until their enlistment is up.

I spent a bit over 10 years in the service, starting in 1982, and have seen it many hundreds of times.

Also, RE: Bush...I don't like the bastard either, never did, and yes, he avoided actual combat while he served. So have most other career politicians (with only very few exceptions). Our current President hasn't even had an actual job of any kind, but has been nothing more than a prefessional student, and politician his entire life. Not the sort of person I want making decisions concerning the lives of ordinary people, when he's never even been exposed to any sort of reality himself.

In my own humble opinion, our entire government needs to be fired and new elections need to be held, with the only disqualifiers for the job being a background in law, politics, banking or prefessional students. All others welcome, so long as they're US Citizens and truly intend to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which happens to be the entire basis of our little republic here, and the reason we've been so successful for so long.

i honestly do believe that if you sign up you will be sent if you physically can and if the majority of guys were given a choice without there peers being made aware of it they would not choose to go to war.

i honestly dont believe most 18-19 year old kids have a real grasp of what war is and i dont think that is because they are ****** or incompetent just that they are young and thatage i dont think the true reality of it really hits home.
also if you dislike george w why did you take offense to me stating that he is willing to send young men and women like yourself without having the balls to go to war himself?

[Stickman]

i honestly do believe that if you sign up you will be sent if you physically can and if the majority of guys were given a choice without there peers being made aware of it they would not choose to go to war.

i honestly dont believe most 18-19 year old kids have a real grasp of what war is and i dont think that is because they are ****** or incompetent just that they are young and thatage i dont think the true reality of it really hits home.

Like I said, nobody really does until they're actually "in the ****". Just like you don't know what a fistfight is actually like until you're throwing punches.

also if you dislike george w why did you take offense to me stating that he is willing to send young men and women like yourself without having the balls to go to war himself?

Mostly because you've not been "sent to war" by anyone, and aren't qualified to speak for those us who are, or have been in the past. The last sitting President who saw combat was, I think, Kennedy, though we've had some reservists and others who served stateside during wartime, but only Kennedy saw combat, if I remember correctly. I think Johnson "won" a medal because the aircraft he was riding in was shot at, though.

Anyway, if seeing combat were a requirement for a politician having the authority to send troops into action, we'd have lost our country to any number of third world dictators, years ago because we'd have had nobody qualified to call our men to arms.

I just think that's a foolish viewpoint, and you probably wouldn't have bothered stating it if you were happier with the man who served as President when they were sent to war.

[ny123]

Like I said, nobody really does until they're actually "in the ****". Just like you don't know what a fistfight is actually like until you're throwing punches.



Mostly because you've not been "sent to war" by anyone, and aren't qualified to speak for those us who are, or have been in the past. The last sitting President who saw combat was, I think, Kennedy, though we've had some reservists and others who served stateside during wartime, but only Kennedy saw combat, if I remember correctly. I think Johnson "won" a medal because the aircraft he was riding in was shot at, though.

Anyway, if seeing combat were a requirement for a politician having the authority to send troops into action, we'd have lost our country to any number of third world dictators, years ago because we'd have had nobody qualified to call our men to arms.

I just think that's a foolish viewpoint, and you probably wouldn't have bothered stating it if you were happier with the man who served as President when they were sent to war.

i havent been sent to war by anyone because i am not in the military but as a citizen of this country and with family and friends in the military i do think i have a right to an opinion. also i could care less about who the president is when they send people into harms way without necessity party lines dont mean **** and they should be called out on it. im not saying that the president has to have battlefield experience but when you send people to war and you yourself dodged fighting then it makes it that much worse. you are completely wrong if you think that if ***** would have done the same i would be ok with it

[Mr. Ryan]

Why would a fighter give his life and leave his family just to appease some internet forum posters?