https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima

The picture is from Iwo Jima, a battle in the Pacific front in WW2



(just a little background for people who don't know the background of these images)

Edited 7/9/2015 16:31:32

crap

@Mr.Tranquilizer

1) My name is MartiAn, with an A. I understand autocorrect may have a part in this.

2) They ARE comparing their struggle to that of the difficulty of WWII. They are saying, "We did it. We lost many men on our way here, but at last we can marry." Look, I could burn anything to ashes and people WOULD get pissed off. But if you burn a photo of those guys in Iwo Jima, I would print out another. To parody the image and equate your struggle to theirs is sort of stuck up and self-glorifying.

Perhaps parodying an image of MLK at one of his speeches would be better.

Really? why are you throwing a fit about this. The picture is obviously just a joke. The guys thought it would be cool to recreate the Iwo Jima image with a pride flag. The are not mocking the military, nor are they saying they're just as brave. My friends and I have done the same thing with just a plain blue flag cause we wanted the picture. You're all freaking out over nothing.

This is really disrespectful to the military. I don't appreciate the rant either. But freedom of speech (unless Fizzer says no).

The picture is obviously just a joke.

You're all freaking out over nothing.

A joke should be funny, this isn't. This is using a very lame and bad comparison to try and equate the struggles of World War 2 to the "struggle" of LGBTs in the U.S.

It might also just be that people are tired of gay pride being shoved in their face everywhere.

-Great-Great Grandpa: US Marines, IWO-FUCKING-JIMA! Lost 2-3 fingers to Japanese weapons that day, and for what? This SHIT!
-Great Grandpa: US Army, Korea.
-Great Uncle: I dunno, Army or Marines. Vietnam.
-Grandpa: US Army, Vietnam
-Cousin: US MArines, I-FUCKING-RAQ!
-Cousin: US army, No where cause he's in boot camp

Ever wondered why so many people of your family fought in-FUCKING-foreign countries?

You are a silly nationalist, that cares more about symbols, than human lifes. Gtfo.

Myhand is going to get a mouthful pretty soon.

Iraq didn't need to happen, it was a waste of time,resources,and lives.I'll admit that part. I'll also admit it's possible to say that Vietnam and Korean wars were unjustified. (Although South Korea might not exist today if it weren't for the latter).

But then we have people implying that the U.S shouldn't of invaded anybody in WW2. I guess we should of just surrendered after Pearl Harbor. I'm sure Imperial Japan would of been merciful.

A joke should be funny, this isn't. This is using a very lame and bad comparison to try and equate the struggles of World War 2 to the "struggle" of LGBTs in the U.S.

It might also just be that people are tired of gay pride being shoved in their face everywhere.

I didn't mean as a literal joke, I just meant as a fun thing to do. They aren't "equating" anything, it's just a good and famous picture, and they imitated it. I've seen this same thing done with all kinds of stuff.

The second bit I can understand, I'm pro-LGBT rights, and even I'm tired of it.

The war in Iraq to save Kuwait was justified.
The second war (to remove Sadam Hussein) wasn't.

Korea was. South Korea was being invaded.

Vietnamese was- to an extent. We should have either decided to win quickly at the expense of few lives, or not invaded at all.

(Saying the North Vietnamese weren just innocent villagers protecting their family's is a bit idiotic though. They fought by doing things like forcing young children to act as suicide bombers. And after the war Ho Chih Mihn went on a death march killing two million people.)

Edited 7/9/2015 19:46:37

If you use this silly logic, then NATO needs to invade Ukraine for invading Donetsk and Luhansk.

And a whole bunch of countries right now need help from invasions but aren't really getting any.

Edited 7/9/2015 19:52:04

If you use this silly logic, then NATO needs to invade Ukraine for invading Donetsk and Luhansk.

That's odd. How can a country invade part of itself? Both those places are part of Ukraine.

No, they are part of Donetsk and Luhansk, some newer countries.

You're like Taiwan saying "Mongolia? No, the land you called Mongolia, we actually own as part of China."

No, they are part of Donetsk and Luhansk, some newer countries.'

Rebel groups do not count as countries. Donetsk and Luhansk have next to zero international recognition and are only surviving due to Russia propping them up. (In fact, not even Russia has officially recognized them as countries!)

You and your recognitions...the Levant is a country. Boko Haram is a country. Whether you like it or not.

But how about Gaza/Palestine? Shouldn't NATO be attacking Israel?

the Levant is a country. Boko Haram is a country. Whether you like it or not.

Do you have any grasp on the definition of a country? By your logic all I have to do is gather up a gang with some weapons, pull a coup on a few towns, and then I'd have my own country.

It doesn't work like that. A group of militants taking over a couple of cities does not a country make.

You and your recognitions

Yes, as it turns out there's actually requirements for being a country aside from having a rebellion,shooting some of your own people, and stealing some land. Actually being recognized by existing countries is one of those requirements.

If we went by your loose definition of a country the world would be balkanized very quickly.

The world is balkanised quite a bit, especially in places of war.

Oxford Dictionary was down while I was looking this up, so I went on Wiktionary.

The territory of a nation, especially an independent nation state or formerly independent nation; a political entity asserting ultimate authority over a geographical area.

This is a bit looser than I wanted, but point is, recognition is not a requirement for being a country. Not at all. Recognition is a requirement for being recognised and getting into many international organisations. If you gang up with some friends, pull a coup on a few towns and don't pay your taxes to your former country, then, congratulations, you do have a country; albeit a very small and insignificant one, and probably one that will not last more than three days.

Xpapy, your a moron

If you think you and a couple friends grabbing some guns and taking over some land is the same thing as a nation of South Korea... You need help.

Besides, you do realize your suggesting that we should've let North Korea, a nation that enslaves its own people, has concentration camps, and has let millions of its own citizens starve, take over South Korea

Your not only a moron, your a horrible excuse for a human being.

Also, as to Donesk and Lutensk... Well here's my view on it:
If a new nation can't raise its own support, but relies on another nation entirely for its existence, then its nation a nation; its a little puppet government without any real power or right.