Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: LEADPIG on September 01, 2007, 12:28:39 PM
-
Remember when the Dixie Chicks said all that stuff about Bush and this Iraq stuff was a bad idea.... They aren't looking so stupid now.
It's bad when a group of country singers have more common sense than the President.
There really should be an I.Q. test administered upon being nominated to run to weed out the morons, which is basically all of them, save a few.
How do you win a war when the people in the country smile at you as they walk past then shoot you in the back of the head as they go by, then disapear back into the crowd. How can the American army win if they're constantly on the defense and not too much they can do on the offense. Well some say nuke the whole region, but it's possible that there are guys living amongst us that could be planning an attack. There is no country called "Terrorism". Bush has sent our troops into a dangerous situation with a blindfold and told them to eradicate the enemy, problem is the enemy isn't wearing blindfolds. I have no patience for a President who would either be so maniacal or stupid to do such a thing on purpose. It kind of reminds me of McNamara and his constant lies to save his and others political faces at the cost of 50,000 dead troops. Am i the only one that's being appalled? My solution to Iraq, withdraw the troops after a deadline of say 6 months to a year, under the guise of "Look Iraq we kicked out Sadaam we've been here a long time we've darn near given 4,000 of our own children in the process now it's your turn to stand alone. We've been boobytrapped in your own country for quite a while now, that's it. If things start going to hell after that outside pressure from the United Nations would be best bet. Other than that get a new oil supply, or alternative fuels. Message to America "We are not our brothers keeper" unless it involves our own resources. Since President Bush can't figure this out i guess i'll have to.
-
Please don't delete your post. I can use this as proof to people who doubt me when I say there are plenty of functioning retards among us. :aok
-
Not that it matters, but is that an insult or a compliment. I could actually be a FUNCTIONING retard or a functioning RETARD? :D :rolleyes:
-
Dixie Chicks cut thier own throats by letting the fat one run her mouth off in a foreign country. I think that does show stupidity.
-
Originally posted by JB88
throats.
;)
fixed :aok
-
I think she should be able to run her mouth, that's what America's about.
Smart people should be able to tell the intelligent comments from the crap. Even people in foreign countries. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
I think she should be able to run her mouth, that's what America's about.
Smart people should be able to tell the intelligent comments from the crap. Even people in foreign countries. :rolleyes:
I never said she shouldn't be allowed to run her mouth.
I simply said she cut her own throat and they lost ALOT of fans and money. I think thats a pretty good sign of stupidity.
-
They make me ashamed to admit I'm from Dallas. Oh wait, that's the Dallas Cowboys. ;)
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Remember when the Dixie Chicks said all that stuff about Bush and this Iraq stuff was a bad idea.... They aren't looking so stupid now.
says who?
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Please don't delete your post. I can use this as proof to people who doubt me when I say there are plenty of functioning retards among us. :aok
:rofl you're being a dik but that's funny
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Please don't delete your post. I can use this as proof to people who doubt me when I say there are plenty of functioning retards among us. :aok
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Remember when the Dixie Chicks said all that stuff about Bush and this Iraq stuff was a bad idea.... They aren't looking so stupid now.
Yes they are. :rolleyes:
-
They obviously foretold what was going to happen before Bush's entire cabinet had a clue what was going to happen. Who cares how they said it. Bush still doesn't have a clue, either that or he knows and doesn't want to admit he screwed up at the expense of 4,000 dead soldiers. It's time to adapt another strategy please. Let me guess you guys want to continue "Staying the course" to nowhere untill we end up with another wall next to the one we already have that says "Vietnam War Memorial". Sad.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Remember when the Dixie Chicks said all that stuff about Bush and this Iraq stuff was a bad idea.... They aren't looking so stupid now.
It's bad when a group of country singers have more common sense than the President.
There really should be an I.Q. test administered upon being nominated to run to weed out the morons, which is basically all of them, save a few.
How do you win a war when the people in the country smile at you as they walk past then shoot you in the back of the head as they go by, then disapear back into the crowd. How can the American army win if they're constantly on the defense and not too much they can do on the offense. Well some say nuke the whole region, but it's possible that there are guys living amongst us that could be planning an attack. There is no country called "Terrorism". Bush has sent our troops into a dangerous situation with a blindfold and told them to eradicate the enemy, problem is the enemy isn't wearing blindfolds. I have no patience for a President who would either be so maniacal or stupid to do such a thing on purpose. It kind of reminds me of McNamara and his constant lies to save his and others political faces at the cost of 50,000 dead troops. Am i the only one that's being appalled? My solution to Iraq, withdraw the troops after a deadline of say 6 months to a year, under the guise of "Look Iraq we kicked out Sadaam we've been here a long time we've darn near given 4,000 of our own children in the process now it's your turn to stand alone. We've been boobytrapped in your own country for quite a while now, that's it. If things start going to hell after that outside pressure from the United Nations would be best bet. Other than that get a new oil supply, or alternative fuels. Message to America "We are not our brothers keeper" unless it involves our own resources. Since President Bush can't figure this out i guess i'll have to.
Further proof that it is nearly impossible to under estimate the intelligence of the general public. Especially those who embrace the "common sense" and "brilliance" of "celebrities" who pontificate on things which they know nothing about.
-
leadpig says the USA should surrender.
the terrorists like leadpig.
leadpig is why the terrorists keep on fighting.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Remember when the Dixie Chicks said all that stuff about Bush and this Iraq stuff was a bad idea.... They aren't looking so stupid now.
Dissing the president in time of war never looks good to a patriot. Particularly from a halfwitted tramp, but then, that's why it happened.
There are ways to disagree without insults......but many haven't learned that yet.
-
Originally posted by TalonX
Dissing the president in time of war never looks good to a patriot. Particularly from a halfwitted tramp, but then, that's why it happened.
There are ways to disagree without insults......but many haven't learned that yet.
You might include " there is a proper place" also, that was the biggest beef I had with them, it was the pandering to an audience in another country.
-
Let me guess you guys like the idea of soldiers dieing in something, which was in a state of diminishing returns from whence it started. You guys like soldiers being sent into battle with their hands tied behind their backs, and sent on a wild goose chase looking for terrorist in a land from whence you can't distinguish the enemy untill after THEY have attacked the troops. That's a mighty bad way to win anything. Say it ain't so. :eek:
As for the chicks i'm not admonishing most celebrities, but artists have been and always will be one step ahead in thoughts and ideas, untill the end of time (Leonardo DaVinci anyone?). Sometimes what they're saying may not be so untrue.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Let me guess you guys like the idea of soldiers dieing in something, which was in a state of diminishing returns from whence it started. You guys like soldiers being sent into battle with their hands tied behind their backs, and sent on a wild goose chase looking for terrorist in a land from whence you can't distinguish the enemy untill after THEY have attacked the troops. That's a mighty bad way to win anything. Say it ain't so. :eek:
As for the chicks i'm not admonishing most celebrities, but artists have been and always will be one step ahead in thoughts and ideas, untill the end of time (Leonardo DaVinci anyone?). Sometimes what they're saying may not be so untrue.
Well Mr. Leadpig, you are reaching quite far with that transition. I said the Dixie Tramp should have used a different manner of disagreement, in a different forum. Reminded me a tad of Jane Fonda...... That's not the way to disagree with the war.
You only believe celebs are ahead because you are a liberal. If you depend on actors for political science, I pity a future decided with your vote.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
but artists have been and always will be one step ahead in thoughts and ideas, untill the end of time
(http://www.thesuperficial.com/archives/spenn_sink.jpg)
:rofl
-
First off i certainly don't mean Sean Penn and any of the other likes of people in hollywood, don't try to expouse that i believe that by your "clever" little post. Second i don't look to anyone for any answers. I'm refering to serious artist's, scientists and inventors and so on, i.e. Einstein, Marie Curie, DaVinci, Jules Verne. People who seem to think outside the box and look ahead to the future. Let me ask you where do you see the future in Iraq getting us in the next 10 years? Do you think we will have gotten all the terrorist by then, (clue you can't kill an enemy that is anonymous). Here is the clincher will it be an exceptable ratio of lives of terrorists loss to lives of our soldiers lost (none to me is exceptable). I'd bet that it won't be and in ten years it will be the same catch 22 that it is now. Except with many more soldiers lost in proportion to the terrorists lost, with terrorism actually growing. This to me is unacceptable, therefore the strategy must be changed. Aside: I don't support Hillary Clinton or hardly any of the others i think i saw a reference that i might, i also saw a reference that i might be liberal, you don't actually know that, i have not said it. My best bet is McCain at least he doesn't believe in complete pullout just yet it must be stabilized as much as possible first, but he is looking to bringing the troops home not too far in the future.
Confucious say man who beat head into wall repeatedly, and it hurt man's head is not a smart man unless he like it.
I guess ya'll like it..
-
Originally posted by john9001
leadpig says the USA should surrender.
the terrorists like leadpig.
leadpig is why the terrorists keep on fighting.
Let me guess you live in a trailer home, drive a pickup, like country music, and are a member of the NRA...not that there's anything wrong with that.
<<=== Throws spinnerbait into the weeds hopes for a bite ...
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Let me guess you live in a trailer home, drive a pickup, like country music, and are a member of the NRA...not that there's anything wrong with that.
<<=== Throws spinnerbait into the weeds hopes for a bite ...
Your bait sucks as bad as your argument.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Let me guess you live in a trailer home, drive a pickup, like country music, and are a member of the NRA...not that there's anything wrong with that.
holly insults batman, i think he is trying to make a personal attack on me.
lets see, trailer home...pickup truck...NRA....country music....yep leadpig is a citified loafer wearing taxi riding librule.
ok, on second thought maybe he drives a vee dub. (VW)
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Your bait sucks as bad as your argument.
It's official...... lol
-
Originally posted by john9001
holly insults batman, i think he is trying to make a personal attack on me.
lets see, trailer home...pickup truck...NRA....country music....yep leadpig is a citified loafer wearing taxi riding librule.
ok, on second thought maybe he drives a vee dub. (VW)
:rofl
Not an attack on you, personally i'm just refering to people like you who say the same thing. Another thing thing i don't think there's anything wrong with any of that or your viewpoint i respect it. There's nothing wrong with being a liberal just as there's nothing wrong with being a Republican, i don't really agree with either. It's just not exactly what i'm saying. I just speak with alot of sarcasm it's hard for people to know the difference.
Another thing i drive a pickup truck
<== Holy Hypocrite Batman..
see what i mean
-
Leadpig, you and all the other cut and run libs keep bringing up that we can't win but you don't say what we should do when we are attacked by these people.
How would you suggest fighting them? Since this is exactly the way the terrorists intend to fight wars.
The only way I would have done it differently would have been to carpet bomb Bagdad in the beginning.
On another note we didn't start the war with Iraq, they did when they invaded Kuwait. Since the CEASE FIRE, Saddam made repeated attacks on our air patrols flying over the no fly zones [which is an act of hostility] that was a violation of the cease fire. Why we waited so long to do something about it is questionable except that Bill "wheres the cigar" Clinton was in office when all that was happening.
-
Originally posted by Tango
Leadpig, you and all the other cut and run libs keep bringing up that we can't win but you don't say what we should do when we are attacked by these people.
How would you suggest fighting them? Since this is exactly the way the terrorists intend to fight wars.
The only way I would have done it differently would have been to carpet bomb Bagdad in the beginning.
On another note we didn't start the war with Iraq, they did when they invaded Kuwait. Since the CEASE FIRE, Saddam made repeated attacks on our air patrols flying over the no fly zones [which is an act of hostility] that was a violation of the cease fire. Why we waited so long to do something about it is questionable except that Bill "wheres the cigar" Clinton was in office when all that was happening.
Answer to question number one: (Read this in the original post)
Ledpig Said
My solution to Iraq, withdraw the troops after a deadline of say 6 months to a year, under the guise of "Look Iraq we kicked out Sadaam we've been here a long time we've darn near given 4,000 of our own children in the process now it's your turn to stand alone. We've been boobytrapped in your own country for quite a while now, that's it. If things start going to hell after that outside pressure from the United Nations would be best bet. Other than that get a new oil supply, or alternative fuels. Message to America "We are not our brothers keeper" unless it involves our own resources. Since President Bush can't figure this out i guess i'll have to.
Tango said:
The only way I would have done it differently would have been to carpet bomb Bagdad in the beginning.
Ledpig said:
"Kill the arnoldholes with the innocents, that's great. huh. News flash, everybody in Iraq is not a terrorist, you might have passed a terrorist working in Wal-Mart today, so where do we attack, where is the battle ground, which is exactly why the war won't work in the first point. To win an Army must be allowed to be unleashed with it's full power onto the enemy, not have to tip toe in a land where some are innocent and others are not. This happened in Vietnam when the white house wouldn't allow the military to hit certain targets because of the political correctness crap, a military should not have to worry about that. It didn't work there either did it?
Sadaam was a @#$@ no doubt, but he was also a poosy. Doe anyone remember him being interviewed by Dan Rather just before the war started? Sadaam was basically saying. " Please America don't kill us we don't want any problems, there's no need for this. Which tells me he didn't want Gulf War #2. If Sadaam acted up he could've been cruise missiled to death. Iraq is not terrorism attacking Iraq is not going to end terrorism.
Another thing i'd rather have Clinton "hiding cigars" than Bush killing troops.
-
We're not fighting Iraqis, we're fighting Iran---have been for 3+ years, and if we leave, we cede the country to them, making things FAR worse than they were with Saddam in place---Can obviously be argued that Bush and company didn't see that coming--Iran was planning what we see now before the war ever started
-
Is leadpig another reincarnation of beetle? His posts are certainly asinine enough.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Is leadpig another reincarnation of beetle? His posts are certainly asinine enough.
People like you who always make that reply are assanine enough....
-
I've seen Dago reply in other ways, so he doesn't always[/b] make that reply.
-
I'm refering to serious artist's, scientists and inventors and so on, i.e. Einstein, Marie Curie, DaVinci, Jules Verne.
You did NOT just place the ditzie twits in the same catagory as these people did you?
Geeez...the lengths some people will go to in order to laud those who speak in the same voice as there's.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Answer to question number one: (Read this in the original post)
Ledpig Said
My solution to Iraq, withdraw the troops after a deadline of say 6 months to a year, under the guise of "Look Iraq we kicked out Sadaam we've been here a long time we've darn near given 4,000 of our own children in the process now it's your turn to stand alone. We've been boobytrapped in your own country for quite a while now, that's it. If things start going to hell after that outside pressure from the United Nations would be best bet. Other than that get a new oil supply, or alternative fuels. Message to America "We are not our brothers keeper" unless it involves our own resources. Since President Bush can't figure this out i guess i'll have to.
Tango said:
The only way I would have done it differently would have been to carpet bomb Bagdad in the beginning.
Ledpig said:
"Kill the arnoldholes with the innocents, that's great. huh. News flash, everybody in Iraq is not a terrorist, you might have passed a terrorist working in Wal-Mart today, so where do we attack, where is the battle ground, which is exactly why the war won't work in the first point. To win an Army must be allowed to be unleashed with it's full power onto the enemy, not have to tip toe in a land where some are innocent and others are not. This happened in Vietnam when the white house wouldn't allow the military to hit certain targets because of the political correctness crap, a military should not have to worry about that. It didn't work there either did it?
Sadaam was a @#$@ no doubt, but he was also a poosy. Doe anyone remember him being interviewed by Dan Rather just before the war started? Sadaam was basically saying. " Please America don't kill us we don't want any problems, there's no need for this. Which tells me he didn't want Gulf War #2. If Sadaam acted up he could've been cruise missiled to death. Iraq is not terrorism attacking Iraq is not going to end terrorism.
Another thing i'd rather have Clinton "hiding cigars" than Bush killing troops.
You didn't answer my first question. How would you have fought the war?
As for the second question, you seem to not like my answering about carpet bombing Bagdad because it would kill innocents. HOWEVER, your answer was "To win an Army must be allowed to be unleashed with it's full power onto the enemy, not have to tip toe in a land where some are innocent and others are not." How exactly is that different?
As for Clinton, if he were still in office Saddam would probably be back in Kuwait.
-
Originally posted by Shaky
I'm refering to serious artist's, scientists and inventors and so on, i.e. Einstein, Marie Curie, DaVinci, Jules Verne.
You did NOT just place the ditzie twits in the same catagory as these people did you?
Geeez...the lengths some people will go to in order to laud those who speak in the same voice as there's.
If you think that and you don't get the point then sorry i can't help ya..
I hear some keys jangling, must be Skuzzy.
-
Originally posted by TalonX
You only believe celebs are ahead because you are a liberal.
I am sure he said artists, not celebrities!
I think his point is also that the war in IRAQ was a bad idea in the first place and that many who spoke up early on were attacked for being unpatriotic. Yet many still will back a policy that is flawed because of a political affiliation rather than common sense and logic. I do not like the way the Dixie Chicks voiced their opinion. I think it showed a lack of class.
I grew up watching the vietnam war on the nightly news and also saw how the people basically turned on the war. It hit home as we waited for years for my uncle's body to be found as he was listed as MIA. My grandmother sent letter after letter to President Johnson, Ladybird, and any other government official she could to beg them to send her son home. She died within a month after them finally sending a couple of pieces of bone back home in a casket after 4 years of waiting. She was 50 years old.
When we look back at why the vietnam war was fought and how it was fought, the plans do not look like they were intelligently designed. The reasons seem to not be worth the 50,000+ deaths and hundreds of thousands of destroyed lives and families. It was evident that the plan was flawed even as we trudged on and more and more lives were lost. Pride and image held more weight than logic, and it was sad.
As humans, and citizens of the most powerful nation on earth, we must always error on the side of peace.
-
Saddam did what? "Please America don't kill us"???
Have you completely lost your mind? ALL Saddam had to do was allow the UN COMPLETE unrestricted access, and stop shooting at Allied aircraft enforcing the no fly zone. Well, along with not paying the families of homicide bombers $25K.
You have posted some of the most delusional crap I've seen here in years. I cannot believe anyone would be so stupid as to try to pass off Saddam as being compliant and wanting to avoid an invasion. Did you sleep through the near two year build up to the invasion, or did you have your head up your bellybutton the entire time?
Your grasp of the bombing restrictions during Vietnam is non existent as well. The vast majority of the targets that were off limits were properties of countries like Russia and China. It had nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with not escalating a local conflict to a world war.
-
Originally posted by Tango
You didn't answer my first question. How would you have fought the war?
As for the second question, you seem to not like my answering about carpet bombing Bagdad because it would kill innocents. HOWEVER, your answer was "To win an Army must be allowed to be unleashed with it's full power onto the enemy, not have to tip toe in a land where some are innocent and others are not." How exactly is that different?
As for Clinton, if he were still in office Saddam would probably be back in Kuwait.
Question 1. I would have fought the war by using CIA, military, and covert operatives, along with willing people from the area who are in the know, like the brave interpreters they have now (those guys are amazing), much as they're doing in Afganisthan. Sort of sniffing terrorist out with a combat roach bait that they can take back to the nest and kill the queen. Things such as infiltrating info such as terrorist meetings and bombing the crap outta them when they show up. Possibly getting operatives to hold arms sales in the guise of a helping entity (such as Iranian undercover arms traders) everybody shows up dies. You gotta weed em out like termites, get my drift. Large scale conflict on a country that may or may not have terrorist influence is not the way. (we know it does but we don't want to piss off the locals and cause anymore destabilization). Another thing, i know i'm setting up a earthquacke amongst conservatives now. America needs to own up to it's own responsibility for the hatred it is recieving upon it. Such as the ugly American syndrome, which has been going on a long time. Example in the fifties my dad described how upon entering the port of a foreign country the country would have to raise it's flag in salute before America would raise it's flag. That's not nice isn't that kind of arrogant. If someone came into my house and did that i'd be pissed. Things like that translate into hatred. Terrorism in it's essence is a feeling, a feeling of hatred and that needs to be healed before any long term closure can be reached.
Question 2:
I'll compare it this, in WW2 America waged total destruction on a group of (this is the point) COUNTRIES which had the energy and population and industriy to wage war, therefore anything in that country was open season.
In Iraq were supposed to be fighting (main point) terrorism. Where's the industry, who's the terrorists, where's their equipment, what uniforms do they wear, of course our military doesn't know untill some guy blows their head off and runs away by then it's to late. Where'd the guy go, who did that, our soldiers look into the crowd for help but everyones staring at the sky either not willing or scared to help. See how that could be confusing, see how that could be a tough situation?
Question 3:
Your probably right, Clinton might have. Sadaam would still be in power today. However what's worse a President who sends troops into harms way with a bb gun and a sling shot with an obscure drawing of the "Big bad wolf " in a land of "Big badWolf's" and tells him to kill the enemy with a rifle with no sight on it while wearing a blind fold against an enemy who has telescopic sights and no blindfold who cleary knows who we are and can pick us off at will while our soldiers are disoriented and defensive. That's a *****ty situation to send our troops into and any President that can't realize those facts should have been sent to Vietnam and died in his plane like his peer's that did. Since he expouses to be a "Tough President", "War President" "Bring em On", get my drift.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Saddam did what? "Please America don't kill us"???
Have you completely lost your mind? ALL Saddam had to do was allow the UN COMPLETE unrestricted access, and stop shooting at Allied aircraft enforcing the no fly zone. Well, along with not paying the families of homicide bombers $25K.
You have posted some of the most delusional crap I've seen here in years. I cannot believe anyone would be so stupid as to try to pass off Saddam as being compliant and wanting to avoid an invasion. Did you sleep through the near two year build up to the invasion, or did you have your head up your bellybutton the entire time?
Your grasp of the bombing restrictions during Vietnam is non existent as well. The vast majority of the targets that were off limits were properties of countries like Russia and China. It had nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with not escalating a local conflict to a
world war.
Did you not view the Dan Rather interview not too long before the invasion. Sadaam acted all big all those years before but was acting like a poosy during that interview, that told me something. Was your head up your arnold when that happened? Too bad it wasn't far enough up your arnold so you could see out your throat, then maybe you would've seen something.
I can remember sitting in a Navy Rotc class in college and hearing the C.O. who was a Captain and had flown in Vietnam tell us he was flying i can't remember if it was North or South Vietnam (of course it would make a difference) and telling us as he was flying his A-7 Corsair over a number of hours over a AAA battery that was staring at them. He asked for permission to engage and was denied, it eventually killed his buddy, only then was he given permission to fire. If you don't think that's sad, if you don't get that point. Then Sir, your brain should be shredded and used for kitty litter.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Let me guess you live in a trailer home, drive a pickup, like country music, and are a member of the NRA...not that there's anything wrong with that.
Does that help you feel better about yourself?
-
LEADPIG, is the first part of your name pronounced like lead in bullets or like lead in leader?
Just curious, it's been bothering me a bit.
Thanks in advance.
Mark
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Does that help you feel better about yourself?
Originally posted by john9001
leadpig says the USA should surrender.
the terrorists lie leadpig
leadpig is why the terrorists keep on fighting.
Ledpig says:
Read this comment and ask me that again.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Question 1. I would have fought the war by using CIA, military, and covert operatives, along with willing people from the area who are in the know, like the brave interpreters they have now (those guys are amazing), much as they're doing in Afganisthan.
You mean you would use the same CIA and covert ops that told us that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction?
Originally posted by LEADPIG
I'll compare it this, in WW2 America waged total destruction on a group of (this is the point) COUNTRIES which had the energy and population and industriy to wage war, therefore anything in that country was open season.
In Iraq were supposed to be fighting (main point) terrorism. Where's the industry, who's the terrorists, where's their equipment, what uniforms do they wear, of course our military doesn't know untill some guy blows their head off and runs away by then it's to late. Where'd the guy go, who did that, our soldiers look into the crowd for help but everyones staring at the sky either not willing or scared to help. See how that could be confusing, see how that could be a tough situation?
When we went in the Iraqi army was fighting us and they did have uniforms and stockpiles of weapons. The terrorists came in from Iran after the war with the Iraqi army was over.
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Your probably right, Clinton might have. Sadaam would still be in power today. However what's worse a President who sends troops into harms way with a bb gun and a sling shot with an obscure drawing of the "Big bad wolf " in a land of "Big badWolf's" and tells him to kill the enemy with a rifle with no sight on it while wearing a blind fold against an enemy who has telescopic sights and no blindfold who cleary knows who we are and can pick us off at will while our soldiers are disoriented and defensive.
How many battles did our troops lose in the war? Both wars were decisive victories with minimal causulties.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Your bait sucks as bad as your argument.
dunno, he reeled in quite a few
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
LEADPIG, is the first part of your name pronounced like lead in bullets or like lead in leader?
Just curious, it's been bothering me a bit.
Thanks in advance.
Mark
It's like lead in bullets, that's all, thanks for asking. :)
-
Originally posted by Tango
You mean you would use the same CIA and covert ops that told us that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction?
When we went in the Iraqi army was fighting us and they did have uniforms and stockpiles of weapons. The terrorists came in from Iran after the war with the Iraqi army was over.
How many battles did our troops lose in the war? Both wars were decisive victories with minimal causulties.
Must you contradict everything i say without deducing the rest (I love a heated discussion btw :) )
1. Have they not fired most of those CIA employees now? If your talking about back then i would have fired them as soon as they became evident, which i'm sure is lot sooner than Bush would have because i don't care about saving face it's ugly enough as it is.
2. Yes for a very short time but it did not end up being a war with Iraqi soldiers now did it?
3 Really was the first Gulf War decisive? Apparently not because Sadaam was still alive. If you want to say that, you could say the first Gulf War was not ended untill Bushed kicked him out. As for that the major goal i think (i still don't know what Bush thought) was finding WMD's, no dice there, okay Sadaam out, Check!, A decisive victory against terrorism in Iraq......................... ..........
.........................Eter nity
-
Well, you've convinced me.
That your just trolling or don't have a clue.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Did you not view the Dan Rather interview not too long before the invasion. Sadaam acted all big all those years before but was acting like a poosy during that interview, that told me something. Was your head up your arnold when that happened? Too bad it wasn't far enough up your arnold so you could see out your throat, then maybe you would've seen something.
I can remember sitting in a Navy Rotc class in college and hearing the C.O. who was a Captain and had flown in Vietnam tell us he was flying i can't remember if it was North or South Vietnam (of course it would make a difference) and telling us as he was flying his A-7 Corsair over a number of hours over a AAA battery that was staring at them. He asked for permission to engage and was denied, it eventually killed his buddy, only then was he given permission to fire. If you don't think that's sad, if you don't get that point. Then Sir, your brain should be shredded and used for kitty litter.
I saw the Dan Rather interview. Big deal. Whatever he said doesn't matter, what he DID matters. He met NONE of the conditions set out in ANY of the chances he was given to prevent the invasion. What it SHOULD have told you was Saddam would SAY anything, but could not be believed. Whether or not that was what you wanted to hear or believe does not matter. Just because Saddam said it to that paragon of credibility Dan Rather does not make it so.
Can the phony "sir" crap. You don't fool anyone, especially not me. First, obviously the event you describe involved a target in North Vietnam, it is very unlikely that there would be a hostile North Vietnamese battery on the ground in South Vietnam. Second, the event is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Third, while such events did happen, they were not the big part of the problem with target selection.
You're grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to support a completely untenable position. Thanks for the entertainment, but you're starting to bore the Hell out of me.
-
Yeah, the first Gulf War was VERY decisive. In case you missed it, Saddam's military got its bellybutton handed to it. They never really recovered. All of the stated goals of the first Gulf War were met. Iraq was removed from Kuwait, and its military was wrecked completely.
-
Captain Virgil Hilts says:
"Did you sleep through the near two year build up to the invasion, or did you have your head up your bellybutton the entire time?"
Ledpig says:
In Conclusion don't ask me if i have my head up my bellybutton again "Sir", especially when i didn't ask you such a thing, and not expect a reply and there won't be any problems..... Capiche
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
In Conclusion don't ask me...
Does this mean your troll is over?
-
Yea sure thing Holding My Groin
-
You made a joke out of a joke! How witty!
-
Haven't you people figured out this STARTED as a serious topic but i've seen that's impossible here so now i'm screwing around......:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Haven't you people figured out this STARTED as a serious topic but i've seen that's impossible here so now i'm screwing around......
:huh
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Must you contradict everything i say without deducing the rest (I love a heated discussion btw :) )
1. Have they not fired most of those CIA employees now? If your talking about back then i would have fired them as soon as they became evident, which i'm sure is lot sooner than Bush would have because i don't care about saving face it's ugly enough as it is.
2. Yes for a very short time but it did not end up being a war with Iraqi soldiers now did it?
3 Really was the first Gulf War decisive? Apparently not because Sadaam was still alive. If you want to say that, you could say the first Gulf War was not ended untill Bushed kicked him out. As for that the major goal i think (i still don't know what Bush thought) was finding WMD's, no dice there, okay Sadaam out, Check!, A decisive victory against terrorism in Iraq......................... ..........
.........................Eter nity
Okay...Okay:rofl :rofl :lol Now I get it! :rofl
Please consider running for public office! Someone who can summon up your Churchillian wit should not be wasting it working at selling stereos or mucking out horse stalls.
:rofl Oh my sides!
At least start doing some stand up! you're a riot!:rofl
-
No wonder you guys voted for Bush.......(Gasp) twice, need more where that came from i guess, too bad more peoples babies are in the ground needlessly, guess that's cool with ya'll though. At least your Patriotic. :huh.......Oh well.
-
Please!:lol Stop!:rofl
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
No wonder you guys voted for Bush.......(Gasp) twice, need more where that came from i guess, too bad more peoples babies are in the ground needlessly, guess that's cool with ya'll though. At least your Patriotic. :huh.......Oh well.
Its funny how liberals always bring up the children card EXCEPT when abortion comes up.
As for you starting a serious topic, just look at the title you put on it. That shows how much of a joke this started out as.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Did you not view the Dan Rather interview
Are you talking about the same dan rather, that was tossed for broadcasting made up "facts"?
Bronk
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Haven't you people figured out this STARTED as a serious topic but i've seen that's impossible here so now i'm screwing around......:rolleyes:
Run along home little boy, your little game didn't go your way and your mommy is calling.
-
I guess they were right... there really are no terrorists and as it turns out...
We are all getting along fine on the biofuel we are running in our cars and the pig crap run electrical generators...
It may be too late to put the sadman back in power tho..
yeah... entertainers are always on the cutting edge... da vinci was more than just a singer ya know!
lazs
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Haven't you people figured out this STARTED as a serious topic but i've seen that's impossible here so now i'm screwing around......:rolleyes:
One more thing. If you started this as a serious thread, you're even worse off than anyone imagined. The title, and the premise, could not possibly be taken seriously by anyone with any sort of common sense or intelligence.
-
300
That's how many U.S. soldiers died per day in WW2
3
That's how many U.S. soldiers die per day in Iraq
291,557
American Casualties in WW2
3,790
As of Aug. of 2007 American Casualties in Iraq. (4 years)
(perspective)
6600 U.S. soldiers were killed on D Day.
6,825 U.S. soldiers were killed in the Battle of Iwo Jima
(more perspective)
3,650
How many soldiers died during the Battle of Antietam (in 12 hours, and that does not include wounded, or MIA. that's just dead)
1,088,907
How many soldiers died in the Battle of the Somme
Actually, I would say the War in Iraq has gone remarkably well. Amazingly so in fact.
Who said it would be easy? (but so far it really has been)
Who said it would be over quickly?
HOW long were we in Japan after we won the war?
How long in Germany?
Just how long does it take to stabilize a region after one invades and captures it? Give me a figure here. Months? Years? Decades?
I am not sure what your expectations are/were in re: the war in Iraq, but I for one would like to see it through to the end. To do anything other than that would dishonor the memories of 3,790 soldiers that have lost their lives.
What purpose would walking away from Iraq now serve? What good could possibly come out of such an action.
Soldier die.
That's their job.
It sucks, but so does war.
You want a "cause"? Here's one for ya'.
In China a total of 2,845 mining accidents were reported in 2006, resulting in 4,746 deaths, or an average of 13 deaths per day.
That is @ 1,000 MORE deaths in mining accidents in one year in China vs. how many U.S. soldiers have died in the Iraqi in four years. It's also over four times higher deaths per. day than the Iraq war.
Ponder that.
You are over FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY to die if you are a Chinese miner vs. being a U.S. soldier in Iraq.
There.
Now go freak out on some Chinese BBS about mining safety.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Actually, I would say the War in Iraq has gone remarkably well. Amazingly so in fact.
Who said it would be easy? (but so far it really has been)
Who said it would be over quickly?
HOW long were we in Japan after we won the war?
How long in Germany?
Just how long does it take to stabilize a region after one invades and captures it? Give me a figure here. Months? Years? Decades?
I am not sure what your expectations are/were in re: the war in Iraq, but I for one would like to see it through to the end. To do anything other than that would dishonor the memories of 3,790 soldiers that have lost their lives.
What purpose would walking away from Iraq now serve? What good could possibly come out of such an action.
Lute, I for one, was against the IRAQ invasion from day one. I avoided voicing my opinion as I could see it was futile. Living in a southern state and in the profession I am in, meant that I was bombarded daily by warhawks(southern republicans) about how they attacked us and they should get what they deserve. It was an overwhelming consensus that we should attack them because they attacked us(even though we all know it wasn't an IRAQ plan that was carried out on 9/11). I fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban, and wished that we would have brought the mastermind, Osama, to justice. Only once was I asked(at the time I was coaching basketball) by my fellow coaches what I thought about it. When I told them I thought it was a stupid move and would end in complete disaster, I felt the anger brewing in them as they called me names and questioned my patriotism. This is how the Pro-war people handle opposition politically, they challenge the opponent's patriotism.
There is not much hope for a solution in IRAQ and the outlook for longterm stability there grows more dim every day. The surge is giving hope, but it is overshadowed by the eminent involvment by IRAQ's neihbors and Shia brethren. The premise for the invasion was flawed and our greatest and bravest are and will continue to pay the price for this ignorant move. I have only the greatest of respect for the majority of our soldiers over there and try and avoid disrespecting their service. Our brave soldiers are the defenders of our freedoms and should be honored for their service. I also believe in the rights of the people to voice opposition to the policies of their government without being persecuted.
It is my belief that the policy that led to the invasion, was one of the most flawed and ignorant policies that this country has ever beset upon it's soldiers. You would think that the people pushing this policy would have been more adept at assessing the possible outcomes of the invasion, given the history of occupations in the 20th century and the history of the middle east, yet somehow, the logic was lost.
by the way Lute!
Mark
PS Paul in '08:aok :D
-
Originally posted by Tango
Dixie Chicks cut thier own throats by letting the fat one run her mouth off in a foreign country. I think that does show stupidity.
LOL:aok
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Lute, I for one, was against the IRAQ invasion from day one. I avoided voicing my opinion as I could see it was futile. Living in a southern state and in the profession I am in, meant that I was bombarded daily by warhawks(southern republicans) about how they attacked us and they should get what they deserve. It was an overwhelming consensus that we should attack them because they attacked us(even though we all know it wasn't an IRAQ plan that was carried out on 9/11). I fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban, and wished that we would have brought the mastermind, Osama, to justice. Only once was I asked(at the time I was coaching basketball) by my fellow coaches what I thought about it. When I told them I thought it was a stupid move and would end in complete disaster, I felt the anger brewing in them as they called me names and questioned my patriotism. This is how the Pro-war people handle opposition politically, they challenge the opponent's patriotism.
There is not much hope for a solution in IRAQ and the outlook for longterm stability there grows more dim every day. The surge is giving hope, but it is overshadowed by the eminent involvment by IRAQ's neihbors and Shia brethren. The premise for the invasion was flawed and our greatest and bravest are and will continue to pay the price for this ignorant move. I have only the greatest of respect for the majority of our soldiers over there and try and avoid disrespecting their service. Our brave soldiers are the defenders of our freedoms and should be honored for their service. I also believe in the rights of the people to voice opposition to the policies of their government without being persecuted.
It is my belief that the policy that led to the invasion, was one of the most flawed and ignorant policies that this country has ever beset upon it's soldiers. You would think that the people pushing this policy would have been more adept at assessing the possible outcomes of the invasion, given the history of occupations in the 20th century and the history of the middle east, yet somehow, the logic was lost.
by the way Lute!
Mark
PS Paul in '08:aok :D
So your saying we don't have the right to go to war when our soldiers are fired upon? The Iraqis were doing just that the whole time Clinton was in office and nothing was done. Even without the WMDs it was the right thing to do.
-
Skyrock i too was against the war from day one. Whoever that was nice facts and figures about soldiers lives but they're worth more than facts and figures to me so i really don't care. It never ceases to amaze me how idiotic the population is in realizing the facts that American soldiers are dieing in a worthless situation. They should be dieing in a worthwhile situation if they have too. There lives are worth that. War must have a purpose and a chance to win to be worth sending people to die in it. You people don't seem to get this fact. Soldiers are getting killed everyday by people, who they don't even know who did it and they can't even identify the enemy after it's over. That's a pretty screwed up situation. Maybe they can after an attack is over. If you can't tell who in the hell the enemy is how in the hell are you gonna win. You probably won't. If you don't get that fact sorry.
As for all you people who don't agree with the argument i sure seem to have gotten alot of hits, alot of insults after that, at least you could disagree intelligently, i replied rudely when people replied rudely to me, particularly that comment about my head up my bellybutton by Captain Virgil Hilts, when i said nothing to him of the sort before that, read the text buffer, you'll see i didn't. If you don't agree with my comments cool thats fine with me but respond nicely if your a gentleman. You may not believe this but i hold NO hard will towards any of your comments, i think it' good and a worthwhile part of the democratic process. Being a black man i can and have sat down with Klan Members and listened to their topic intelligently and made friends in the process, one of them hugged me a number of years later a a grocery store after i saw him later. Why can't you do the same.
I've had alot of words thrown in my mouth, that i was democrat, liberal, cut an run, and alot of insults as well referenced by the first response From Steve Bailey, i quote "Please don't delete your post. I can use this as proof to people who doubt me when I say there are plenty of functioning retards among us." Thank you Steve Bailey i really appreciate that. (sarcastic look).
After that Captain Virgil Hilts said this, "Further proof that it is nearly impossible to under estimate the intelligence of the general public. Especially those who embrace the "common sense" and "brilliance" of "celebrities" who pontificate on things which they know nothing about. The last part of that comment i have no problem with.
Talon X threw these words in my mouth. "You only believe celebs are ahead because you are a liberal. If you depend on actors for political science, I pity a future decided with your vote.". Not what I was saying.
Shaky threw up a picture of Shawn Penn as if i was saying that. John9001 shoved this in my throat "leadpig says the USA should surrender, the terrorists like leadpig, leadpig is why the terrorists keep on fighting." To which i replied with the trailer home reply. To which Captain Virgil Hilts said this "Yout bait sucks as bad as your argument."
One guy said i was some guy called Beet1e or something to which i gave a smart bellybutton answer in response.
Of coures can't forget Captain Virgil Hilts intelligent answer "Saddam did what? "Please America don't kill us"???
Have you completely lost your mind? ALL Saddam had to do was allow the UN COMPLETE unrestricted access, and stop shooting at Allied aircraft enforcing the no fly zone. Well, along with not paying the families of homicide bombers $25K.
You have posted some of the most delusional crap I've seen here in years. I cannot believe anyone would be so stupid as to try to pass off Saddam as being compliant and wanting to avoid an invasion. Did you sleep through the near two year build up to the invasion, or did you have your head up your bellybutton the entire time?
Your grasp of the bombing restrictions during Vietnam is non existent as well. The vast majority of the targets that were off limits were properties of countries like Russia and China. It had nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with not escalating a local conflict to a world war.
I Salute Tango for his responses we actually had a group of conversations in which he made a point and i answered it, with really no insults between us as i can remember, there were others i Salute you as well.
For the people who think i REALLY think the Dixie Chicks should be President, you don't understand sarcasm very well.
As for the people who said i was a cut and run Liberal, for the record i am not a liberal, i am not "Cut and run". I guess you missed this part where i said about Senator McCain "Aside: I don't support Hillary Clinton or hardly any of the others i think i saw a reference that i might, i also saw a reference that i might be liberal, you don't actually know that, i have not said it. My best bet is McCain at least he doesn't believe in complete pullout just yet it must be stabilized as much as possible first, but he is looking to bringing the troops home not too far in the future." I guess if i'm cut an run i'd be supporting Senator McCain huh.......
As for the others if that's all you got to say i have nothing for you.
SKUZZY stick a fork in it she's done.....
-
It is my belief that the policy that led to the invasion, was one of the most flawed and ignorant policies that this country has ever beset upon it's soldiers. You would think that the people pushing this policy would have been more adept at assessing the possible outcomes of the invasion, given the history of occupations in the 20th century and the history of the middle east, yet somehow, the logic was lost. - Leadpig
Hi LP,
You don't think it is tactically good to be securing Iraq right now? Or to have a presence in the Middle East right now, when IRAN is getting closer to WMD and making noise about Israel, our ally, "disappearing?"
Do you think we should withdraw? Do you want a deadline?
-
Pig, lets do a what if scenario.
Lets say Iran attacks us and we wipe out thier military. Do we simply stay out of Iran or do we go in and rebuild everything? If we do go in, we end up fighting the same type of fights that are going on in Iraq at this time.
As for caring about what the troops are going through, maybe you should ask them when you see them. You'll find an ALOT of them are for staying and finishing the job. Sure, many will tell you they don't/didn't want to get sent over there, but niether does a Police officer ever want to have to pull his gun on a bank robber, but he knows its his job.
-
Hey Gunthr :)
Thank you for asking.
Yes i think it is tactically good to be securing Iraq right now, i think our current administration did not know what they were getting into or that it would turn into a bunch of anonymous terrorists running amok popping our soldiers while they duck, and then try to fight back. So yes now that it's started i think it should be finished, however i don't think we will be able to totally repair it right now due to all the social, religious and other, complexities that Americans frankly don't understand, and frankly we have no business trying to fix for them. Then you have the fact that alot of people hate us over there and our very involvement in fixing their problem will be a destabilizing factor in it's influence and outcome. I think we should have an influence in the Middle East now, but we should be weaning our way out of the situation maybe not totally because we have opened up a can of worms now and we will have to watch it. I'd like to see about 1/4 or a little bit less of the soldiers over there now in about a year and a half, maybe less, at the most two years. Our influence should be more of a stabilizing and monitoring influence with the Iraqi's taking over more and more eventually of the care of the social problems that crop up in their homeland, i'd think they'd understand it better. I think there still could be WMD's in the Middle East but that Sadaam could have diseminated them among his allies terrorist or statewise to be hid in the fog of war when the invasion was imminent. Iran should be monitored closely as they have not outright waged war on us, we should try to cautiously disarm and cooperate with the situation, hopefull untill it won't turn into a war situation with them, but we should have our eye on them. Maybe the occasional carrier task force patrol, military exercise in the area you know, missiles staged close to them in case they want to get out of hand. What i'm trying to say reminds me of the quote from the Godfather "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" sage words in these times. Do i think we should withdraw? Soon, maybe year, year and a half, those boys are in a terrible situation over there.
Thanks for asking me Gunthr in such a mannerable and polite way without insulting me, i respect it .
-
Quote:
It is my belief that the policy that led to the invasion, was one of the most flawed and ignorant policies that this country has ever beset upon it's soldiers. You would think that the people pushing this policy would have been more adept at assessing the possible outcomes of the invasion, given the history of occupations in the 20th century and the history of the middle east, yet somehow, the logic was lost. - Leadpig
I'd like to acknowledge Gunthr that those words were Spoken by SkyRock not me. Thank You
To Tango, good question a tough one, hmmmm let's see. In that situation we would have to go in and repair it, because we can't let that area of the world go to hell because of our needs. However i would put more, much more pressure on the remaining Iranian Government officials to get your, you know what in gear cause, guess what, were outta here in X amount of months, up to a year, buddy. You need help after that sorry pal, it's your country.
As for the soldiers, i know i have heard them tell me that, because they are incredibly duty and honorably driven. I would hope that the people in charge of their use and employment would have much more common sense to know what they're getting them into and the situation that will develop before it all happens next time. I think Bush and Rumsfeld, Cheney and whoever else were horribly inept at predicting the outcome. I think Kennedy or Lincoln or Roosevelt, Theodore or Franklin would have realized much better. The most beautiful thing in a person to me is an open mind and it also makes them smarter too. I would hope our next president would be smart enough before sending our troops into a situation like this again.
I support the Troops, i do not support their leaders.
-
Leadpig and SkyRock have either of you ever served in the Military?
I don't think so... so sit back in yer EasyBoy Commanders Armchair and just STFU. You both have no frikken Clue.
Both are probably 300 lbs sacks of watermelon that can only make it to the Fridge.
Ohhh BTW I did my 20 years in the Active Army.
WORD!
Mac
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Leadpig and SkyRock have either of you ever served in the Military?
I don't think so... so sit back in yer EasyBoy Commanders Armchair and just STFU. You both have no frikken Clue.
Both are probably 300 lbs sacks of watermelon that can only make it to the Fridge.
Ohhh BTW I did my 20 years in the Active Army.
WORD!
Mac
Yer an idiot shut up.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Yer an idiot shut up.
Now that's some real respect right there. And for a former soldier too. From a guy who said he was done.
-
Originally posted by Tango
So your saying we don't have the right to go to war when our soldiers are fired upon? The Iraqis were doing just that the whole time Clinton was in office and nothing was done. Even without the WMDs it was the right thing to do.
That policy was flawed too, this dates way back. As far as the right thing to do, there are many of those things we aren't doing, and maybe should try to do more often. These, "moral" or "ethical" stances... ie "right things to do", should always be developed from a viewpoint to error on the side of peace. :aok
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Hi LP,
You don't think it is tactically good to be securing Iraq right now? Or to have a presence in the Middle East right now, when IRAN is getting closer to WMD and making noise about Israel, our ally, "disappearing?"
Do you think we should withdraw? Do you want a deadline?
I spoke those words and I will respond. The premise and plan that got us there, were so flawed, that it has and will continue to be "gasoline on the fire" as far as how we are going to deal with radical fundemantlism. Bush's administration is not the only adminstration to blame for sure, but it has by far, been the most damaging.
Do you think that a democratic IRAQ can exists in the crib of radical fundamentalism?
Would it be worth 20,000 troops to try to establish one and fail?
What if many of the scholars and military minds were saying your wrong, that approach will not work, why not try another route, .........would the cost still be worth trying and failing?
That democracy needs to have a presence in the middle east is not the question, that is an objective. The question is what is the best plan to achieve that objective.
At any rate, I am enjoying the talk.:aok
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
I am sure he said artists, not celebrities!
I think his point is also that the war in IRAQ was a bad idea in the first place and that many who spoke up early on were attacked for being unpatriotic. Yet many still will back a policy that is flawed because of a political affiliation rather than common sense and logic. I do not like the way the Dixie Chicks voiced their opinion. I think it showed a lack of class.
I agree. The Dixie Traitors chose the wrong method, in the wrong place. We can argue and fight in the "family", but you don't diss your president in another country (and stealing a brilliant phrase) pandering to a crowd.
It matters not to me, in this context, whether this was the worst idea or the best idea in history (ie, the war in Iraq). I haven't made that value judgement in this thread. I just reacted to the moronic, unpatriotic suggestion that the Dixie Traitors should be anything but what they are..........and certainly not the moral or political compass of the United States of America.
SkyRock
-
Do you think that a democratic IRAQ can exists in the crib of radical fundamentalism? - SkyRock
i don't think a middle eastern democracy will look like our democracy here, but yes. Turkey, Pakistan,Iran, and Israel, tho not all alike, are democracies of a kind in the middle east.
A better question is do I think an Iraq that is an ally to the USA can exist in the middle east. Yes, I believe that.
Leadpig wants to stay and fight to achieve that. Do you, SkyRock?
-
That democracy works everywhere. It's just hard to fathom that free choice and elections does not appeal to everyone on earth.
It doesn't.
I am convinced these people prefer the dictatorships (as some countries enjoy the monarchies). I suspect the best bet is to install a beneficial dictator, then depart.
-
Unfortunately it's too late to have this argument. (Though that doesn't stop anyone)--We are there, and as Colin Powell told President Bush "You break it, you bought it" We leave now we GIVE Iraq to Iran, which has been Iran's plan all along---salamanders are responsible for untold # of GI deaths, and our leaving justifies their actions
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Now that's some real respect right there. And for a former soldier too. From a guy who said he was done.
Yes i get his point he was a soldier, i respect that, i'm not taking into account he was a soldier here, strictly human being to human being if he had of made that point in a more constructive way, i might have said something nicer.
Btw i thought you were done Virgil Hilts, don't worry about me, if you want to speak, politics, or Govn't policy, like Tango, or Gunthr, or any of the other nice gentleman here, fine, otherwise leave me alone. Thank you
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Unfortunately it's too late to have this argument. (Though that doesn't stop anyone)--We are there, and as Colin Powell told President Bush "You break it, you bought it" We leave now we GIVE Iraq to Iran, which has been Iran's plan all along---salamanders are responsible for untold # of GI deaths, and our leaving justifies their actions
So true..... Sad but True, Unfortunately Sir...
-
Originally posted by TalonX
That democracy works everywhere. It's just hard to fathom that free choice and elections does not appeal to everyone on earth.
It doesn't.
I am convinced these people prefer the dictatorships (as some countries enjoy the monarchies). I suspect the best bet is to install a beneficial dictator, then depart.
I sometimes think that America will destroy itself trying to help and repair other countries. I believe that America is not the worlds keeper, unfortunately we live in a world where turmoil is occuring in places that we need resource wise. This may sound harsh, but if America did not need oil from any of those countries, and none of them were directly threatening us, i wouldn't have a problem of staying out of that area. As a human being it would hurt but i'd have to do it. America, not everybody wants to live like us....realize that, we are in a world of many varying cultures, no one's right, no one's wrong. Only the creator of this place can make that judgement, and even he respects our free will.
-
Well, let's examine the current situation in Iraq.
Some suicide bombings still occurring...yet the Kurdish north is almost totally pacified. Tribal leaders and sheiks are working closely with U.S. forces to control terrorists.....with success so marked that American forces are being withdrawn from the area and sent to beef up our presence elsewhere.
Al Qaeda has gone so far over the line with the bombing of innocent civilians even the hardened thugs who used to support Saddam Hussein have become appalled. Ex- Baathist members and many Sunni muslims in the Baghdad area are cooperating with our forces in an effort to evict these foreign born terrorists from Iraq. If it were not for the continued interference from Iran much of the violence would have already been eradicated.
While some congressional leaders have already labeled the "Surge" a failure, General Patraeus has yet to issue his report has yet to issue his report. Apparently, it isn't going to be nearly as negative as some think, and more positive that others would like. According to some sources, it will reveal considerable success in curbing terrorist activity in central Iraq.
However, every silver lining has a cloud. The Iraqi government is a mess, and isn't apt to improve in the immediate future. Yet, I'm an optimist. I like to believe that the Iraqi people desire peace and normalcy so furvently that they will eventually find a way to cooperate in spite of their differences and establish a viable democratic system.....of a distinctly Middle Eastern flavor.
The Dixie Chits . Spoiled, narcicisstic Daddy's girls.
-
Leadpig, some cultures ARE superior to others. I say without fear of contradiction that western culture, with it's emphasis on human rights, free elections, popular sovereignty, and self-determination are far superior to anything now extant in the Middle and Far East, save for those nations whose governments and cultures were forever changed, for the better, by contact with western democratic nations.
While that contact was not always benevolent in nature, it has proved, over time, to have been largely beneficial. By contrast, contact with communistic and middle eastern systems has been largely negative in nature, and has merely served to reproduce brutal and moribund clones of these master systems.
I reiterate, all cultures are not created equal.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
That policy was flawed too, this dates way back. As far as the right thing to do, there are many of those things we aren't doing, and maybe should try to do more often. These, "moral" or "ethical" stances... ie "right things to do", should always be developed from a viewpoint to error on the side of peace. :aok
Easy enough if it was a democratic nation, but when you have a dictatorship/fanatics constantly preparing for war and its known they will use ANY weapon they can get, then I think a big stick is in order.
The deal is we need to stop cleaning up war and unleash the military's might on our enemy [short of nukes] when it comes to a shooting war. War is a terrible and ugly thing [any soldier thats seen it will tell you that] and it should be a last resort, but when it starts, finish it with a devastating blow so they know they were beaten and wouldn't want it to happen again. Thats why the Germans and Japanese are very cautious about using thier military. They've seen the results of war.
-
To you Shuckins they're equal. Don't look at it from your perspective, try to look at from no perspective at all. To them were not, they don't want to be like us, why, they're not us. Maybe they like to kill each other, maybe they like to live in a world of religiuos violence and turmoil. Maybe if there daughter's commit a family shame, maybe they like to kill them, who knows. Not up to me to say, truth is, it's not up to anyone, but each of us and our own lifes. I can respect their way, i don't care, just don't bother me i have no problem, is how i look at it. The world is going to hell in a hand basket, always will be, to the end. It should be, this is not a reality of perfection, never will be, utopia is not possible in this life, that goes with governments and cultures. I don't look at anybodies culture and govn't being superior including ours, it just is what it is. Would i want to live anyplace else? nope. America's great, as of now to me it's the best we got.
I don't put my faith in any system on this earth, that has any manmade influence to it, i just put up with it.
Good point though
-
But Pig, they want to make the WHOLE WORLD Islamic. If you don't convert then they will try to kill you.
Of course Bolo6 will come in and try to say thats not true but its in thier holy book.
-
Originally posted by Tango
But Pig, they want to make the WHOLE WORLD Islamic. If you don't convert then they will try to kill you.
Of course Bolo6 will come in and try to say thats not true but its in thier holy book.
I said in the above comment i don't care what they do, i don't care if they kill each other, it's not up to me or America to bestow them with the mantle of democratic freedom, they don't want it, fine with me. Just don't come over here and try that crap here, they'd be impinging on my right to live how i want, right or wrong, then they must die. Preferably a slow horrible death, while i stare into their eyes.
Oh and screw the holy book, those terrorist aren't following that totally anyway, they're perverting it for their own needs, hell christians and every religion in existence does that.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Don't look at it from your perspective, try to look at from no perspective at all.
(http://www.valemount.com/joel/lightoptics/images/waterfall.jpg)(http://static.flickr.com/56/143910103_c2acd5ac3d.jpg)
(http://lloydi.com/travel-writing/round-the-world-trip/country/04-new_zealand/south-island/images/manda-forced-persp.jpg)
You're a riot!:rofl
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Well, let's examine the current situation in Iraq.
Some suicide bombings still occurring...yet the Kurdish north is almost totally pacified. Tribal leaders and sheiks are working closely with U.S. forces to control terrorists.....with success so marked that American forces are being withdrawn from the area and sent to beef up our presence elsewhere.
Al Qaeda has gone so far over the line with the bombing of innocent civilians even the hardened thugs who used to support Saddam Hussein have become appalled. Ex- Baathist members and many Sunni muslims in the Baghdad area are cooperating with our forces in an effort to evict these foreign born terrorists from Iraq. If it were not for the continued interference from Iran much of the violence would have already been eradicated.
While some congressional leaders have already labeled the "Surge" a failure, General Patraeus has yet to issue his report has yet to issue his report. Apparently, it isn't going to be nearly as negative as some think, and more positive that others would like. According to some sources, it will reveal considerable success in curbing terrorist activity in central Iraq.
However, every silver lining has a cloud. The Iraqi government is a mess, and isn't apt to improve in the immediate future. Yet, I'm an optimist. I like to believe that the Iraqi people desire peace and normalcy so furvently that they will eventually find a way to cooperate in spite of their differences and establish a viable democratic system.....of a distinctly Middle Eastern flavor.
The Dixie Chits . Spoiled, narcicisstic Daddy's girls.
I look at it this way Shuckins, we can clean up, every terrororist in Iraq. Declare it safe and come home and sit on the toilet and some nut will blow that up. Is it possible to clean all terrorist in Iraq by killing them, probably not, cause you'll never know if you've gotten them all untill something happens, or nothing happens. At least in WW2 we had some surrender documents and we knew who we were dealing with. Don't know that here. This is a geurilla war, a tank, a cruise missile, and a artillery gun, hell most of the military's main tactics for fighting war are useless against these people. Reminds me of when Europeans first came to the new world and started trying to fight the indians. The Europeans were doing that style of fighting where they would all stand in a line in bright outfits and shoot at each other all gentleman like. The Indians were'nt playing that game though, they were wearing camoflauge, and hiding behind tree's and bushes, just popping people left and right. Hell they were hurting the Europeans even though they had firearms. They got smart though and started fighting how the Indians were, and thus you have the Army's current stealth fighting style. We better do that in Iraq or we won't be doing it long.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
(http://www.valemount.com/joel/lightoptics/images/waterfall.jpg)(http://static.flickr.com/56/143910103_c2acd5ac3d.jpg)
(http://lloydi.com/travel-writing/round-the-world-trip/country/04-new_zealand/south-island/images/manda-forced-persp.jpg)
You're a riot!:rofl
Holden Mc Groin either express a serious perspective to me or none at all, but please have one in order to make your point. Other than that, leave me alone.
If you ARE a joke or trying to BE a joke, i don't know, but your doing a good job.
-
Holden Mc Groin either express a serious perspective to me or none at all, but please have one in order to make your point. Other than that, leave me alone.
Wait... now you want perspective?
My point was that your statement, "Don't look at it from your perspective, try to look at from no perspective at all" was idiotic.
Okay, you make an observation without perspective. I challenge you.
Of course, that's just my perspective.
But then since you are just fooling around, I realise that you are not being serious in your last post.
-
Yes you should have a perspective, in order to make a point which i assumed is what you were doing. I didn't know if you were trying to make a joke or be serious or both, good job though.
Your right about that observation without perspective thing though, i was just being highly absractive in thinking, so much so that sometimes people don't know what i'm talking about. Even me.
Oh wait i've reached a state of no perspective..........(falls over and dies)
-
You do realize of course that it is impossible to offer comment of anykind about any issue without having a point of reference?
The argument espoused by many on the left that no culture is superior to any other is indicative of an intellectual mindset that is adrift. In addition to believing that no culture is superior to any other, this "philosophy" espouses the tenet that there are no "absolutes" in human society or behavior.
Whether they wish to admit it or not, that premise is false and morally bankrupt, for absolutes certainly DO exist, and give the lie to the argument that all cultures are equal: murder, child molestation, sex discrimination, racial discrimination, genocide, and infanticide are all evil....absolutely. All are practiced by the governments of many of the nations of the "developing" world which are held up as being, somehow, co-equal with that of the democratic west.
Sorry, my friend, the comparison of these cultures with our own reveals that there is, actually, no comparison. They are NOT equal.
-
The below link says a lot and gets right to the heart of the matter...
(in my humble opinion)
The Issue... (http://youtube.com/watch?v=2wPglHZQf-0)
TIGERESS
-
Good post Tigeress. That is one fearless lady.
She is also, undoubtedly, marked for death.
Which reinforces the point that all cultures are not created equal.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
The below link says a lot and gets right to the heart of the matter...
(in my humble opinion)
The Issue... (http://youtube.com/watch?v=2wPglHZQf-0)
TIGERESS
She says it all and is right.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
I said in the above comment i don't care what they do, i don't care if they kill each other, it's not up to me or America to bestow them with the mantle of democratic freedom, they don't want it, fine with me. Just don't come over here and try that crap here, they'd be impinging on my right to live how i want, right or wrong, then they must die. Preferably a slow horrible death, while i stare into their eyes.
Oh and screw the holy book, those terrorist aren't following that totally anyway, they're perverting it for their own needs, hell christians and every religion in existence does that.
So basicly your an isolationist?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Now that's some real respect right there. And for a former soldier too. From a guy who said he was done.
Being a former soldier doesn't prevent anyone to be a current idiot :p
Aside why should respect be show to some one having done his duty in the military ? respect can be earned in a lot of way no only this way.
And as we're speaking of respect let look at some extract of the first replies to this post :
functioning retards
fat one
you're being a dik
the terrorists like leadpig.
ad nauseam ...
It's the usual culprit at work ...
-
I think skyrock and leadpig are moral but... smug and... that they can't see the forest for the trees.
The war most certainly is about islamofacist terrorists and it is about oil.
We need a stable region. We would have to fight sooner or latter... the sadman had worked on nukes in the past.. he had gassed his own people... he was toturing and killing hundreds of thousands of his own people... he was.... a very bad man.
Lots of bad men in the world.. but he was sitting on a lot of oil and... he gave us the excuse. The UN gave us the excuse. they imposed the sanctions and the inspections and he defied em. He would have built a nuke... I don't think anyone will dispute that he tried once.. he either was trying at the time or would try in the future...
He invaded the neighbor for the oil.
Back home... the democrats made certain that the only oil we can use comes from that region. We can't explore for our own... and even if we do... we can't use it.
The islamofacists aren't really from any country... they are simply a part of every islamic country...
The good thing is.. just pick an islamic country with oil and the terrorists will come to die. We are killing thousands of the worst people on the planet every month. A little hard on the citizens of iraq but.... it was bound to be hard on some citizens somewhere no matter what. At least for all this time we haven't had em do any real damage here (except for the patriot act and making flying no fun)
In the end tho... I don't really care. When the future owners of 72 virgins detonate an dirty nuke here....
It won't be anyplace that I care much about. It will just kill a lot of blue voters.
hell... might even be in a city that the dixie chicks are playing at.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The war most certainly is about and it is about oil.
lazs
Well you got one right.
The fact that they jumped on this IRAQ thing before they caught Osama will haunt this country for years to come.
It's hard to make a stand for moral/ethical/right things to do, when we give up the torch in such a dishonest manner.
Secure your borders.
Secure your borders.
:aok
-
skyrock... that's it?
Thats all ya got? I explained to you that iraq was convienient and that it needed to be done. You sitting on your hands would not have helped a thing.
Osama is no threat. we tried but we didn't get him.. now, if he is alive.. he is doing just what we want and focusing on killing his people in iraq.
The US soldiers that you all weep about don't appreciate your concern. they want to win.. they see progress and they are mostly behind the war. When I say I support the troops I mean....
I support what they want. The troops I talk to say stay and win. When that changes I will support that.
being moral is fine but... there is nothing immoral about the war in iraq. We got rid of an immoral dictator. We allowed the people to vote on their own government and their own constitution. we are killing the worst people on the planet... and it is far from out fat little liberal cities.
yeah... it is about oil... it is about a lot of things but oil is one.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AWMac
SkyRock have you ever served in the Military?
I don't think so... so sit back in yer EasyBoy Commanders Armchair and just STFU. You both have no frikken Clue.
My family has paid dearly for my right to live here and voice my opinion. I won't even honor you with a list of my family members who have fallen fighting under the flag of this great nation. As my mother once said, before it was america, it was our land.(try and figure that out einstein)
It might be a good idea for you to avoid posting in these types of intellectual discussions, you surely have to be embarrassed by your own stupidity.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I explained to you that iraq was convienient and that it needed to be done.
Osama is no threat. we tried but we didn't get him..
lazs
Many things need to be done, and that is why we plan. A bad plan is a bad plan.
If anyone needs to feel the wrath, it is Osama.
Mark
-
Originally posted by Tango
So basicly your an isolationist?
I suppose partly Tango, i just prefer not to say my beliefs, culture or country are superior to any others because i am not arogant enough to do so. I prefer to respect man for his decisions completely at let Karma take over the rest. I believe absolutely when you get down to it there are no rights and wrongs, or true sin in this universe, only your thinking makes it so. For instance Dr. Kevorkian is he wrong for killing people who want to die? I don't think so. They're both doing what they want and my opinion doesn't matter anyway. I'm not, my culture, is not, my beliefs are not superior enough to tell them what to do or that i'm better. That's one reason terrorism has developed because of our arrogant attitudes that were better, were not. To each his own. I don't believe the creator of this universe is even making any judgments on this universe or it's people, he realizes if he did we wouldn't be happy or exist as thinking individual souls. I think alot of us will have a pleasant surprise when we die and find out God isn't judging us, no one is, but us, and the sense of beauty in us all will be the compass in our own feelings of what we've done and how we've done it. Nobody is superior.
-
LEADPIG, you still don't get it , it is the Muslims that think that their way of life is better than ours and they want us to change to their way of life, or die.
-
I believe absolutely when you get down to it there are no rights and wrongs, or true sin in this universe, only your thinking makes it so. - LP
LP, i'm pretty sure you have not fulfilled the biological imperative, or you would know better. Prisons, insane asylums, and progressive liberals are filled with people who believe that there is no right, no wrong, and no true sin in the universe.
the look that might come over your face if a child of yours had his head sawed off - gurgling and grunting - on YouTube, just MIGHT belie your statement that there is no right and wrong in the universe.
-
Who is the judge of right and wrong you, me? You can't tell me, i can't tell you, thats something you decide for yourself. Sure there are similiarities between each of our beliefs, but, who is the ultimate judge. Not you or me my friend. I'm not superior to you to say so, your not superior to me. So who is the ultimate judge?? God? he respects us to much to tell us, he knows if he controled us and told us what to do, we wouldn't exist, we'd be puppets instead of human beings. No, he lets us decide for ourselves, we reap whatever pain or happiness that may bring. But we each must decide for ourselves, my friends.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Who is the judge of right and wrong you, me?
ME. :rofl
-
if it was up to me, LP, i'd be giving you a big time out, and you'd be grounded for the rest of your life :)
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Who is the judge of right and wrong you, me? You can't tell me, i can't tell you, thats something you decide for yourself. Sure there are similiarities between each of our beliefs, but, who is the ultimate judge. Not you or me my friend. I'm not superior to you to say so, your not superior to me. So who is the ultimate judge?? God? he respects us to much to tell us, he knows if he controled us and told us what to do, we wouldn't exist, we'd be puppets instead of human beings. No, he lets us decide for ourselves, we reap whatever pain or happiness that may bring. But we each must decide for ourselves, my friends.
So your an anarchist?
-
Boy, you guys look at things from some narssicistic, arrogant, close minded, self centered, all knowing, tell everybody else, non compassionate, judgemental, holier than thou, i know better so i won't listen, i know better so i'm gonna tell you what to do, i'm the judge of right and wrong, kind of view.
just stop, neither of you are any of those things
neither am i
so stop acting like you know everything, because you don't
I know i don't know everything, so i don't try.
so my mind is constantly open to listen,
i don't make a judgement on anybody or anything cause i don't know everything
I am not the all knowing all seeing,being of knowledge.
neither are you, so be ready to change your point of view at anytime.
cause it could happen at any moment.
I'm open to all your viewpoints i except and i enjoy them all, i enjoy trying to see things from others points of view because you learn about yourself. But i don't pretend to believe that your points of view are wrong or right, i am not the judge of that..
So who is the judge of who's superior
Right or wrong?
You, Me?
The answer none of us.
God..
I think he knows better than to throw judgement, because he knows how it hurts us all...
The world would be a much better place if we quit trying judge each other..
:)
-
Originally posted by Dago
ME. :rofl
Okay now this is just darn funny, i had to laugh at this.
Dago is God....who knew???
Hail Lord Dago!!
:rofl :rofl ........:D
-
Originally posted by Tango
So your an anarchist?
Tango quit trying to put things in a box, they don't fit, there is no box, let it go.
Btw, i bet some guy is going to put up a picture of some guy in a box or jack in the box or something..... anyone????:rolleyes: :confused: :D
-
skyrock... this keeps getting sillier...
Now your only objection is that we didn't get osama? sheesh... we never got the zodiac killer either.
The man has a whole planet with a billion muslims to hide in. We can't just break down doors in packistan for instance.
And who cares? he is no threat to me. As a leader.. we are probly better off with him messing things up. To get him would not change a thing.
Then of course.. there is the oil that you hate so much. How much are you willing to pay for oil? And of course... the little islamofacist thing... they don't care if we become the biggest isolationists in history... they would still attack us.
I hope you aren't at the dixie chicks concert at the blue city that gets nuked with a suitcase bomb.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock... this keeps getting sillier...
Now your only objection is that we didn't get osama? sheesh... we never got the zodiac killer either.
The man has a whole planet with a billion muslims to hide in. We can't just break down doors in packistan for instance.
And who cares? he is no threat to me. As a leader.. we are probly better off with him messing things up. To get him would not change a thing.
Then of course.. there is the oil that you hate so much. How much are you willing to pay for oil? And of course... the little islamofacist thing... they don't care if we become the biggest isolationists in history... they would still attack us.
I hope you aren't at the dixie chicks concert at the blue city that gets nuked with a suitcase bomb.
lazs
lazs if you look at my posts, they are more about the retrospective look at a flawed plan. Osama was cornered and yet again the plan was botched. I feel that any "war" or strategy we use to fight the extremist, must have a very smart plan, and be very well thought out. It needs to have long term considerations, and not just a, "we need to have a presence there" ambiguous end.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
quit trying to put things in a box, they don't fit, there is no box, let it go.
Maybe some things ARE inside this imaginary box you keep talking about.
My opinion is that there are a group of people out there that want me, my family, my neighbors, everyone in this ah community dead, and are willing to go to any level to make it happen.
My opinion is that every one of them should be hunted down, which our military is doing, and exterminated like the vile worthless pieces of garbage that they are.
My opinion of my imaginary box course. :aok
Edit: And my friends in the various branches of the military, and their friends who i've met, who are also in those different branches of the military agree.
But that's there imaginary box so it's just there opinion too.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock... this keeps getting sillier...
Now your only objection is that we didn't get osama? sheesh... we never got the zodiac killer either.
The man has a whole planet with a billion muslims to hide in. We can't just break down doors in packistan for instance.
And who cares? he is no threat to me. As a leader.. we are probly better off with him messing things up. To get him would not change a thing.
Then of course.. there is the oil that you hate so much. How much are you willing to pay for oil? And of course... the little islamofacist thing... they don't care if we become the biggest isolationists in history... they would still attack us.
I hope you aren't at the dixie chicks concert at the blue city that gets nuked with a suitcase bomb.
lazs
But Lazs
I'm sorry i said this a number of times but. How are we going to win a war in which we don't exactly know who or where the enemy is. We gotta have something to aim at. What good is a tanks main gun, an artilery battery, hell a infantryman's service rifle if he dosen't know what in the hell to shoot at? The current situation is this....some soldiers are standing around monitoring or doing a particular duty, then bam some guy in street clothes pops out and fires an AK, or a RPG at them, the soldiers duck, who the hell was that they ask, of course they can't find the guy cause he looks like everybody else. They citizens aren't helping because 1.) They hate us, 2.) some or scared. How do we go on the offensive if we don't know who? An army has got to go on the offensive to win. We can't, all we can do is be in a defensive position and wait for "Johnny terrorist" to "pop" us, by then 20 guys are dead. It's the equivalent of sending a soldier into a dark room trying to rescue a hostage. The soldier however is wearing a blindfold, and is deaf and blind. He goes in the room, uh oh. the bad guy has night vision goggles. bamm everybody's dead. What????, How??? Lazs
....It's a hamster wheel i tell ya.
Respectfully yours Ledpig :)
-
Originally posted by Speed55
Maybe some things ARE inside this imaginary box you keep talking about.
My opinion is that there are a group of people out there that want me, my family, my neighbors, everyone in this ah community dead, and are willing to go to any level to make it happen.
My opinion is that every one of them should be hunted down, which our military is doing, and exterminated like the vile worthless pieces of garbage that they are.
My opinion of my imaginary box course. :aok
Edit: And my friends in the various branches of the military, and their friends who i've met, who are also in those different branches of the military agree.
But that's there imaginary box so it's just there opinion too.
I wasn't trying to put it in that context quite speed, but i definately see and agree with your point. I just meant that Tango kept asking me if i was a Isolationist, or an Anarchist, and i was just saying i don't feel like i fit into any one of those boxes though.
Thanks
Led
-
It's bad when a group of country singers have more common sense than the President.
====
even worse when someone believes it.
really led, try and rise above it. Its clear up here.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Boy, you guys look at things from some narssicistic, arrogant, close minded, self centered, all knowing, tell everybody else, non compassionate, judgemental, holier than thou, i know better so i won't listen, i know better so i'm gonna tell you what to do, i'm the judge of right and wrong, kind of view.
:)
welcome to the o'club...:rolleyes:
three female country singers... had more nads than the rest, go figure.
-
the enemy is the ones that is shooting at you, anybody knows that. :lol
-
Yea, my purpose with the title was in a sarcastic sense. Yet i get people who still think i literally believe it. I think somehow in some ways they do have more common sense. I think it pretty foretelling in the fact that they knew this was a bad idea, enough so they made that comment. Before the President seemed to know it. I still don't know if he know's it or is in complete denial. Maybe he thinks the wanton killing of soldiers who have no ability to tell or seek out their enemy is a good idea. They're at the mercy of fate over there, not their own fighting ability. When i saw the President land on that aircraft carrier and anounce "The war was over" pretty much in it's main form, i realized how little he got it. A President should have more ability to understand the dynamics and possible future of a situation. I knew after he made that statement that in a matter of months the soldiers would be getting involved in a worthless situation. A catch 22. If there is a sniper shooting into a courtyard, you don't keep sending people in one by one to die in the hopes you'll somehow get him. It's wastefull of lives with little return. It hurts me to see. I really don't have much problem with what the dixie chicks said or how they said it. I believe if a man is responsible enough to stand by a certain policy he ought to be responsible enough to take the critizism however it may be. I think when comments like that are made a smart person is able to seperate the garbage, from the valid points and let such comments reflect only the person who said them. If the person is not intelligent enough to realize that, i don't care what they think. It's not worth it to "Stay the Course" if the course is getting you knowhere, with little returns. A course must be cost effective in it's efficiency to stay on it. I bring this info up to say this is what happened in the past let's not do this again, of course you can't change any of this Yeager, but it's always worth it to view the facts and cull from it the truth to realize where your going in the future.
Respectfully Ledpig..:)
Btw, i'm enjoying this discussion and am enjoying hearing your different points of view...:)
-
lpig
just admit it ..
you have a crush on the fat one
(http://www.patriotart.com/images/06_12_06/DixiePig1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
lpig
just admit it ..
you have a crush on the fat one
(http://www.patriotart.com/images/06_12_06/DixiePig1.jpg)
Okay....Okay...i admit it....i want her bear my little piglets. :D
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by bj229r
We're not fighting Iraqis, we're fighting Iran---have been for 3+ years, and if we leave, we cede the country to them, making things FAR worse than they were with Saddam in place---Can obviously be argued that Bush and company didn't see that coming--Iran was planning what we see now before the war ever started
Wait...we're fighting Iran in Iraq? I thought our less than intelligent President (perfect example of a functioning retard) told us the war was to eliminate WMDs and Al-Queda. He lied to us again?
ack-ack
-
So LP, you think it would have been better to leave Saddam in power? You really think he was not working on WMDs [chemical and bio weapons]? I'm sorry but he should have been taken out during the first war and he had the chance to stay in power but continously kept shooting at out planes in the no-fly zones [which is an act of war].
If anything the Kurds in Northern Iraq are happy that we saved them from him and have allies there. I'm all for dividing up the country and pulling our troops back into northern Iraq, but the Iranians [who we are in a cold war with] would like us to pull out so they can get more control around the Persian gulf.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Wait...we're fighting Iran in Iraq? I thought our less than intelligent President (perfect example of a functioning retard) told us the war was to eliminate WMDs and Al-Queda. He lied to us again?
ack-ack
Call it whatever the F ya want--The govt of Iran is behind the vast majority of funding/insurgency in Iraq, hoping that killing getting enough GI's kilt will convince folks like you to convince Congress to bail, thus handing them Iraq and its oil with having to fight Saddam for it---brilliant strategy, if ya think about it. Letting Iran have Lebanon wasn't a big deal, because Lebanon is a useless chithole, but Iraq is quite different, and if you haven't noticed, it's too late to whine that we shouldn't have gone in....rather like arguing with wife about who was responsible for the wrong turn that got the car stuck in the sand (it's always the husband's fault:D )
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/28/iraq.iran/index.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/12/world/main2919294.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301390.html
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Call it whatever the F ya want--The govt of Iran is behind the vast majority of funding/insurgency in Iraq, hoping that killing getting enough GI's kilt will convince folks like you to convince Congress to bail, thus handing them Iraq and its oil with having to fight Saddam for it---brilliant strategy, if ya think about it. Letting Iran have Lebanon wasn't a big deal, because Lebanon is a useless chithole, but Iraq is quite different, and if you haven't noticed, it's too late to whine that we shouldn't have gone in....rather like arguing with wife about who was responsible for the wrong turn that got the car stuck in the sand (it's always the husband's fault:D )
I agree with BJ229R 100%, can't get out now, we've already started the mess. But a new strategy should be adapted asap, before we keep beating our head into the wall over there till it's a bloody pulp. We should patch it up as much as possible, without taking too much responsibility for their country and get out of dodge. Maybe if we do that we can save an additional 4,000 lives from dieing in this crap.
-
leadpig... I think you are not looking at the big picture... we need someone besides israel in the region who is not harboring islamofacists.
It is no more a hamster wheel than is trying to stop crime... Imagine if there were no rapes in the US... that we could stop all rapes by picking a place in the world and all the rapists would go there to fight us. meanwhile.. they couldn't even afford airfare to get to L.A.
Islamofacists exist... they don't like civilization or us.. it has very little to do with oil or money and all to do with the way we feel about freedom of religion and not letting them violate human rights of their fellows. The biggest groups were formed by muslims who were educated here and were disgusted by our sexual freedom and our not bowing to their god.
The ideas that liberals here hold dear are the things the islamofacists hate the most... liberals would be the first to be executed... right along with gays and drug or alcohol users... hands and heads and gawd knows what else cut off..
The idea is to make the world smaller for them.
It is not a complex thing but seems very difficult for some to grasp... if we let them be... they have the whole world to play in.. if they are forced into ever smaller countries that will put up with their bs and... as a bonus.. the worst/nuttiest of em are dying like flies in (insert name of some craphole here)... well.. that is even better.
I know that sounds cynical and cold but all the surrender monkeys sound insipid and emotional and weak to me.
lazs
-
Comment by Lazs2
It is no more a hamster wheel than is trying to stop crime... Imagine if there were no rapes in the US... that we could stop all rapes by picking a place in the world and all the rapists would go there to fight us. meanwhile.. they couldn't even afford airfare to get to L.A.
Lasz all the terrorists are not in Iraq, heck they are not anywhere in particular. Terrorism isn't a country we can fight like Germany was. In WW2 you could count how many enemy were killed by counting the number of soldiers who were dead on the ground wearing German outfits. How do we know for sure if were getting them Lasz? How do we know who were're shooting at other than by having them shoot at us first. By then our soldiers are dead by then Lasz. That's a bad situation to be working from. I have no problem with what you said and that would be great if we could identify them all to kill them, but we can't. The way i see it we could be fighting terrorists in the middle east, declare we've got them all, come back home thinking, were safe, prop down to sit on the toilet and some terrorists will blow that up. We need intelligence and a focused attack on these terrorist to effect them, something like a combat roach bait for terrorists approach to fighting them if you will. A large scale approach to fighting them ain't gonna work. It'll end up with more of our soldiers dead than theirs. That's not efficient, it should be. Other than that one point Lasz i wish it was as simple as what your saying, it's not.
Respectfully
Leadpig.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_insurgents_killed_in_Iraq
Ok Ok it's wikipedia.
But as of right now we seem to have around a 3-1 kill ratio, with that ratio improving.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Lasz all the terrorists are not in Iraq, heck they are not anywhere in particular. Terrorism isn't a country we can fight like Germany was. In WW2 you could count how many enemy were killed by counting the number of soldiers who were dead on the ground wearing German outfits. How do we know for sure if were getting them Lasz? How do we know who were're shooting at other than by having them shoot at us first. By then our soldiers are dead by then Lasz. That's a bad situation to be working from. I have no problem with what you said and that would be great if we could identify them all to kill them, but we can't. The way i see it we could be fighting terrorists in the middle east, declare we've got them all, come back home thinking, were safe, prop down to sit on the toilet and some terrorists will blow that up. We need intelligence and a focused attack on these terrorist to effect them, something like a combat roach bait for terrorists approach to fighting them if you will. A large scale approach to fighting them ain't gonna work. It'll end up with more of our soldiers dead than theirs. That's not efficient, it should be. Other than that one point Lasz i wish it was as simple as what your saying, it's not.
Respectfully
Leadpig.
So instead of fighting them in thier backyard you would rather pull back and wait for them to make a move and eventually make another large attack like 911 or bigger [nuke] then hunt them down?
Our men and women in the military would tell you "No way". They would much rather be fighting them over there than over here.
As for the number of sioldiers lost, do you know that we are losing more than they are? I would like to see your source.
-
We just need to turn all arab/muslim countries into vast fields of smoking glass. Then we need to break through that glass, pump out the oil, piss on their bleached bones, and go home to watch the Superbowl.
They'd do it to us in a heartbeat if they could, only instead of watching the Superbowl, they'd be kneeling somewhere, giving Allah a handjob 5 times a day.
There.
-
leadpig.. I don't think we are communicating. I will try again. We are killing them and we are bankrupting them in a place of our choosing and the sadman is not working on nukes again.
The best scenario in my opinion is that we divide the country into 2 or three chunks with one constitution and we stay long enough for the government to build their security forces and then let them use their methods for taking out the terrorists.
To run away is not really a tactic or plan. I can't help but think that the plan of "run away run away" will do much for making us more secure in the world.
We already have plenty of would be rulers saying to their people that the vietcong kicked the USA's butt and that we are just a bunch of soft, womanly socialist democrats with no real will to fight.
They may even be right. I don't think so tho. Running away and then saying that you only ran away because you didn't like the way the whole thing started is still..... running away... it will be seen as nothing more nor less than that... than what it is.... running away.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It is not a complex thing but seems very difficult for some to grasp... if we let them be... they have the whole world to play in.
True!
-
Originally posted by Tango
So instead of fighting them in thier backyard you would rather pull back
I would have rather fought them in a way to where we always have the advantage of surprise and where our image is not spoiled by corruption and lies. I know we're in a fix over there and it is going to be tough to make it out of there without egg on our face and with somehow leaving it a better place. That is why I was soo infuriated that the moron was so gung ho to get us in there. We should have captured Bin Laden first, that would have sent a strong message to the terrorists. We should have secured our borders, so that we show them it's not going to be as easy as last time. Then we should have started a quest to track these MF'ers down and kill them like the rats they are!!!!! Lying to the world and bumbling into a country with no plan to secure it, is not the way to go about fighting the terrorists, it just added fuel to the fire. But, if all of the sudden a bomb explodes in a room in Damascus and 10 cell leaders are killed, noone knows who it is or who is behind it, but of course they will "know"! The next week a bomb goes off in the HQ of a cell in Indonesia, noone knows who set it, but they "know"!! All of the sudden a bomb kills 8 Al Queda leaders in manilla, noone knows who set it, but they "know"! A bomb goes off in the Kalasha valley and kills 25 Al queda militants, noone knows who set it, but they "know"! This is how you fight terrorism, like fire with fire. Intelligence and planning. Ruthless resolve with expert planning. This strategy coupled with extremely tight border security is the only way to fight this war against terrorism!
-
skyrock... what you want to do is surrender and then... to make up for that you want to.... to what? "hunt em down"?
Oh yeah.. that would work. When the 9/11 happened and the discussion started I was the first to say that we should have simply made up a picture book...
"The big Book of Terrorists" and.. hunted em down and crossed their picture out as they "disapeared".
I now realize that this is beyond folly in a country/media that thinks offering a hot dog to a prisoner is torture beyond all conception.
The new york times and cnn and all the democrats would come unglued if they ever found out that we were even looking for terrorists and....
How would we do it? send in 5 guys to iran to knock on doors? sheesh... we couldn't even get it right in mogandishu where the population was starved and stupid and no one even noticed if you killed a few thousand...
so what do we do? send a smart bomb? but wait... no matter what.. the new york times will be showing dead babies and saying that what we hit was the biggest orphanage on the planet...
nope... we have to go there and have a real presence I am afraid... we simply have no choice.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
I would have rather fought them in a way to where we always have the advantage of surprise and where our image is not spoiled by corruption and lies. I know we're in a fix over there and it is going to be tough to make it out of there without egg on our face and with somehow leaving it a better place. That is why I was soo infuriated that the moron was so gung ho to get us in there. We should have captured Bin Laden first, that would have sent a strong message to the terrorists. We should have secured our borders, so that we show them it's not going to be as easy as last time. Then we should have started a quest to track these MF'ers down and kill them like the rats they are!!!!! Lying to the world and bumbling into a country with no plan to secure it, is not the way to go about fighting the terrorists, it just added fuel to the fire. But, if all of the sudden a bomb explodes in a room in Damascus and 10 cell leaders are killed, noone knows who it is or who is behind it, but of course they will "know"! The next week a bomb goes off in the HQ of a cell in Indonesia, noone knows who set it, but they "know"!! All of the sudden a bomb kills 8 Al Queda leaders in manilla, noone knows who set it, but they "know"! A bomb goes off in the Kalasha valley and kills 25 Al queda militants, noone knows who set it, but they "know"! This is how you fight terrorism, like fire with fire. Intelligence and planning. Ruthless resolve with expert planning. This strategy coupled with extremely tight border security is the only way to fight this war against terrorism!
How would you find out where they are if we weren't over there? If anything we have been getting ALOT of info, from the very people your wanting us to assassinate, who are being captured and interrogated over there now. We are also seeing the Iraqi people rising up agaisnt those same people and working with our troops.
It takes time to stop in insurgancy. Turning tail and running isn't a way of doing it and our troops would be the first to tell you that.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock... what you want to do is surrender and then... to make up for that you want to.... to what? "hunt em down"?
Oh yeah.. that would work. When the 9/11 happened and the discussion started I was the first to say that we should have simply made up a picture book...
"The big Book of Terrorists" and.. hunted em down and crossed their picture out as they "disapeared".
I now realize that this is beyond folly in a country/media that thinks offering a hot dog to a prisoner is torture beyond all conception.
The new york times and cnn and all the democrats would come unglued if they ever found out that we were even looking for terrorists and....
How would we do it? send in 5 guys to iran to knock on doors? sheesh... we couldn't even get it right in mogandishu where the population was starved and stupid and no one even noticed if you killed a few thousand...
so what do we do? send a smart bomb? but wait... no matter what.. the new york times will be showing dead babies and saying that what we hit was the biggest orphanage on the planet...
nope... we have to go there and have a real presence I am afraid... we simply have no choice.
lazs
Well, there are many ways to infiltrate the enemy that are tried and true! I never said anything like turn tail and run, I did say that going into IRAQ under false pretense has hurt us more than it has helped us. It is always better to not only decimate the enemy in the battlefield, but to decimate him in mind and spirit as well. To turn his own body against him. To beat him totally and completely. This is not a battle of physical prowess, but a battle social and intellectual prowess. I might add, that you and a few others have some kind of idea that we can actually fight this in a conventional way, not only is that impossible, but it is not the way to win. This is a long and hard battle that starts at home(sealing borders). Maybe you can understand that, maybe you can not!:aok
-
Originally posted by Tango
How would you find out where they are if we weren't over there?
"They" weren't in IRAQ. :aok
-
but they are now and the Iraqis are fighting them as well.
-
Originally posted by Tango
but they are now and the Iraqis are fighting them as well.
So we have created an unstabel state, where many nations now have "insurgents/terrorists" involved and where before there were little to none! ?????
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
So we have created an unstabel state, where many nations now have "insurgents/terrorists" involved and where before there were little to none! ?????
So your saying everything was better with Saddam in power shooting at our air patrols in the no-fly zone while sitting on his chemical and bio wepaons?
-
as much as i hate saying this. id rather our trained troops be fighting in Iraq and having the war over there, then to not do anything about it and have more of american buildings being bombed with Innocent people in them. if we pull put now i have a feeling we are going to have a super terrorist attack on us. our troops joined the army and airforce and NAVY for one reason, that reason was to fight for our country. that's what they are doing. i really don't want another 3000 civilians dyeing from a terrorist attack. and i think are troops over there have stoped many terrrist attacks from happening in the US. the insergents are helpin us win by blowing them selves up in there country. if they want to lose the war by that then so be it. cause pretty soon they wont have any 1 to blow them selves up. i think we should stay pulling out is too dangerous at the moment.
-
Originally posted by Tango
So your saying everything was better with Saddam in power shooting at our air patrols in the no-fly zone while sitting on his chemical and bio wepaons?
I will ask you three questions:
On a list of most dangerous states at the moment of our invasion, where did IRAQ place?
Do you think that IRAQ was the only country that wanted us dead that had chem and bio weapons?(that is hypothetically speaking that Sadam wanted us dead)
Do you believe that IRAQ was the center of anti-american terrorism in the middle east?
By the way, I like the dicussion fellas!
:aok
-
Originally posted by DEMONSLAYER
the insergents are helpin us win by blowing them selves up in there country. if they want to lose the war by that then so be it. cause pretty soon they wont have any 1 to blow them selves up.
:aok
:lol
Do you know how many islamic fundamentalists are estimated to be in the world? ;)
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Do you know how many islamic fundamentalists are estimated to be in the world? ;)
do you?
-
There are about 1 billion muslims.
so fundamentalist muslims are = or < 1E9
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
I will ask you three questions:
On a list of most dangerous states at the moment of our invasion, where did IRAQ place?
Do you think that IRAQ was the only country that wanted us dead that had chem and bio weapons?(that is hypothetically speaking that Sadam wanted us dead)
Do you believe that IRAQ was the center of anti-american terrorism in the middle east?
By the way, I like the dicussion fellas!
:aok
1 - So attacking our planes that were patroling the no-fly zone is not an act of war? That in itself is reason enough to end the cease fire. WMDs or not.
2 - Saddam wanted nothing more than more power and oil. He proved that by invading Kuwait. He was a threat to our Allies over there. Kuwaitis celebrating after we invaded and defeated his army proved that. Not to mention his own people. I have a nephew who spent a tour in Northern Iraq with the Kurds and he said they are extremely gratful to us.
3 - Yes, he was supporting terrorism. He was giving money to Palestinian suicide bombers families who were killing innocent people in Israel. Israel is one of our closest allies in the ME. Reports dating back to the Clinton administration even were saying that he was and that he was looking for and striving for nukes. Why the anti-war activists seem to forget this to put the blame on Bush saying HE lied and was simply looking for an excuse to go into Iraq baffles me. The attacks on our air patrols would have been enough excuse to end the cease fire if that was true. With the info he had [which goes back several years BEFORE he was even in office] showed that there was evidence. There was even an Iraqi general who defected that stated this as well.
-
Originally posted by Tango
1 - So attacking our planes that were patroling the no-fly zone is not an act of war? That in itself is reason enough to end the cease fire. WMDs or not.
2 - Saddam wanted nothing more than more power and oil. He proved that by invading Kuwait. He was a threat to our Allies over there. Kuwaitis celebrating after we invaded and defeated his army proved that. Not to mention his own people. I have a nephew who spent a tour in Northern Iraq with the Kurds and he said they are extremely gratful to us.
3 - Yes, he was supporting terrorism. He was giving money to Palestinian suicide bombers families who were killing innocent people in Israel. Israel is one of our closest allies in the ME. Reports dating back to the Clinton administration even were saying that he was and that he was looking for and striving for nukes. Why the anti-war activists seem to forget this to put the blame on Bush saying HE lied and was simply looking for an excuse to go into Iraq baffles me. The attacks on our air patrols would have been enough excuse to end the cease fire if that was true. With the info he had [which goes back several years BEFORE he was even in office] showed that there was evidence. There was even an Iraqi general who defected that stated this as well.
Bro, vote Republican and relieve us all from realizing that you are trying to have an intellegent conversation about policy!!
F Repubs
FDems
and F all those who reside therein!:aok
-
#1. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. People need to stop quoting an administration lie. They've done everything possible to make us think Saddam had something to do with it... He didn't. Get over it. The guy who did, Osama, yeah, we let him get away, a total of three times.
#2. We aren't leaving Iraq anytime soon. This fact has made us an even bigger target than pre- 911. You are less safe today than you were yesterday.
#3. You are now fighting an enemy that has no face, no uniform, no discernable stance on anything, except its' stated hate of the West. It is a fight which simply cannot be won. You can try all you want, send all of our troops, all of our technology.... you can beat and torture all you want (making a mockery of what we hold dear) and you will get nowhere. The simple truth is, like at the travelling circus, you can't play "whack-a-mole" and actually win... whenever you hit one mole, another two pop up. We will mire ourselves in the region, and lose vast amounts of manpower, money and international capital... for what? Iraq doesn't want to become a democracy, no matter how much we tell them they should. They DON'T want your life anymore than you want theirs shoved down your throat. At least, not the Iraqis that are left in the country, the upper and middle classes have all fled the country. In case anyone needs a rehash: A stable democracy requires a STRONG, INFORMED middle class.
We cannot win in either case...stay or leave. There was a time period where we could have... but that is long gone.
#4. When did this country get so stupid and SCARED.? Was anyone really that surprised about 9-11? They tried 5 times prior to take the towers down for crying out loud. Woe to us, we didn't see it coming.? Our behavior in the past 5 years is that of a pestulent, scared child. Attack everything and everyone....that's all I tend to see everyone propose... turn the ME into a glass wasteland.... Do You realize how incredibly weak and stupid that sounds??? I was incredulous when Twitt Romney actually advocated a nuclear first strike option PUBLICALLY. You may have that option, but you don't let the genie out of the bottle. Bullies, scared bullies, always advocate attack.
#5. How do we fix it? We use our good old american inginuity, and get our rear ends off of oil. We start NOW.... we become the first, we get it done. Once we don't give a crap about their oil...we're out of there. Once we're out of there, they go back to fighting each other. Whatever you think the reason is now.... Oil is and has always been the key fact we care about anything in the middle east. We tighten up the borders, while still maintaining some semblance of America. We weather any attack that comes our way, and punish those that are directly responsible. We stop exporting weapons to any damn country that shows us a fistfull of money. This country is the largest exporter of weapons on the planet...We've served as a destabilizing influence in EVERY regional conflict in the past 50 years. In short WE WORRY ABOUT US... this country.... this crumbling infrastructure... this obesity laden population without reliable access to healthcare. In case anyone failed to notice... New Orleans... a major metropolitan US city... still not fixed. Bridges collapsing. Steam pipes in new york... from the 1890's, blowing out. One BILLION dollars a day going to Iraq, and rebuilding some ******* country we had no reason to destroy in the first place. (By the way, that's 5 dollars a day, out of every US citizen's pocket, going to that country. $1,825 per year, for each and every citizen of this country.)
And my damn power lines are still above ground in Florida.
Can we use our damn heads?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock... what you want to do is surrender and then... to make up for that you want to.... to what? "hunt em down"?
Oh yeah.. that would work. When the 9/11 happened and the discussion started I was the first to say that we should have simply made up a picture book...
"The big Book of Terrorists" and.. hunted em down and crossed their picture out as they "disapeared".
I now realize that this is beyond folly in a country/media that thinks offering a hot dog to a prisoner is torture beyond all conception.
The new york times and cnn and all the democrats would come unglued if they ever found out that we were even looking for terrorists and....
How would we do it? send in 5 guys to iran to knock on doors? sheesh... we couldn't even get it right in mogandishu where the population was starved and stupid and no one even noticed if you killed a few thousand...
so what do we do? send a smart bomb? but wait... no matter what.. the new york times will be showing dead babies and saying that what we hit was the biggest orphanage on the planet...
nope... we have to go there and have a real presence I am afraid... we simply have no choice.
lazs
Skyrock is not advocating running away. He is advocating fighting them in a way that makes them look over their shoulders, that they don't know who to trust. It's an intelligence based attack strategy rather than a boots on the ground strategy...which is already failing miserably. This breaks their C+C (command and control). You also gain the help of the non-islamofascists who happen to be muslim...something we desperately need if we have ANY hope of ever gaining an advantage over this situation. Just as a reminder...only a small portion of muslims want to harm Westerners.... keep that firmly in mind. Also, I would remind you that we live in a country that accepts religious freedom and rejects persecution for religious beliefs above just about all else, besides rigth to bear arms, that is.
Mogadishu was infested with two things... guns and crazed lunatics on drugs. The humanitarian effort was never going to succeed there.
"Offering a hotdog to a prisoner" is not torture. Stripping him down, forcing him to mount another man's rear or be bitten by a snarling german shepard is...especially when he can't be proven or charged with a crime, something often forgotten about Abu Gahraib. Rounding up people off the street, denying them habeous corpus, then stripping them of their human rights and dignity (which we supposedly hold above all else) simply on suspicion... We as a nation are supposedly above this sort of thing.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
"Offering a hotdog to a prisoner" is not torture.
It is if it's pork...
-
whatever moray.. if letting a dog bite em is the main topic on ours and the world news for weeks... imagine a real effort to root out the insurgents or a real bombing campaign.
It is fine that you want to get rid of the troops but...call it what it is... snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory...it is surrender.
You say we need to what? to fight smarter? how do we do that from your computer in florida? you do need boots on the ground...ours or ours and the iraqis.
Say what you want but that is all that will work.. you are advocating...well... I don't know.. you are real short on solutions but.. it seems you and skyrock would have just pulled out of korea once the major battles had been won.
What good will pulling out of iraq now do?
The soldiers aren't wanting that.... the generals don't want it... the money being spent is keeping the democrats from starting even more socialist programs that simply grow and grow forever. The less money the government has to spend the better for all of us.
I would check a box on my taxes that said "would you like to have your taxes incinerated instead of letting us decide how to spend them?"
So someone... tell me how leaving is not surrendering? What will it be called in the future? We won in vietnam.. never lost a battle... how is it percieved by you and the world?
What is your plan exactly? I don't see anything at all by the surrendermonkeys... maybe you guys can post a link to the surrender strategy for making the planet a better place?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
whatever moray.. if letting a dog bite em is the main topic on ours and the world news for weeks... imagine a real effort to root out the insurgents or a real bombing campaign.
It is fine that you want to get rid of the troops but...call it what it is... snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory...it is surrender.
You say we need to what? to fight smarter? how do we do that from your computer in florida? you do need boots on the ground...ours or ours and the iraqis.
Say what you want but that is all that will work.. you are advocating...well... I don't know.. you are real short on solutions but.. it seems you and skyrock would have just pulled out of korea once the major battles had been won.
What good will pulling out of iraq now do?
The soldiers aren't wanting that.... the generals don't want it... the money being spent is keeping the democrats from starting even more socialist programs that simply grow and grow forever. The less money the government has to spend the better for all of us.
I would check a box on my taxes that said "would you like to have your taxes incinerated instead of letting us decide how to spend them?"
So someone... tell me how leaving is not surrendering? What will it be called in the future? We won in vietnam.. never lost a battle... how is it percieved by you and the world?
What is your plan exactly? I don't see anything at all by the surrendermonkeys... maybe you guys can post a link to the surrender strategy for making the planet a better place?
lazs
Laz, as par for the course, you don't actually read and comprehend a post. I'm not advocating running away, we can't now. Our future is now inexorably tied to that craphole. Your assignment is to go back through my post and think it over again, due on monday.
Also, you stated the troops don't want out of Iraq..they don't want out so badly, the services have the highest suicide rate in history. As well, the desertion rate is closing in on draft era vietnam...in a volunteer army.
Not to mention this...This war has lasted 1 1/2 times longer than World War 2.... and can you tell me we've gained anything? Baghdad is still not secured for god's sake. Generals are warning all over that the military is stetched so thin, it will, by April, be unable to project force anywhere else. I wonder which Fox news affiliate doesn't tell you these things... because they are in released public reports to congress.
And yes, I advocate fighting smarter. This "dumb" way only seems to give johnny mop on the head more targets to pick from.
-
And Laz..check your history in the non revisionist books. We didn't win in Korea. We just about did, until the chinese kicked our tulips all the way back to the demilitarized zone. Technically, we are still in a war with North Korea.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
And Laz..check your history in the non revisionist books. We didn't win in Korea. We just about did, until the chinese kicked our tulips all the way back to the demilitarized zone. Technically, we are still in a war with North Korea.
Since we started out with only about 50 sq miles outside Pusan and ended up at the 38th, saving So Korea, I'd say we did well.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
We didn't win in Korea. We just about did, until the chinese kicked our tulips all the way back to the demilitarized zone. Technically, we are still in a war with North Korea.
you can thank "lets fight to not win" Truman for that.
-
moray.. again.. you accuse me of what you do and... at least I have content... you have nothing.
platitudes and slogans are not tactics. Your solution is to "fight smarter"
please explain what that is. what your plan is. you have till monday to turn in your assignment.
I have skimmed your posts for content and they put me to sleep with the lack of content. I could listen to a menopausal democrat congressman or senator and get as much "solution"
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moray.. again.. you accuse me of what you do and... at least I have content... you have nothing.
platitudes and slogans are not tactics. Your solution is to "fight smarter"
please explain what that is. what your plan is. you have till monday to turn in your assignment.
I have skimmed your posts for content and they put me to sleep with the lack of content. I could listen to a menopausal democrat congressman or senator and get as much "solution"
lazs
Solution set for quoted problems.
#1. Stop selling arms to the planet. The United States is the single largest exporter of military hardware on the planet. For god's sake, most of the time they're shooting our own bullets back at us. We supplied EVERY country in the Middle East with arms at one time or another...is that really so hard to understand why some of them don't like us anymore? It's like saying Great Britain sold us 100 HK91's, and then sold Mexico 5000 Centurion MBT's. We'd be pissed...so are some of them.
#2. Get off oil. We get off oil (which can be done, we're just too damn lazy to take a hit on our economy) within two decades nd show the world we lead by example. We get the hell out of the middle east... why? Because they don't want us there...no more than we want them here. If say, Canadian troops were walking down your street, guns drawn at the standbye, what the hell would you do? I'd guess, and it's only a guess, that 3/4 of the insurgency is people like you and me that see foreign troops in their homes everyday, and want them gone...not the dedicated fundamentalists. Face it... our troops being there this long, HAVE MADE IT WORSE. What, we lost 50, a hundred in the actual invasion of iraq....and now thousands in the "occupation". You do the math on that one.
3. Fix this damn country...stop rebuilding theirs. Japan loved it when we rebuilt their country, remember? Anyone looking around? Bridges falling down. Pipes laid in the 1890's are the norm in New York City. Brownouts, in the west, with the electrical grid in constant threat (a circa 1940's grid, BTW) of shutting down with overuse. New Orleans. Infrastructure stability is at an all time low, with most of it being put in place in the 1920's and 30's. We always put off making this country better, while we funnel money into every elses. It's like giving your neighbors money for their roof, while the electricity and water are shut off in yours. Remodernizing this country would reap the benefits that Japan saw in just under 20 years.
4. Target enemies in a source specific way. Intelligence plays a large part in this with roving teams under deep cover targetting active cells. The worst thing you can possibly do in a guerrilla war is give the enemy easier and softer targets. We do both, simply by putting 400,000 of them in one spot. Remember Libya sponsoring terror in the 80's? Yeah that went away pretty damn quick after we knocked out specific targets surgically. YOU DON'T need 400,000 troops there, in Iraq. The only reason we put them there is Bush thinks he's been talking to God, and God told him to start another crusade. Of course there will be an attack here and there... but we can't go invade somebody just because small groups hurt us. Are you directly responsible for your neighbor if he goes to Spain and blows up a bus? No. Is a country responsible for the conduct of a few idiots who think Allah told them to kill us? No. (case in point, we didn't invade Saudi Arabia did we?)
Nothing will change though. Money makes the world go round. Haliburton and the defense industry makes and changes the policy of administrations now. Straight from Eisenhower:
"We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose and insidious in method..." "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Sounds almost prophetic.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you can thank "lets fight to not win" Truman for that.
o
John, not much anyone can do when a million chinese start running south. We fought our way all the way up to Pyongyang and the Chinese border...In a war versus "communism"...who woulda thunk the chinese might not've liked that idea? I'm sure your response on our answer to the chinese, will hinge on nuclear deployment... then I'll laugh. Russia had already stated any use of nuclear force in Korea would relegate tacit understanding that Russia would retaliate on the continental USA. So, we'd all be dead now, if that's the way it went.
Another idiot move by this country...always believing no one else can do anything about what we do.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
o
John, not much anyone can do when a million chinese start running south. We fought our way all the way up to Pyongyang and the Chinese border...In a war versus "communism"...who woulda thunk the chinese might not've liked that idea? I'm sure your response on our answer to the chinese, will hinge on nuclear deployment... then I'll laugh. Russia had already stated any use of nuclear force in Korea would relegate tacit understanding that Russia would retaliate on the continental USA. So, we'd all be dead now, if that's the way it went.
Another idiot move by this country...always believing no one else can do anything about what we do.
the US could have blown the bridges, but Truman said, "you can only bomb the southern half of the bridge", and then Johnson/McNamara followed the Truman doctrine of "fight not to win" in Vietnam.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Solution set for quoted problems.
#1. Stop selling arms to the planet. The United States is the single largest exporter of military hardware on the planet. For god's sake, most of the time they're shooting our own bullets back at us. We supplied EVERY country in the Middle East with arms at one time or another...is that really so hard to understand why some of them don't like us anymore? It's like saying Great Britain sold us 100 HK91's, and then sold Mexico 5000 Centurion MBT's. We'd be pissed...so are some of them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
wow, i did not know the US made AK47's, that is ground breaking news.
:O :O
-
Originally posted by john9001
wow, i did not know the US made AK47's, that is ground breaking news.
:O :O
Careful where you go with that, we supplied Iraq with thousands of ak47's that are unaccounted for. We may not have made, but we sure as hell supplied them
-
don't worry about Iraq, when the US troops pull out, Iran has said they are willing to send in Iranian troops to "maintain the peace", so it's all going to be OK.
The US supplied the new Iraq army with AK47's because the Iraqis were familiar with the weapon and would require less training to get the Iraq troops in the field faster, isn't that what we want? Also the US bought the AK's very cheap, probably from china.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Solution set for quoted problems.
3. Fix this damn country...stop rebuilding theirs. Japan loved it when we rebuilt their country, remember? Anyone looking around?
Rebuilding Japan and Germany was a good thing. They haven't been megalomaniacal since '45.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Bro, vote Republican and relieve us all from realizing that you are trying to have an intellegent conversation about policy!!
F Repubs
FDems
and F all those who reside therein!:aok
So instead of debating you want to resort to attacks? Typical liberal defense.
-
Originally posted by Tango
So instead of debating you want to resort to attacks? Typical liberal defense.
You have no clue as to what my affiliation is, I just took your post the way you took this one!!!!:aok
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
You have no clue as to what my affiliation is, I just took your post the way you took this one!!!!:aok
Whatever you say, since your the one avoiding the debate by starting the insults.
-
Originally posted by john9001
don't worry about Iraq, when the US troops pull out, Iran has said they are willing to send in Iranian troops to "maintain the peace", so it's all going to be OK.
The US supplied the new Iraq army with AK47's because the Iraqis were familiar with the weapon and would require less training to get the Iraq troops in the field faster, isn't that what we want? Also the US bought the AK's very cheap, probably from china.
Well, the point Moray made was we keep flooding weapons about and our soldiers end up on the wrong side of them. If the Iranians got their hands on those ak47's, then our soldiers have been shot at with them, cheap chinese models or not. And we supplied them.
-
Originally posted by Tango
Whatever you say, since your the one avoiding the debate by starting the insults.
Do you take it as an insult that I suggested that you were taking the discussion a little too far into a Dem vs Rep aspect? There were many policies of both dem and rep administrations that I felt were complete idiocy!:aok
If it were Clinton that went into IRAQ in the way Bush did, I'd still be saying the same thing...........moron move!
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Do you take it as an insult that I suggested that you were taking the discussion a little too far into a Dem vs Rep aspect? There were many policies of both dem and rep administrations that I felt were complete idiocy!:aok
If it were Clinton that went into IRAQ in the way Bush did, I'd still be saying the same thing...........moron move!
I'd say the following was insulting...
Originally posted by SkyRock
Bro, vote Republican and relieve us all from realizing that you are trying to have an intellegent conversation about policy!!
F Repubs
FDems
and F all those who reside therein!
You insult Tango by suggesting that his ability to engage in intelligent discussion is compromised and then insult 2 major political parties.
The parties deserve to be insulted, but non the less, it is an insult.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, the point Moray made was we keep flooding weapons about and our soldiers end up on the wrong side of them. If the Iranians got their hands on those ak47's, then our soldiers have been shot at with them, cheap chinese models or not. And we supplied them.
"If the Iranians got their hands on those ak47's,"
you don't think the Iranians have their own AK's? I think you are really stretching here. Prove the weapons the insurgents use are from the USA.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You insult Tango by suggesting that his ability to engage in intelligent discussion is compromised and then insult 2 major political parties.
The parties deserve to be insulted, but non the less, it is an insult.
He doesn't want to debate. He avoids the debate by making insults and attacks instead of responding to the answers. Pretty much a good reason to ignore his posts.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You insult Tango by suggesting that his ability to engage in intelligent discussion is compromised
He compromised it. I'd suggest you go back and read the post he made.:aok This was after I had complimented him on a nice discussion on topic.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The parties deserve to be insulted, but non the less, it is an insult.
I don't mind insulting the parties, they make it very easy!:aok
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
He compromised it. I'd suggest you go back and read the post he made.:aok This was after I had complimented him on a nice discussion on topic.
If I call somebody an idiot, it is an insult even if he really is an idiot.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If I call somebody an idiot, it is an insult even if he really is an idiot.
I called Tango an idiot?:confused:
-
Ok moray...more platitudes and non answers from you....
"Solution set for quoted problems.
#1. Stop selling arms to the planet. The United States is the single largest exporter of military hardware on the planet. For god's sake, most of the time they're shooting our own bullets back at us. We supplied EVERY country in the Middle East with arms at one time or another...is that really so hard to understand why some of them don't like us anymore? It's like saying Great Britain sold us 100 HK91's, and then sold Mexico 5000 Centurion MBT's. We'd be pissed...so are some of them.
#2. Get off oil. We get off oil (which can be done, we're just too damn lazy to take a hit on our economy) within two decades nd show the world we lead by example. We get the hell out of the middle east... why? Because they don't want us there...no more than we want them here. If say, Canadian troops were walking down your street, guns drawn at the standbye, what the hell would you do? I'd guess, and it's only a guess, that 3/4 of the insurgency is people like you and me that see foreign troops in their homes everyday, and want them gone...not the dedicated fundamentalists. Face it... our troops being there this long, HAVE MADE IT WORSE. What, we lost 50, a hundred in the actual invasion of iraq....and now thousands in the "occupation". You do the math on that one.
3. Fix this damn country...stop rebuilding theirs. Japan loved it when we rebuilt their country, remember? Anyone looking around? Bridges falling down. Pipes laid in the 1890's are the norm in New York City. Brownouts, in the west, with the electrical grid in constant threat (a circa 1940's grid, BTW) of shutting down with overuse. New Orleans. Infrastructure stability is at an all time low, with most of it being put in place in the 1920's and 30's. We always put off making this country better, while we funnel money into every elses. It's like giving your neighbors money for their roof, while the electricity and water are shut off in yours. Remodernizing this country would reap the benefits that Japan saw in just under 20 years.
4. Target enemies in a source specific way. Intelligence plays a large part in this with roving teams under deep cover targetting active cells. The worst thing you can possibly do in a guerrilla war is give the enemy easier and softer targets. We do both, simply by putting 400,000 of them in one spot. Remember Libya sponsoring terror in the 80's? Yeah that went away pretty damn quick after we knocked out specific targets surgically. YOU DON'T need 400,000 troops there, in Iraq. The only reason we put them there is Bush thinks he's been talking to God, and God told him to start another crusade. Of course there will be an attack here and there... but we can't go invade somebody just because small groups hurt us. Are you directly responsible for your neighbor if he goes to Spain and blows up a bus? No. Is a country responsible for the conduct of a few idiots who think Allah told them to kill us? No. (case in point, we didn't invade Saudi Arabia did we?)
Nothing will change though. Money makes the world go round. Haliburton and the defense industry makes and changes the policy of administrations now. Straight from Eisenhower:
"We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose and insidious in method..." "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Sounds almost prophetic.
__________________
CPID MORAY in AH (present)
These are great sound bites and long term goals for the most part... good speeches for a politician to make... and then not keep..
Let's take em one by one in reality world tho... the world of possibilities for the next few years shall we?
#1... shows a lack of understanding plain and simple.. the insurgents are not using Ak47/74's and bullets that we supplied them to kill us... they are not using US made planes or rpg's or IED's supplied by us... while we are the largest supplier of arms world wide... we are far from the only one.. russia and england and any of a number of other countries will be more than glad to take up the slack if we stop... and... they mostly will be a lot less picky and our allies will suffer to boot along with more taxes to us to supply our military.
Your answer and solution here are worthless in any real way short or long term.
#2..Get off oil??? LOL... Of course we will get off oil.. it is inevitable. not in any way that makes sense for us tho in the next decade or so. again... a non solution... to get off oil in time to bring the troops home next year or the year after or... or when? this is not a solution but a slogan... and... if you look past your soundbite you see the pain... "get off oil" in any way but a free market way is a path to the worst economic ruin and big government socialism... monstrous increase in taxes and fees and loss of standard of living for every single US citizen.
Your answer and solution here is worthless in any real way short or long term.
#3...fix the damn country??? socialism... is your solution to life here but nothing to do with the question or a solution to the war.... I expect you mean you want the democrats to take the money spent on the war and use it to install a whole bunch of new socialist programs... build levees and build roads that they robbed gas taxes from. Nope.. the less money government has to "fix the damn country" the better off I am.
Your answer here is a non answer.
#4... target enemies in a specific way??? I fell for that one myself early in the war... It is unworkable in any effective way tho... send in 40 smart bombs and you will have weeping women holding dead babies 24/7 on cnn and msnbc and the new york times all calling for whatever pres is in power to be impeached and lynched and for it to stop right now. And what do you hit? without eyes on the ground? you can't hit a suicide bomber with a cruz missle... you can't hit a mosque.. if we don't have boots on the ground we make things infinitely worse. We already got all the targets that we could "target in a specific way" we won on that front... no more exist.
Your answer would not work in any real way and is not an answer to what to do this year or next.
It all comes down to... like it or not... we are doing the only thing we can do to get any kind of good result in the near and long term. Pulling out troops before the iraqis can handle their own country is deja vu all over again.. we can watch the last chopper out being fired on. would look like a mid seventies news reel.
so no... I don't think that surrendering and then making pretty speeches like you just did will work. the devil is in the details and you have no details.. only soundbites... unworkable or abhorent ones at that once you scratch the surface of em
lazs
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
I called Tango an idiot?:confused:
Did I say you did? no.
I posted that you insulted Tango by suggesting that his ability to engage in intelligent discussion was compromised.
You defended your suggestion by saying it was true.
so I posted, by showing you something called an example, that even if an insult is true, it is still an insult.
-
Why is this stupid thread still going?
-
Laz...
You think fixing the roads, upgrading the electric grid so that a squirrel can't short out the entire east coast, and rebuilding cities hit by disaster.....SOCIALIST?
You're a nut job.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Why is this stupid thread still going?
Who Knew?...... :p :D
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Did I say you did? no.
I posted that you insulted Tango by suggesting that his ability to engage in intelligent discussion was compromised.
You defended your suggestion by saying it was true.
so I posted, by showing you something called an example, that even if an insult is true, it is still an insult.
OK wordboy, if you are speaking of Tango to me, and we are talking about insulting Tango, and you state, "If I called Someone and idiot", then one might take it that you were still on the topic of Tango. Now, back to your manipulation.
:aok
-
Well Nonword boy,
I didn't call Tango anything. So when I state, "If I were to call someone an idiot, " why would you think I was talking about you calling Tango an idiot?
I refers to me, you refers to you. I didn't say you, I said I which, once again, does not refer to you.
Once again I used an hypothetical example to illustrate a point.
Which means of course that it was me, not you, that was trying to paint a word picture so that you, not me, could understand my, not your, point.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
They obviously foretold what was going to happen before Bush's entire cabinet had a clue what was going to happen. Who cares how they said it. Bush still doesn't have a clue, either that or he knows and doesn't want to admit he screwed up at the expense of 4,000 dead soldiers.
People don't want to believe their lying eyes about the failure that is the Iraq war and ultimately resort to parroting the same old tired emotional patriotic cliche's rather than admit bushs dumb idea has failed as many told him it would.
Its probably a-lot more than almost "4000" dead, in 2000 it appears the .gov re-defined what a death is.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_notes.htm
Previous definition DOD Instruction 7730.22 Jan 20th 67 - Mar 73:
"Reports of U.S. Casualties in Combat Areas": Vietnam war casualties to be reported were all those occurring within the designated combat areas and those deaths occurring anywhere as the result or aftermath of an initial casualty occurring in a combat area.
The current related document, DoD Instruction 1300.18, Dec 18, 2000 "Military Personnel Casualty Matters, Policies, and Procedures" , makes no mention on this matter.... Now, for example, casualties whose next-of-kin are not notified or cannot be contacted/located do not appear to be counted in the official tally... I believe there are a few dozen KIAs this applies to currently.
The official numbers look out of whack; nearly 15,000 troops were sufficiently sick / injured to require evacuation from the theater, but only 10 are officially reported to have died.
The ratio of those evacuated due to "combat wounds", over 1,500 as of 01 August 2004, to those who died subsequent to evacuation; 8 officially. Thats a ratio on the order of 200:1.
Over 4,000 were evacuated due to "non-battle injuries", yet only 2 were reported to have subsequently died. Over 7,000 were evacuated due to disease, yet not one of them died.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Its probably a-lot more than almost "4000" dead, in 2000 it appears the .gov re-defined what a death is.
Here ya go Marine (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/) a list of those killed in 4 1/2 years. (for historical perspective, 6,825 were killed, 25,851 wounded in 36 days for some little airfield in the Pacific in '45)
-
One thing that really bothers me is the mental injuries caused to these soldiers. Some will never be the same. Due to post traumatic stress disorder or depression. Every so often i hear a story of a soldier who returns within a certain amout of time and commits suicide. It always hurts me to see, they make it that long in war zone and they're so hurt that they come home and are effected in such a way that they commit suicide.....Sad. Their family members explain how their soldier was never the same after returning, so much so that they can't function. I've seen those old films of WW1 soldiers, and the effects on human beings of the first "Industrial War". Legs and limbs twitching involuntarily, deformed walking, damaged speach all without suffering a physical injury. Then there's always the idiots such as Patton, who slapped a soldier in WW2 for being effected in such a way, (like the soldier could help it). I really believe war must actually short circuit the nervous system or do something to the brain in a structural way that causes this to happen that medical science has yet to understand. I guess that's war, but a hate to see people being effected like this over such a misguided attempt to kill the enemy as this one.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Well Nonword boy,
I didn't call Tango anything. So when I state, "If I were to call someone an idiot, " why would you think I was talking about you calling Tango an idiot?
I refers to me, you refers to you. I didn't say you, I said I which, once again, does not refer to you.
Once again I used an hypothetical example to illustrate a point.
Which means of course that it was me, not you, that was trying to paint a word picture so that you, not me, could understand my, not your, point.
Holden, you may as well give up.
He asked 3 questions and I answered them. Instead of responding he resorts to attacks. He is more interested in insulting and flaming than debating.
here are the answers I gave to his 3 questions:
\
Originally posted by Tango
1 - So attacking our planes that were patroling the no-fly zone is not an act of war? That in itself is reason enough to end the cease fire. WMDs or not.
2 - Saddam wanted nothing more than more power and oil. He proved that by invading Kuwait. He was a threat to our Allies over there. Kuwaitis celebrating after we invaded and defeated his army proved that. Not to mention his own people. I have a nephew who spent a tour in Northern Iraq with the Kurds and he said they are extremely gratful to us.
3 - Yes, he was supporting terrorism. He was giving money to Palestinian suicide bombers families who were killing innocent people in Israel. Israel is one of our closest allies in the ME. Reports dating back to the Clinton administration even were saying that he was and that he was looking for and striving for nukes. Why the anti-war activists seem to forget this to put the blame on Bush saying HE lied and was simply looking for an excuse to go into Iraq baffles me. The attacks on our air patrols would have been enough excuse to end the cease fire if that was true. With the info he had [which goes back several years BEFORE he was even in office] showed that there was evidence. There was even an Iraqi general who defected that stated this as well.
Why he resorted to insults instead of responding? Only skyrock knows.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Here ya go Marine (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/) a list of those killed in 4 1/2 years. (for historical perspective, 6,825 were killed, 25,851 wounded in 36 days for some little airfield in the Pacific in '45)
I don't know if your trying to compare the two. Iwo Jima against the war in Iraq, but there is a definite difference. War against a known, identifiable enemy, across a specific enemy line, to achieve an acheivable objective. In Iraq you have, war against an unknown enemy, that is not easily identifiable, across no enemy line, against an almost surely unacheivable and unidentifiable objective. Not the same. One war cost effective for the suffering necesary. The other an inefficient and misguided use of force against a heavily unrecognisable enemy, who has no particular means of identification, with wich to target and focus a use of force to wipe out a nameless almost faceless enemy.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
with wich to target and focus a use of force to wipe out a nameless almost faceless enemy.
don't worry pig, when they come knocking on your door you will know who they are.
ally ackbaa.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
I don't know if your trying to compare the two.
Just putting in perspective some numbers. I could have put up numbers for the battle of the Wilderness; some 18,000 Union deaths, 3 days.
On your own, you added a bunch more stuff to those numbers.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Just putting in perspective some numbers.
Go back a few pages, I already tried that.
(as I said in that post, I personally feel the "war in Iraq" is going incredibly well, with very little loss of life. There are cities in the U.S. you are more likely to get murdered in vs. Iraq, but I dont' see people freaking out over that)
-
How many have we lost in Afghanistan?
Wonder why they aren't screaming about getting out of there. Its a hotter war going on there than in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Tango
How many have we lost in Afghanistan?
Wonder why they aren't screaming about getting out of there. Its a hotter war going on there than in Iraq.
You know why we aren't yelling about Afgahanistan, about getting out? Maybe cuz, the people who actually attacked us fled to there. Not the imaginary terrorists bush wanted us to see in iraq.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
You know why we aren't yelling about Afgahanistan, about getting out? Maybe cuz, the people who actually attacked us fled to there. Not the imaginary terrorists bush wanted us to see in iraq.
They CAME from there..they FLED to Pakistan, which isn't being addressed by anyone
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
You know why we aren't yelling about Afgahanistan, about getting out? Maybe cuz, the people who actually attacked us fled to there. Not the imaginary terrorists bush wanted us to see in iraq.
As BJ said, they fled. So why aren't you wanting us out of Afganistan as well? If you don't want to fight the terrorists that are in Iraq, why do you want to fight the ones there?
-
Originally posted by john9001
don't worry pig, when they come knocking on your door you will know who they are.
ally ackbaa.
It's not the ones at my door i'm talking about it's the ones, in Iraq they're supposed to be fighting that the soldiers have know idea who they are? If you got into a fist fight with a guy, wouldn't you have to at least see the guy and know who it is to at least have an idea of who and how to attack him? The soldiers in Iraq have no idea untill they're attacked, by then it's too late and it's all over. If you can't understand that simple principle i don't get it? I don't feel any safer with them in Iraq, all the terrorist have to do is hop the next plane to America, set up an attack somewhere in America, and kill us all, while the whole army is playing "Where's Waldo" in Iraq. A terrorist is anybody who has hate in their heart and you can't tell who that is untill they do something. Sure you can seek out terrorist cells, and that is a good idea, but a terrorist could be a little 12 year old boy with a bomb strapped to his chest. How the Army fights that kind of anonymity, i don't know?
-
Originally posted by Tango
As BJ said, they fled. So why aren't you wanting us out of Afganistan as well? If you don't want to fight the terrorists that are in Iraq, why do you want to fight the ones there?
It appears that in Iraq the soldiers are getting anonymously attacked while being defenseless to help themselves. While it seems that the Army in Afganistan is wageing a much more centralized and focused attack on the terrorist cells and activities to break up they're supplies and future plans. I agree that we should have kept this focus on the terrorists instead of focusing our attention on Iraq. I think Sadaam most likely would have kept quiet, because while he was evil he wasn't stupid. He knew what would happen to him if he tried to get to involved. If he did try to get involved we could have attacked him then, instead of focusing our attention from the war on terror to Iraq. To have any hope of fighting terrorist, you have to fight and break up there underground network of logistics and intelligence to break up there plans. Now we have created a destabilized region in which Iran might try to get involved further complicating the situation. All we really did was to plow up the soil in the middle east so the terrorists could plant the crop that is hatred.
Btw, i'm glad to see you guys are having an intelligent discussion about Iraq and not insulting each other too much. Not like how the thread first started. :cool:
-
My opinion, Saddam did screw up. He had his troops shooting at our air patrols. The first time that happened should have been the end of the cease fire and we should have taken him out then.
-
Originally posted by Tango
My opinion, Saddam did screw up. He had his troops shooting at our air patrols. The first time that happened should have been the end of the cease fire and we should have taken him out then.
Gotta be cautious when starting war, sometimes heads are worth more alive that dead, for situations of posture and manipulation
-
Originally posted by john9001
"If the Iranians got their hands on those ak47's,"
you don't think the Iranians have their own AK's? I think you are really stretching here. Prove the weapons the insurgents use are from the USA.
Yeah, they must have been taken by Norwegian grandmothers
-
moray said...
"Laz...
You think fixing the roads, upgrading the electric grid so that a squirrel can't short out the entire east coast, and rebuilding cities hit by disaster.....SOCIALIST?
You're a nut job.
__________________
CPID MORAY in AH (present)"
again... you do what you accuse me of doing... you read nothing I said and replied to your own soundbite. I think it is because you are incapable of thinking past one or two sources of news fed you.
I said that we already have the money to fix our infrastructure like roads and levees in road taxes that are wasted on social programs instead of what they are needed for. Most bridges have been paid for a dozen times... half of our road taxes go to social programs instead of actually fixing the roads. Now you want to give then even more money to fix what they should have been fixing all along while continuing to fund the social programs and big government with the both the general fund and the infrastructure money.
All that will do is give them more money to spend on fledgling social programs that will grow into 9 headed monsters in a decade or so... sooooo... nooo... I don't want the government to have more of my money to redistribute.... I want them to get smaller.
Like I said... the way their socialist programs grow... I would rather they took my tax money and set it on fire. We would be better off (cheaper) in the long run. It is like what the democrats do... when they get in power they simply shut down the military and spend the money on social programs... then... the republicans come in and they don't start any more but the build back up the failing military... that is the real hamster wheel we are on.
lazs
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
It's not the ones at my door i'm talking about it's the ones, in Iraq they're supposed to be fighting that the soldiers have know idea who they are? If you got into a fist fight with a guy, wouldn't you have to at least see the guy and know who it is to at least have an idea of who and how to attack him? The soldiers in Iraq have no idea untill they're attacked, by then it's too late and it's all over. If you can't understand that simple principle i don't get it? I don't feel any safer with them in Iraq, all the terrorist have to do is hop the next plane to America, set up an attack somewhere in America, and kill us all, while the whole army is playing "Where's Waldo" in Iraq. A terrorist is anybody who has hate in their heart and you can't tell who that is untill they do something. Sure you can seek out terrorist cells, and that is a good idea, but a terrorist could be a little 12 year old boy with a bomb strapped to his chest. How the Army fights that kind of anonymity, i don't know?
You keep saying that we don't know who they are, but how do you know that?
How do you know that we don't have good people in iraq, helping our soldiers to find and kill the terrorists, who are enemies to us/our troops, and them?
I'm sure there are times when we or the iraqi's don't know who they are, but to say that the only time we EVER know who they are is when they kill one of us, or our allies there, i think is a bit of an exageration.
-
the soldiers I talk to tell me that the people would love to turn in the insurgents but.. it is suicide at this point...
You need boots on the ground to provide the security that will allow the people to help themselves. the cops have to wear hoods fer chrisakes when they go with ours as interpreters.. You need to build up the security of a region and then the people feel safe in turning in the bad guys.
You don't do that by surrendering.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Speed55
You keep saying that we don't know who they are, but how do you know that?
How do you know that we don't have good people in iraq, helping our soldiers to find and kill the terrorists, who are enemies to us/our troops, and them?
I'm sure there are times when we or the iraqi's don't know who they are, but to say that the only time we EVER know who they are is when they kill one of us, or our allies there, i think is a bit of an exageration.
To know who the terrorists are on a large enough scale to be very effective, and fight the conventional style our army is generally trained for, i don't think they do know who they are. Sure they might find out the names of 2,3 or 5 terrorist and go find them, that's a very smal drop in the bucket to have a huge effect. They don't however have the names and identities of 100, or 500 or 1,000 terrorists they can attack and turn an artillery barrage or something on and do the kind of attack our conventional army was made for. Our army is not made for the type of guerilla fighting these people are doing and thus very wasteful and inefficient in lives for the ammount of succes achieved. If we didn't learn this fact in Vietnam i don't where you could learn it from. Our current administration seems to have a brain blockage to this fact. It's like fighting plain put up your fists, style boxing against someone who knows Ju Jit Su. Not a good idea. Very simple concept, fight fire with fire, not gasoline.
-
we are actually issuing the iraqi army and police M-16A4's and M4 carbines......iran has been supllying the insurgents with the weapons , while the syrians provide the foreign fighters a haven to go into Iraq from...most of the terps we had had were working for the insurgents. the IA and IP are constantly shooting one another....while the sunni and the *****es duke it out the Kurds are waiting for us to pull out..Iraq is a mess..it sucked being there , but i made that choice and prolly will go there again.. ...we are there and going to be there for awhile..no sense dwelling on why and how we wound up there..cant change it...//while we may not like each others opinions..we are all entitled to our opinions constitution, the constitution I took an oath to protect....thats my take...peace....
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Yeah, they must have been taken by Norwegian grandmothers
Iranians are buying them LOTS better stuff than AK's:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/02/13/wiran13.jpg)
Austrian sniper rifles that were exported to Iran have been discovered in the hands of Iraqi terrorists, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
More than 100 of the.50 calibre weapons, capable of penetrating body armour, have been discovered by American troops during raids.
A Steyr HS50 rifle, Austrian supplied rifles, arms trade, Iran equipping Iraq insurgents
The Steyr HS50 is a long range, high precision rifle
The guns were part of a shipment of 800 rifles that the Austrian company, Steyr-Mannlicher, exported legally to Iran last year.
The sale was condemned in Washington and London because officials were worried that the weapons would be used by insurgents against British and American troops..
-
Originally posted by bj229r
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/02/13/wiran13.jpg)
Droooooooooool !
-
so leadpig... who would you have go after and locate and target these terroists? The FBI? they can hardly even find a bigamist after 10 years... the CIA? please...
They can't even get the address correct here in the states... what makes you think they could bust down doors in pakistan and shoot the right guy?
lazs
-
send the dixie chicks to find them....or go and soak corks
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Here ya go Marine (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/) a list of those killed in 4 1/2 years. (for historical perspective, 6,825 were killed, 25,851 wounded in 36 days for some little airfield in the Pacific in '45)
There are over 25,000 casualties thus far from both theaters.
It's a fact the DOD has re-defined what they consider a death, or casualty, to be... which is different from the standard used at Iwo, and Nam.
Lets look up casualty in the dictionary, oh wait... "We don't do Webster's," said Jim Turner, a Pentagon spokesman. So apparently the .gov has a new definition of "casualty" thats better than some lame dictionary. As of Dec 05: 25,289 troops were evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan for "injuries or illnesses not caused directly by enemy bullets or bombs".
Under previous DOD definitions many of these would be casualties, according the the definition of the word (below), all of them are casualties... but hey, the Bush admin ignores the constitution, international laws and the will of the people... ignoring a dictionary is chump change.
The .gov had to re-define the word casualty, because they care about us... Websters definitions are too complected, so the .gov dumbed it down for the sake of the "understanding of the average newspaper reader." ( Link (http://www.birf.info/home/library/vet/vet-penta.html) )
Websters:
Casualty: a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment, or capture or through being missing in action b : a person or thing injured, lost, or destroyed
It's just another case of the .gov telling bold face lies, again, which is nothing new, and has become SOP for Bush. Imagine if Bush actually used a dictionary, there would be well over 25,289 official casualties thus far... but the truth would be a bad thing for the party, can't allow it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so leadpig... who would you have go after and locate and target these terroists? The FBI? they can hardly even find a bigamist after 10 years... the CIA? please...
They can't even get the address correct here in the states... what makes you think they could bust down doors in pakistan and shoot the right guy?
lazs
What makes you think the Army can ??
-
Nothing makes me think that unless they have boots on the ground and such a secure presence that the locals can trust them to provide security if they do snitch off the hated insurgents.
lazs
-
The Army will still keep getting foiled by these terrorist. Why... the element of surprise. The Army don't got it... the terrorists do. Doesn't matter how many boots are on the ground, they'll still keep setting off booby traps with them, .... and the terrorist will be at home having a beer laughing and watching their work on CNN.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
The Army will still keep getting foiled by these terrorist. Why... the element of surprise. The Army don't got it... the terrorists do. Doesn't matter how many boots are on the ground, they'll still keep setting off booby traps with them, .... and the terrorist will be at home having a beer laughing and watching their work on CNN.
Well the CIA certainly has the element of surprise!
-
Right now the Cia couldn't throw a surprise birthday party for themselves. But the CIA that butterfingered all that intelligence info has changed and they have learned from their mistakes. I believe with a little bit of time they can become a major counter terrorism intelligence force. There're already doing a good job warning and foiling attacks.
-
Perhaps you missed my sarcasm.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Websters:
Casualty: a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment, or capture or through being missing in action b : a person or thing injured, lost, or destroyed
It's just another case of the .gov telling bold face lies, again, which is nothing new, and has become SOP for Bush. Imagine if Bush actually used a dictionary, there would be well over 25,289 official casualties thus far... but the truth would be a bad thing for the party, can't allow it.
Sickness: Perhaps they wanted to differentiate between getting shot and catching the flu...
But you are right, the Pentagon is full of Liars... all lies... and then they have the nerve to agree with you!
Originally posted by x0847Marine
There are over 25,000 casualties thus far from both theaters.
The DOD as of 9/4/2007 says 27,767 WIA in Iraq. Those sons of ... wait they are saying the same number you are!
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Sickness: Perhaps they wanted to differentiate between getting shot and catching the flu...
But you are right, the Pentagon is full of Liars... all lies... and then they have the nerve to agree with you!
The DOD as of 9/4/2007 says 27,767 WIA in Iraq. Those sons of ... wait they are saying the same number you are!
Holden Mc Graw do you like seeing soldiers getting shot like ducks in a shooting gallery?? Do you like watching vietnam part II the movie ?? Do you remember anything about the Bush administration trying to cover up the photo of all those caskets? The way i see it, if Bush was a man he'd let people see the effects of his handiwork. But it appears from that and other incidents he's more interested in saving his own arnold at the expense of the soldier's. This administration is just as bad as Johnson and Mc Namara in the Vietnam error, except they were a little more purposeful with wasting soldiers lives. For example announcing a bombing raid a week in advance and letting airmen fly into a heavily fortified area to bomb what they knew were telephone poles made to look like Sams. This administration is just a little more like bungling, small minded, short sighted, idiots. I mean landing on an aircraft carrier and saying it's over, come on. I can forgive Bush though, the same way i can forgive a retarded person and have understanding. Too bad the soldiers have to pay for it though. Oh man right when we need Abraham Lincoln in office or someone with some common sense we get Gomer Pyle.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Holden Mc Graw do you like seeing soldiers ...
You don't have a clue do you?
We lost just shy of 60,000 in the ten years of Vietnam.
Our casulaties in 4+ years of Iraq are equal to about 8 months of Vietnam.
The point is that we have suffered many more casualties in previous wars without losing national resolve.
The 17,000 Union deaths in the few days of the battle of Wilderness, just a days ride from the White House, did not break the Union's resolve. 17,000 deaths out of a country that had only 15 million citizens. That's a single battle that took close to 1 out of 1,000 citizens. 1 out of every 500 men in this country.
With a country of 300,000,000 today, we would have to lose 300,000 men to suffer the same national wound, and yet Lincoln held firm, and the nation re-elected him.
While the loss to each family is horrible, history shows us that in Iraq we have suffered extremely light casualties.
-
leadpig = alarmist
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Our casulaties in 4+ years of Iraq are equal to about 8 months of Vietnam.
Compare the first 4 years of vietnam to the first 4 years of IRAQ, sir.
-
the problem you surrendermonkeys are really having is that the troops that you "support" with all your weeping and hand wringing....
Don't want your brand of support. they think they can get the job done and they want to stay.
Your idea of "support" is to stab em in the back...
Your idea of compassion is to run away and let the good people in iraq be enslaved and slaughtered.
I keep wondering... other than making bush and republicans look bad and saving the election for democrats and... giving the democrats more money to waste....
What good will running away do again?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the problem you surrendermonkeys are really having is that the troops that you "support" with all your weeping and hand wringing....
Don't want your brand of support. they think they can get the job done and they want to stay.
Your idea of "support" is to stab em in the back...
Your idea of compassion is to run away and let the good people in iraq be enslaved and slaughtered.
I keep wondering... other than making bush and republicans look bad and saving the election for democrats and... giving the democrats more money to waste....
What good will running away do again?
lazs
You guys use the same pat phrases all the time "surrender monkeys", "cut and run", bla bla bla..... Think of something better and more creative will you?? Neither of which i am btw if you read some of my earlier posts. We can't leave now the mess has been started. But if you think if we stay there for another 5 years, 6 years 10 years that that is going to wipe out terrorism you are seriously mistaken. You guys sound like little children sometimes ridiculing another kid because he's leaving and is too smart to play your game. Here's the point ... It's not worth it to continue doing something that is a flawed position in the beginning. I don't call that surrendoring, running whatever, i call it being smart. If somethings not worth it, attack it from a different angle, reconsider, make a different plan of action. But for god's sake don't keep beating you head into the wall. The reason Iraq will never work are these main points, i've covered many times. If you can't understand this i don't get it.
1. The U.S. Army is not anonymous, the terrorists are.
To continue down that road would be foolhardy.
2. The terrorist are way too hard to identify.
You could stay in Iraq for ten years and still not have an idea how, when and who your dealing with. Those are three of the most important answers for an army to know to be at all effective and not be just a target.
3. The people there hate us.
You can't be in a situation where your in a country of people who hate you and everywhere you turn, you don't know if someone is your friend or foe. The conventional army needs a starting line to base it's operations and attacks. In Iraq there isn't one. (Reminds me of another war)
4. The terrorist are not playing our game.
So why do we insist on playing our same game, gotta change it up and adapt to be successful. This does not mean spinning our wheels in Iraq forever. You must know who your enemy is to be able to aim at him and kill. Spraying aimlessly at who you think might be a terrorist ain't gonna do it.
The terrorists planting a road bomb and driving off only to have some hapless army unit drive over it 3 days later is not an effective or smart way to win a war. Neither is having Muhammed grab a RPG or AK, pop off a few rounds drop the gun and blend into the population as the soldiers stand around dumbfounded and dying while the terrorists keep ambushing them and the soldiers can't mount a major offensive a good idea. This keeps our army off balance. The middle east is so crazy those people will always either be too scared to identify him or either are quietly against us so they won't identify him a good idea. Us "surrender monkeys" think to keep doing so is ludicrous.
Vietnam was a waste of lives so is this. As juxtaposition WW2, the cival war was not. For the reason that those wars were fought against a readily identifiable enemy, for a logically achievable goal, who had tanks, aircraft, artillery soldiers, industry, etc. Our army is matched to fight those types of wars, not this. To keep our soldiers in Iraq getting slapped in the face by almost invisable terrorists for any longer than they have to, is a diservice too their service.
Too "surrender" to such a thing is not "surrender" in my book. It is smart and wise strategy. Any smart military commander knows that to keep soldiers in a muck and mire situation, is not a good and effective use of their efforts and retreat and surrender in lew of the formulation of a different plan to adapt to a situation is a good idea.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
leadpig = alarmist
Someone needs to be alarmed. To be a lemming running off the cliff with all the other lemmings is something i don't want to be.
-
so instead you read directly from the Democratic handbook?
Your statements are categorically false and show a lack of 'creativity' as you say.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the problem you surrendermonkeys are really having is that the troops that you "support" with all your weeping and hand wringing....
Don't want your brand of support. they think they can get the job done and they want to stay.
Your idea of "support" is to stab em in the back...
Your idea of compassion is to run away and let the good people in iraq be enslaved and slaughtered.
I keep wondering... other than making bush and republicans look bad and saving the election for democrats and... giving the democrats more money to waste....
What good will running away do again?
lazs
lazs, or should I say westmorlandmonkey, you sit on your fat arse in your cozy home and worry about how it will "look" if we leave IRAQ? We should have never been there in the first place. Same as Vietnam when all the Hawks kept talking about "preventive measures and cutting off communism in SE Asia". All it was, and turned out to be, was an unwinnable bloodbath that it had already been proven to be in '54.
To answer your last question in the above quote:
I wouldn't call finishing the job and getting the hell out of that god forbidden place running, but it might save thousands of mothers and fathers the eternal sadness of seeing the officer and chaplan's cars pull up in their driveway. The only problem is, noone who got us in there can tell us what finishing the job is, or when it will be accomplished. That kind of ambiguity is insulting to the soldiers, and families of the ones serving over there and smells of bad planning and poor foresight!
Oh, you can leave the political rhetoric out if you like, I can't stand either party.
-
leadpig has no idea what is going on in Iraq, all he knows is what CNN and MSNBC and the democrats have told him.
-
Originally posted by john9001
leadpig has no idea what is going on in Iraq, all he knows is what CNN and MSNBC and the democrats have told him.
Man you guys sure do worry about political affliations, what about the plan to win and get the soldiers home?
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
so instead you read directly from the Democratic handbook?
Your statements are categorically false and show a lack of 'creativity' as you say.
As for the first comment i don't get that, i didn't read out of any handbook.
I don't know if your implying that being democrat and reading out of that "handbook" is categorically wrong. To label anything as that is pretty small minded and not very imaginitive in thought. I don't believe thinking in any way is by definition wrong, just as i don't think viewing things from the right is wrong, i don't believe your opinion is necessarily wrong, we all hold a piece of the puzzle, but to label me and my opinion as that is quite arrogant not very understanding and not very open minded.
-
Originally posted by john9001
leadpig has no idea what is going on in Iraq, all he knows is what CNN and MSNBC and the democrats have told him.
John can you actually tell me that the things i've described happening in Iraq are not happening and that it is not alarming in any way?
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Man you guys sure do worry about political affliations, what about the plan to win and get the soldiers home?
Skyrock i also noticed that. Political affiliations don't mean a hill of beans difference. The only thing that matters is if we win, if this is gonna work and the soldiers.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
As for the first comment i don't get that, i didn't read out of any handbook.
I don't know if your implying that being democrat and reading out of that "handbook" is categorically wrong.
You read like you do not have any independent thought (that is an insult btw) and are reading from Hillary's cue cards. The irony of you using a lemming analogy I will not even attempt to explain.
Originally posted by LEADPIG
To label anything as that is pretty small minded and not very imaginitive in thought. I don't believe thinking in any way is by definition wrong, just as i don't think viewing things from the right is wrong, i don't believe your opinion is necessarily wrong, we all hold a piece of the puzzle, but to label me and my opinion as that is quite arrogant not very understanding and not very open minded.
These are the patently false statements that you made. It shows that you are not objectionably or reasonably regarding the situation. It also shows that you are willing to gloss over the issues using false logic and bleat your mantra over and over.
1. The U.S. Army is not anonymous, the terrorists are.
To continue down that road would be foolhardy.
If the terrorist are so anonymous then why are they getting killed?
2. The terrorist are way too hard to identify.
You could stay in Iraq for ten years and still not have an idea how, when and who your dealing with. Those are three of the most important answers for an army to know to be at all effective and not be just a target.
See answer for number one. It would probably take a lot less than 10 years before enough terrorists are killed that the others might rethink being a terrorist.
3. The people there hate us.
You can't be in a situation where your in a country of people who hate you and everywhere you turn, you don't know if someone is your friend or foe. The conventional army needs a starting line to base it's operations and attacks. In Iraq there isn't one. (Reminds me of another war)
[sarcasm]I'm glad you speak for every single person in a foreign land[/sarcasm]
Really, where do you get your information? Are you reading Hillary's diary?
4. The terrorist are not playing our game.
The only game being played is you.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Skyrock i also noticed that. Political affiliations don't mean a hill of beans difference. The only thing that matters is if we win, if this is gonna work and the soldiers.
Keep bleating just like all the other sheep that listen to Hillary and Sean Penn.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Keep bleating just like all the other sheep that listen to Hillary and Sean Penn.
I've heard this one a million times, anyone who has an aversion to the war is whining. Make something else up will you, you sound like all the other right wing sheep
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
You read like you do not have any independent thought (that is an insult btw) and are reading from Hillary's cue cards. The irony of you using a lemming analogy I will not even attempt to explain.
The fact that you can't state your point and respect someone elses point without being insulting shows what an idiot you are. Make an intelligent comment to me without being a small man, and i'll respect it, otherwise leave me alone.
These are the patently false statements that you made. It shows that you are not objectionably or reasonably regarding the situation. It also shows that you are willing to gloss over the issues using false logic and bleat your mantra over and over.
If the terrorist are so anonymous then why are they getting killed?
The large majority are anoymously setting booby traps and fighting by guerilla means, most of them are gettng away unscathed. The ones that die are the ones that directly oppose U.S. troops, or are hunted down like deer, alot of that amounts to snipe hunting. Not a very large number to effectively neutralize all the terrorist *******s in the world. The guy at the traffic light next to you could be a terrorist you wouldn't know till he killed you however.
It would probably take alot less than years before enough terrorists are killed that the others might rethink being a terrorist.
It probably will take alot less than ten years. I was being sarcastic. You still won't neautralize them though.
You really think these people are gonna rethink being terrorist huh? People that are suicidal??? Are you kidding me man.
Really, where do you get your information? Are you reading Hillary's diary?
You really think the people there generally like us and want us there huh? Are you that full of yourself that you think they really want us there?
The only game being played is you.
The terrorist are playing games with us. The soldiers are not engaging them properly, they're dieing because of it and because of people like who can't understand that simple concept sad...
Another thing stop telling me what i think about Hillary. Your so arrogant you seem to know more about what i think than i do. I do not believe in Hillary she's a dishwrag. I'm voting McCain so far. I guess i'd be voting for him if i was the "surrender monkey" Bleating sheep", you say i am??
Another thing..are you reading those names out of the right wing book of catchprases?
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Keep bleating just like all the other sheep that listen to Hillary and Sean Penn.
Make up a some different propoganda phrases. As usual anyone who is against the war is a "Whiner", Surrendormonkey" Unpatriotic". Please stop using these unimaginative, generalizing labels.
Also stop putting words in my mouth as to who i support and what i believe. I guess you are arrogant enough to do so. I do not support Hillary or Sean Penn.
Also since your so convinced Iraq will work why don't you go over there and help if you think that will make a difference. If you have, i'm sorry, i was working on bringing you home and avoiding that terrible situation, but my vote didn't work last time.
-
Would you care to quote and reply for a third time?
Come one, let that hamster wheel spin! You'll think of something good in another thirty minutes!
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Would you care to quote and reply for a third time?
Come one, let that hamster wheel spin! You'll think of something good in another thirty minutes!
Don't mind what i do. I'll quote as many times as i wish. Another thing.. who keeps responding to me.
-
skyrock... with over 70 hours a month playing AH.... I would say your butt is probly the fatter of us two's.
westmoreland? No... more like abrams. you need to read sorleys "A better war' to get some perspective on westmoreland vs Abrams.
The Abrams method will work... but.. again, I ask..
What is your solution to iraq? how will surrendering help anyone anywhere except islamofacists?
And.. how is doing the opposite of what the generals and the troops want us to do "supporting the troops"?
It is easy to criticize... I am failing to see any solutions here tho. Moray had some laughable soudbites...
Perhaps you can do better?
lazs
-
Keep thinking leadpig, you'll think of some witty quip eventually!!1
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
I'm voting McCain so far.
If he got elected, and managed to serve 2 terms, he'd be 80 years old when his term was over.
Wow that's old. :O
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock.
how will surrendering help anyone anywhere except islamofacists?
And.. how is doing the opposite of what the generals and the troops want us to do "supporting the troops"?
lazs
For one, I do not condone surrendering, as we have no land that is ours over there to surrender, so stop with the twisting.
Secondly, I am not sure where you are getting that the troops want us to stay over there, I mean I can understand that they do not want it to look like a defeat but every single person I know that has been over there does not want to go back and tells me it is FUBAR over there. Just today a soldier was quoted, "We're hoping what we're doing here is helping keep them on our side, rather than have them go into full-blown chaos," and one quoted, "They don't understand what it is [like] driving down the road and to wonder if you are going to get blown up or not", and my personal friend told me, "The first time I was there was when we entered the capital and we felt good, the second time I was there, it was like totally different place with the constant threat of roadside bombs, evey minute of every day when you're moving, you wonder is this the moment I get blown up." Lazs, it has always been that war creates a certain psychological dependancy on continuing the war. For example, if soldiers have to pull out of an area, they feel a great sense of loss, because of the blood sweat and tears and lives lost. So at what point does the cost not equal the outcome??? Are we staying so that the IRAQi's can have a democratic government? I would say that is impossible. Are we staying so that we can save face? We should already know better than that.
If we could take a poll from soldiers serving there now, as to who would like to go home, what do you think the majority of answers would be? The middle east is a screwed up place. Islamic fundamentalists are screwed up people. There is not much hope beyond nuking the entire country for a lasting peace there, and that is not realistic. I believe firmly that having troops on the ground will deter us from our long term goals in fighting terrorists. I believe that we should secure our borders and fight them from an intellegence standpoint. Assasinations, kidnappings, and whatever else it takes covertly to accomplish our intellegence gathering is the only way to go with these pukes. Fight fire with fire! It has worked for the Isreali's for decades. :aok
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Compare the first 4 years of vietnam to the first 4 years of IRAQ, sir.
Yet another who doesn't know his history.
Vietnam War 1964-1975
1964 206
1965 1,863
1966 6,144
1967 11,153
first four years 19,366
Of course, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed in August 1964, so to be fair, only 1/3 of 1964's casualties should be counted.
But then we have to add 2/3 of the 16,589 who were killed in 1968.
You weren't going to count the years since '57 when we had nowhere near the force strength to be comparable to that which we have in Iraq....
were you?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Yet another who doesn't know his history.
Vietnam War 1964-1975
1964 206
1965 1,863
1966 6,144
1967 11,153
first four years 19,366
Of course, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed in August 1964, so to be fair, only 1/3 of 1964's casualties should be counted.
But then we have to add 2/3 of the 16,589 who were killed in 1968.
You weren't going to count the years since '57 when we had nowhere near the force strength to be comparable to that which we have in Iraq....
were you?
I wonder when skyrocks gonna stop debating ya and start with the insults?
-
So far me and Skyrock are the ones getting called stupid.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
So far me and Skyrock are the ones getting called stupid.
well, forrest gump said.........................
-
I knew it !!!!!!:confused: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
So far me and Skyrock are the ones getting called stupid.
I didn't refer to you LP. I don't agree with your positions but skyrock doesn't debate he simply resorts to insults when things don't go his way.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
So far me and Skyrock are the ones getting called stupid.
It's Skyrock and I
;)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It's Skyrock and I
;)
alright SA. ;)
-
Originally posted by Tango
I wonder when skyrocks gonna stop debating ya and start with the insults?
when he says something along the lines of......the democrats arethe cause of all ills of the world......when we are discussing a situation that involves all americans!:aok
-
Originally posted by Tango
I didn't refer to you LP. I don't agree with your positions but skyrock doesn't debate he simply resorts to insults when things don't go his way.
lie some more, you brought up dems of the past when we were discussing IRAQ today. Now, if you want to anklehump me in the O'club, go ahead Im used to it!:aok
-
skyrock... if you took a poll of anyone who was working and asked em if the would rather be home... I bet you would get the "I'd rather be home"
If you asked the troops if we should be there and if we are doing good and should we stay.. that would be entirely different.
But... you have not answered the question at all.... what good would having our last plane out shot at do? what good would abandoning the iraqis and letting the region go to the terrorists do? what good would come of not having boots on the ground? of leaving before sufficeient iraqi troops were trained.
you have no answer... you only want to leave because...well... who knows? you won't answer. You say we can then fight them like the jews do? You do see the difference tho right? they are a little closer to the problem right? more like "boots on the ground"?
I have told you that to send smart bombs or groups of special forces would not work.. that the new york times and cnn would be calling us murdering barbarians every day... worse than now even..
you simply have no solution... you can only criticize... and then... only with soundbites and in almost unreadable blocks of text.
I have talked to dozens of soldiers who have been there.. some for two or more tours and that is where I get my opinion... I have listened to Petraeus the last two days...
I have heard you claim that I need to get off my fat butt while you rack up 70 hours a month playing AH. But then...you are simply improving your hand and eye co-ordination so that.... someday... if you ever decide to go outside... you will be a wiz at all sorts of sports and skilzzz.
lazs
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Let me guess you guys like the idea of soldiers dieing in something, which was in a state of diminishing returns from whence it started. You guys like soldiers being sent into battle with their hands tied behind their backs, and sent on a wild goose chase looking for terrorist in a land from whence you can't distinguish the enemy untill after THEY have attacked the troops. That's a mighty bad way to win anything. Say it ain't so. :eek:
Have you been to Afghanistan or Iraq? If not then you need to shut your pie hole. Our hands are not tied behind our backs, we were not sent into battle simply to die. I will admit, there have been some mistakes made in our mission planning, but a good number of the people over in Iraq and Afghanistan are glad we are there.
The people over there have had to live though oppression, torture and fear. Until you have seen these horrors with your own two eyes and have had boots on the ground I would suggest you stop talking over your pay grade.
The fact you used a celebrity as your ammo tells me you are a beer or two short of a six pack. Celebrities live in a box. They are artist. They see the world differently. For most of them everything is neat and clean. All the worlds questions have answers. All the worlds illnesses have cures. Those of us who reside in the real world know not every question has an answer and not everyone can be saved. It is the way of life.
So please get off the ride and join us in the real world. I am not saying you can't or shouldn't be anti-war. Just have some clue about what it is you are talking about before you go spouting off nonsense and making yourself look like a *******. For the record.
-CW2 J. Wells
D-1/7 Aircav
US Army
AKA: Spot
-
Bravo BBBB!
Well said (or typed) mate!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
1. you have no answer... you only want to leave because...well... who knows?
2. I have told you that to send smart bombs or groups of special forces would not work.. that the new york times and cnn would be calling us murdering barbarians every day... worse than now even..
3. you simply have no solution...
4. I have talked to dozens of soldiers who have been there.. some for two or more tours and that is where I get my opinion...
5. I have heard you claim that I need to get off my fat butt while you rack up 70 hours a month playing AH. But then...you are simply improving your hand and eye co-ordination so that.... someday... if you ever decide to go outside... you will be a wiz at all sorts of sports and skilzzz.
lazs
1. I haven't voiced my opinion about this thing much in the last 4 years to anyone. I was giving it time. There has been time, and the only thing that will save that mess, is to have some form of government in place and a police/army under its control. That looks like it will not happen, or at least it hasn't happened yet, this is from Crocker. I do not have to give an answer, it is not my job to make policy for the united states in IRAQ, it is my job as a citizen to question my government when it sends our troops into an area without a good plan for success.
2. see webster's- covert
3. Again, it is not my job to make US policy for IRAQ, it is my job to question my government when it sends troops into harms way without a plan for success.
4. The soldiers I have talked to call it a hellhole with no winnable solution, although they are proud of what they did over there, they do not see it in a positive light like you have described. Not one I know wants to go back, basically saying to me that they feel very vulnerable ("like sitting gucks")and cannot trust any IRAQi's they see on the street.
5. Sorry if I touched a nerve with the fatarse statement. I apologize.
-
skyrock... again... you have no answer. Sooo... so far as you know... we are doing the best thing we can do right now.. so far as you know Petreaus is doing the best job that can be done. you have set a personal timetable and now you think.... what? what do you think?
Covert? pull all the troops out and do it all covert? covert without a base of operations and support is jimmy carter sending in the troops for the iran hostage rescue... name any country who has success with large scale covert operations of this scale... silly...
covert is a non answer.
So what DO you want? you are either unable or unwilling to say.. that is what bothers me.. "pull all the troops out" is not a solution... I say it will cause uspeakable carnage and... well.. who gives a crap about "face"... it is not loss of face that it will cause so much as embolden terrorists... all they got to do is survive 4 years or so and "americans" like skyrock and ledpig will fold like a cheap card table under a fat lady and abandon their troops and generals.
you don't have to defeat the Americans soldier..the troops... you just have to defeat the likes of skyrock and ledpig...
BBBB sounds exactly like the soldiers I talk to.... maybe they are not in the vast majority as they claim but how is your info any better? I don't think the likes of BBBB feel any real "support" from you guys.
As for the fat butt thing... I was not offended... how could I be at 6' and 180 and being called too skinny all my life... I just thought it ironic that someone who spent so much time in AH would call anyone a fat butt.
lazs
-
BBBB
:aok
-
Originally posted by BBBB
Have you been to Afghanistan or Iraq? If not then you need to shut your pie hole. Our hands are not tied behind our backs, we were not sent into battle simply to die. I will admit, there have been some mistakes made in our mission planning, but a good number of the people over in Iraq and Afghanistan are glad we are there.
The people over there have had to live though oppression, torture and fear. Until you have seen these horrors with your own two eyes and have had boots on the ground I would suggest you stop talking over your pay grade.
The fact you used a celebrity as your ammo tells me you are a beer or two short of a six pack. Celebrities live in a box. They are artist. They see the world differently. For most of them everything is neat and clean. All the worlds questions have answers. All the worlds illnesses have cures. Those of us who reside in the real world know not every question has an answer and not everyone can be saved. It is the way of life.
So please get off the ride and join us in the real world. I am not saying you can't or shouldn't be anti-war. Just have some clue about what it is you are talking about before you go spouting off nonsense and making yourself look like a *******. For the record.
-CW2 J. Wells
D-1/7 Aircav
US Army
AKA: Spot
First off buddy you don't have to jump off a bridge or take drugs to know your gonna die, so don't gimme that, you haven't been there line. Your hands are very well tied behind your backs because the terrorist have quite a bit of an advantage in where they're fighting, and knowing who there fighting. It's mighty hard for soldiers to identify who's going to kill them when they're wearing jeans, and t-shirts like everyone else. If you don't get that fact then your an idiot. Another thing, it is not our business as Americans to go anywhere and clean up anyone else's mess for them. So i don't care what atrocities are going on over there it's not our problem. America and it's army is not the world's police force, it is to be used for America's protection of land people and resources. Also if you think i'm suggesting that the Dixie Chicks should be president your talking above your pay grade because you obviously lack the intelligence to tell sarcasm when you see it. (I've explaned this for the seventh time so you obviously need to listen instead of telling everbody else what their opinions and motives are, arrogance and ignorance cause that.) To counter your opinons about what the soldiers think i've heard many of them tell me it was fubar and it really dosen't matter what they think because a good soldier raises his hand in salute and goes on and follows orders. I'm more concerned with what their leaders think because they're the ones leading them. If you don't think i know what i'm talking about then your quite a bit fubar'ed, all of the things i've mentioned are happening in varying degrees along with the positive things, the media is reporting alot of the negatives, but all you have to do is have eyes and ears in this world to smell what's going on. As far as me sounding like a democratic soundbite you sound like a rebublican ventriliquist dummy and i wonder just which orrifice "The Elephant" has his hand stuck up anyway. Oh, perhaps he should stick it in your piehole as you so eloquently said.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It's Skyrock and I
;)
Maybe you should wipe your mouth with toilet paper, your brain is running diarhea... Holding My Groin
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock... again... you have no answer. Sooo... so far as you know... we are doing the best thing we can do right now.. so far as you know Petreaus is doing the best job that can be done. you have set a personal timetable and now you think.... what? what do you think?
Covert? pull all the troops out and do it all covert? covert without a base of operations and support is jimmy carter sending in the troops for the iran hostage rescue... name any country who has success with large scale covert operations of this scale... silly...
covert is a non answer.
So what DO you want? you are either unable or unwilling to say.. that is what bothers me.. "pull all the troops out" is not a solution... I say it will cause uspeakable carnage and... well.. who gives a crap about "face"... it is not loss of face that it will cause so much as embolden terrorists... all they got to do is survive 4 years or so and "americans" like skyrock and ledpig will fold like a cheap card table under a fat lady and abandon their troops and generals.
you don't have to defeat the Americans soldier..the troops... you just have to defeat the likes of skyrock and ledpig...
BBBB sounds exactly like the soldiers I talk to.... maybe they are not in the vast majority as they claim but how is your info any better? I don't think the likes of BBBB feel any real "support" from you guys.
As for the fat butt thing... I was not offended... how could I be at 6' and 180 and being called too skinny all my life... I just thought it ironic that someone who spent so much time in AH would call anyone a fat butt.
lazs
What I don't understand is that you don't quite get it that majority of americans want out of IRAQ, they don't like the way our boys are getting killed. We're policing the country when that is not our job and noone would have agreed to go in if this is what they knew would have been the outcome. Until we showed up, there was nothing in IRAQ worth any value in our war on terror. There were many, many other targets that needed taken out first, but somehow we are in IRAQ policing a state. Because of that blunder we are put in a precarious position where there are not many good outcomes.
Now, I actually do not think pulling all the troops out is a good idea. I know that we have to do it very intellegently and need an objective to be accomplished so that we leave having attained the objective. If the objective is to have a democratically run government, the future does not look good for that being accomplished. Maybe once we reach a magic number of trained IRAQi troops and police, then we can leave as winners. Like I said, it's not my job to have a solution as I am not a policy maker, it is my right to question my government though. :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock... again... you have no answer. Sooo... so far as you know... we are doing the best thing we can do right now.. so far as you know Petreaus is doing the best job that can be done. you have set a personal timetable and now you think.... what? what do you think?
Covert? pull all the troops out and do it all covert? covert without a base of operations and support is jimmy carter sending in the troops for the iran hostage rescue... name any country who has success with large scale covert operations of this scale... silly...
covert is a non answer.
So what DO you want? you are either unable or unwilling to say.. that is what bothers me.. "pull all the troops out" is not a solution... I say it will cause uspeakable carnage and... well.. who gives a crap about "face"... it is not loss of face that it will cause so much as embolden terrorists... all they got to do is survive 4 years or so and "americans" like skyrock and ledpig will fold like a cheap card table under a fat lady and abandon their troops and generals.
you don't have to defeat the Americans soldier..the troops... you just have to defeat the likes of skyrock and ledpig...
BBBB sounds exactly like the soldiers I talk to.... maybe they are not in the vast majority as they claim but how is your info any better? I don't think the likes of BBBB feel any real "support" from you guys.
As for the fat butt thing... I was not offended... how could I be at 6' and 180 and being called too skinny all my life... I just thought it ironic that someone who spent so much time in AH would call anyone a fat butt.
lazs
You can't pull the troops out now Lasz it's already done, the ****s hit the fan. But i'd like to not see them grinding in that religious, sectarian, hate fueled, cess pool any longer than they have too. Too do so would be like fighting the hurricane fron the eye of the storm. I'd rather fly weather watcher aircraft through it to spy on what thier doing and screw them up from the inside. Terrorist are sneaky, and they need to be fought that way. To come at them the way we been coming amounts to trying to beat a train across the tracks and hoping you won't get hurt in a good way. You sound like the guys who insist the drug war is going along nicely, arresting addicts on the street and small time sellers. You need to go after the drug lords themselves and disrupt teir operations and the profitability for what their doing. So keep putting a band-aid on it in Iraq if you want, go ahead die if you want to, see if it helps.
-
leadpig and skyrock, spokesmen for al qaeda. :lol
-
Originally posted by john9001
leadpig and skyrock, spokesmen for al qaeda. :lol
Your moronic idiocy in realizing the dynamics of a ever pervading, rote, monotonous, rhetorical, sitution we are currently in, in Iraq is helping them more.
Another thing don't asume or imply that i support Al Queida, keep it for yourself. Speak for yourself and please make a point to me about what you believe or think before you pick apart my statements and throw words in my mouth, which is all you seem to do. Make a point or go home.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Maybe you should wipe your mouth with toilet paper, your brain is running diarhea... Holding My Groin
So you think that, "So far me is the one getting called stupid." is correct?
Or maybe you can't take a joke, or you like posting when you have nothing to say?
-
leadpig, you can call me all the names you want, i am not going away.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So you think that, "So far me is the one getting called stupid." is correct?
Or maybe you can't take a joke, or you like posting when you have nothing to say?
Speak and you shall get spoken to the way you spoke in the beginning. If you and John were making jokes however i honestly apologize. It is hard to tell implied statements over the internet without facial gestures, body postures and speach inflections. So if you were kidding i am sorry Sir. S!
-
Originally posted by john9001
leadpig has no idea what is going on in Iraq, all he knows is what CNN and MSNBC and the democrats have told him.
I've never been to iraq. I don't know what's going on there. You don't know what's going on there either. My buddy, who left both his legs there, knows what's going on in iraq. His exact word.. "Quagmire." I'll go along with his opinion.
Also, the woundings of our soldiers there are going horrendously under- reported. Straight from someone who just got back.
-
Originally posted by BBBB
Have you been to Afghanistan or Iraq? If not then you need to shut your pie hole. Our hands are not tied behind our backs, we were not sent into battle simply to die. I will admit, there have been some mistakes made in our mission planning, but a good number of the people over in Iraq and Afghanistan are glad we are there.
The people over there have had to live though oppression, torture and fear. Until you have seen these horrors with your own two eyes and have had boots on the ground I would suggest you stop talking over your pay grade.
The fact you used a celebrity as your ammo tells me you are a beer or two short of a six pack. Celebrities live in a box. They are artist. They see the world differently. For most of them everything is neat and clean. All the worlds questions have answers. All the worlds illnesses have cures. Those of us who reside in the real world know not every question has an answer and not everyone can be saved. It is the way of life.
So please get off the ride and join us in the real world. I am not saying you can't or shouldn't be anti-war. Just have some clue about what it is you are talking about before you go spouting off nonsense and making yourself look like a *******. For the record.
-CW2 J. Wells
D-1/7 Aircav
US Army
AKA: Spot
I'm not leadpig, but I will step in for my own opinion, sir.
Sir, your service is your own, as mine was. I commend you for it. I do not, however, commend you for your stature on the issues. You have every right to feel however you want about Iraq. I personally have not been there and do not speak from personal experience. I speak from the position of listening to a very close friend who narrowly escaped coming back in a flag draped box, for the price of his legs.
You were NOT sent to Iraq to help people under an oppressive government. There are literally a hundred governments on the planet that could be termed oppressive. YOU, sir, were sent to war on the ideology that Saddam Hussein was developing an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that represented a possible threat to the mainland. You, sir, helped execute that war with precision and with an incredible degree of success, in a short ground campaign. We know this pretense was FALSE from the beginning now, that WE WERE LIED TO. YOU, sir, deserve to come home now. YOU are a member of an army, sir, NOT A DAMN NATION BUILDING consortium. If that were the case, you'd have been deployed to Sudan, Darfur, Oman and many other sub saharan african nations that were a hell of alot more oppressed than that that was IRAQ.
Sir, you have been mislead. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The men that did, WE LET THEM GO. Now we are rattling the saber with Iran.... a nation we've been meddling with since 1953 when the CIA subjugated the government there. It's all BS, and you aren't making anything any better by being there.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
lie some more, you brought up dems of the past when we were discussing IRAQ today. Now, if you want to anklehump me in the O'club, go ahead Im used to it!:aok
THIS is the last post I made when you stopped debating and started making insults.
Originally posted by Tango
1 - So attacking our planes that were patroling the no-fly zone is not an act of war? That in itself is reason enough to end the cease fire. WMDs or not.
2 - Saddam wanted nothing more than more power and oil. He proved that by invading Kuwait. He was a threat to our Allies over there. Kuwaitis celebrating after we invaded and defeated his army proved that. Not to mention his own people. I have a nephew who spent a tour in Northern Iraq with the Kurds and he said they are extremely gratful to us.
3 - Yes, he was supporting terrorism. He was giving money to Palestinian suicide bombers families who were killing innocent people in Israel. Israel is one of our closest allies in the ME. Reports dating back to the Clinton administration even were saying that he was and that he was looking for and striving for nukes. Why the anti-war activists seem to forget this to put the blame on Bush saying HE lied and was simply looking for an excuse to go into Iraq baffles me. The attacks on our air patrols would have been enough excuse to end the cease fire if that was true. With the info he had [which goes back several years BEFORE he was even in office] showed that there was evidence. There was even an Iraqi general who defected that stated this as well.
Where in there did I say anything about Democrats of the past. The only thing I see that you may take offense to is "anti-war activists". So continue with the insults if you want but atleast get the facts straight.
At least LP carries on the debate and doesn't make insults until he is insulted. :aok
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Speak and you shall get spoken to the way you spoke in the beginning. If you and John were making jokes however i honestly apologize. It is hard to tell implied statements over the internet without facial gestures, body postures and speach inflections. So if you were kidding i am sorry Sir. S!
i was not making jokes, SIR.
-
I love how some of you here think you know my mission and what I am supposed to be doing over in the box. This war in Iraq is a two fold operation. The first part of the mission was to remove Saddam from power, to arrest him and his officials who have committed atrocities against his own people. The second part is underway, support the Iraq people, until they can get a solid military and govt in place.
I am not going to argue schematics with you, over why we went to war in the first place. The bottom line is this. Saddam was an evil dictator. He had ties with terrorist groups (This has been well documented). With our war on terror going on Saddam was a threat to the mission. He has said in the past he would harbor terrorist and we have said that any country that harbors terrorist is our enemy.
We got Saddam. Mission complete. However, if we just up and left the country as it is now..our kids would have to go over there yet again to put out another fire. The situation in Iraq is like a rotting tooth, if you stand by and do nothing it will get worse and worse. This is a situation that was going to have to be dealt with at some point. I would rather deal with it now, so my son doesn't have to later.
I have no problem with people being for or against the war. I have been there, twice. I have seen with my own eyeballs, the good that has come out of our presence over there. There for, I choose to support the war. Not as a soldier, but as an American.
You can say you are against the war, that the war is wrong, that it is unjust, yadda, yadda, yadda. Better men and women than you, have fallen to protect that right. However, I will not stand by and allow someone to stand on a soap box and share a message, when that message is nothing more than nonsensical rhetoric and banter. You screaming the sky is falling and and saying we are doing things all wrong is pointless if you offer no viable solution to make the situation better.
People like you think the world just fits together like a puzzle. It does not. Things are not always black and white, night and day, left and right. Sometimes lines get blurred. Sometimes blunders happen. Sometimes amazing things happen and sometimes nothing happens. It is the way life works.
You keep claiming you talked to these troops and they told you this and that. So are your saying prior to your talking to them you were objective and fair about the war in Iraq? That you sat on the fence about the Iraq war? My bet is you did not. My bet is you were against the war from the start. So when a soldier shares with you that he was scared, that they were worried about how things were going, you took that and ran with it as blunder.
Well here is a news flash. Everyone in the box is scared. I was scared. Everyone in a war zone is scared, because in a war zone anything you do can get you killed..including doing nothing. You are always worried about making the right choices. You are always worried about the upper brass making a mistake, the same way most hard working citizens worry about their boss or manager screwing up something they are working on. The difference here is, when our bosses screw up people get hurt or killed. That is what you worry about.
Be objective, be fair, be skeptical, but above all be supportive.
-Spot
-
Originally posted by BBBB
I love how some of you here think you know my mission and what I am supposed to be doing over in the box. This war in Iraq is a two fold operation. The first part of the mission was to remove Saddam from power, to arrest him and his officials who have committed atrocities against his own people. The second part is underway, support the Iraq people, until they can get a solid military and govt in place.
I am not going to argue schematics with you, over why we went to war in the first place. The bottom line is this. Saddam was an evil dictator. He had ties with terrorist groups (This has been well documented). With our war on terror going on Saddam was a threat to the mission. He has said in the past he would harbor terrorist and we have said that any country that harbors terrorist is our enemy.
We got Saddam. Mission complete. However, if we just up and left the country as it is now..our kids would have to go over there yet again to put out another fire. The situation in Iraq is like a rotting tooth, if you stand by and do nothing it will get worse and worse. This is a situation that was going to have to be dealt with at some point. I would rather deal with it now, so my son doesn't have to later.
I have no problem with people being for or against the war. I have been there, twice. I have seen with my own eyeballs, the good that has come out of our presence over there. There for, I choose to support the war. Not as a soldier, but as an American.
You can say you are against the war, that the war is wrong, that it is unjust, yadda, yadda, yadda. Better men and women than you, have fallen to protect that right. However, I will not stand by and allow someone to stand on a soap box and share a message, when that message is nothing more than nonsensical rhetoric and banter. You screaming the sky is falling and and saying we are doing things all wrong is pointless if you offer no viable solution to make the situation better.
People like you think the world just fits together like a puzzle. It does not. Things are not always black and white, night and day, left and right. Sometimes lines get blurred. Sometimes blunders happen. Sometimes amazing things happen and sometimes nothing happens. It is the way life works.
You keep claiming you talked to these troops and they told you this and that. So are your saying prior to your talking to them you were objective and fair about the war in Iraq? That you sat on the fence about the Iraq war? My bet is you did not. My bet is you were against the war from the start. So when a soldier shares with you that he was scared, that they were worried about how things were going, you took that and ran with it as blunder.
Well here is a news flash. Everyone in the box is scared. I was scared. Everyone in a war zone is scared, because in a war zone anything you do can get you killed..including doing nothing. You are always worried about making the right choices. You are always worried about the upper brass making a mistake, the same way most hard working citizens worry about their boss or manager screwing up something they are working on. The difference here is, when our bosses screw up people get hurt or killed. That is what you worry about.
Be objective, be fair, be skeptical, but above all be supportive.
-Spot
that could be one of the only 5 posts on this thread that show some intelligence on the part of the poster. Good work.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
It is hard to tell implied statements over the internet without facial gestures, body postures and speach inflections.
That's the point of these little thingys: :) :( :eek: :confused: :lol :aok :huh :O :t
and when I corrected your grammar, I used the winky ;) thingy.
-
your name would be funnier if it were "Pat MacRoin"
-
Originally posted by john9001
leadpig and skyrock, spokesmen for al qaeda. :lol
Before we invaded, al qaeda non existent in IRAQ! Now, instability in the region and Iran setting up to takeover.
I would rather be seen as a spokesman for securing our borders and hunting terrorists through different tactics.:aok
-
Originally posted by BBBB
I love how some of you here think you know my mission and what I am supposed to be doing over in the box. This war in Iraq is a two fold operation. The first part of the mission was to remove Saddam from power, to arrest him and his officials who have committed atrocities against his own people. The second part is underway, support the Iraq people, until they can get a solid military and govt in place.
I am not going to argue schematics with you, over why we went to war in the first place. The bottom line is this. Saddam was an evil dictator. He had ties with terrorist groups (This has been well documented). With our war on terror going on Saddam was a threat to the mission. He has said in the past he would harbor terrorist and we have said that any country that harbors terrorist is our enemy.
We got Saddam. Mission complete. However, if we just up and left the country as it is now..our kids would have to go over there yet again to put out another fire. The situation in Iraq is like a rotting tooth, if you stand by and do nothing it will get worse and worse. This is a situation that was going to have to be dealt with at some point. I would rather deal with it now, so my son doesn't have to later.
I have no problem with people being for or against the war. I have been there, twice. I have seen with my own eyeballs, the good that has come out of our presence over there. There for, I choose to support the war. Not as a soldier, but as an American.
You can say you are against the war, that the war is wrong, that it is unjust, yadda, yadda, yadda. Better men and women than you, have fallen to protect that right. However, I will not stand by and allow someone to stand on a soap box and share a message, when that message is nothing more than nonsensical rhetoric and banter. You screaming the sky is falling and and saying we are doing things all wrong is pointless if you offer no viable solution to make the situation better.
People like you think the world just fits together like a puzzle. It does not. Things are not always black and white, night and day, left and right. Sometimes lines get blurred. Sometimes blunders happen. Sometimes amazing things happen and sometimes nothing happens. It is the way life works.
You keep claiming you talked to these troops and they told you this and that. So are your saying prior to your talking to them you were objective and fair about the war in Iraq? That you sat on the fence about the Iraq war? My bet is you did not. My bet is you were against the war from the start. So when a soldier shares with you that he was scared, that they were worried about how things were going, you took that and ran with it as blunder.
Well here is a news flash. Everyone in the box is scared. I was scared. Everyone in a war zone is scared, because in a war zone anything you do can get you killed..including doing nothing. You are always worried about making the right choices. You are always worried about the upper brass making a mistake, the same way most hard working citizens worry about their boss or manager screwing up something they are working on. The difference here is, when our bosses screw up people get hurt or killed. That is what you worry about.
Be objective, be fair, be skeptical, but above all be supportive.
-Spot
You said a few things that made sense, but you said many things that are insulting to me as a citizen. I am a public servant. I am educated man and although I have not served militarily, my family has spilled more than it share of blood for this country.
The reason why you have not heard a solution, is because there is none. To destabilize IRAQ, such as this war has done, is a great blunder to the world. Now there is no solution accept escalation of conventional warfare. Most likely with IRAN and possibly with several others at the same time. Sadam was a bad guy, no doubt about it, but they are abundant on this planet, and we do not have the manpower or the money to go around the world and remove them and rebuild their countries. It is sad that we as a nation were put into this situation by our leaders and it will be families like yours and mine that will have to pay for the arrogance of this move with our blood and money.
I would like to have seen the everyday living improve in IRAQ. You have been there, do they have plumbing? Do they have electricity? Do they have security on their streets? These are the things that are important to people. We need to help them get these things so that they will have something that will be worth defending. Restoring these basic fundamental modern needs should be prority one right now.
I have no doubt that our intentions are good, but we still have to deal with what this war is costing us, and what it will cost us in the future. It was not a well planned idea and you and I and our children will be paying for it for a long time.
I must say that I am proud of what our soldiers, and yourself have accomplished in IRAQ. It is valliant, courageous, and ultimately good. I understand fully that the american soldiers who are serving over there are the most compassionate soldiers in the world. They are the bravest and most sacrificing in the world. Their heart is in the right place.
I salute your service! <>
Mark
-
Originally posted by C(Sea)Bass
that could be one of the only 5 posts on this thread that show some intelligence on the part of the poster. Good work.
I agree that was one of the better posts on this whole meandering mess about a mess. I'm sorry he had to go there, once is enough. I tried to convince a couple of people i met to not go there and enlist and get involved in this. I didn't want to see them waste their lives. They had this crazy idea that it was the brave thing to do, the dutiful thing to do. I said don't pledge your duty to an administration and leadership that is failing you. That changed it's motives for why, what and how it's doing things constantly. That speaks to me that they don't know what they're doing. It's not the soldiers fault it's the administratrion that assigns them. Nothing we can do now, i tried to change this by not voting for him last time, and getting more troops killed and wounded. Supporting the troops does not mean blindly standing by and watching our government kill them. It does not mean blindly standing by and watching our government beat our soldiers head into a wall repeatedly. To see our government doing that extremely pisses me off. This is not something to sign up for, if any war was it was WW2. I'd sign up for that. It was army against army, nation against nation, good guy against the clearly seen bad guy. Not good guy against " That guy over there that could be a terrorist, i can't tell because he's wearing street clothes so i can't engage, don't want to upset the locals, so i gotta keep it PC. The soldiers are imerged in a land of enemies against the enemies, how you identify the bad guys to kill them at enough of a percentage to create massive and lethal destruction and an end to this war i don't know. I really wish BBB would explain it too me. That is not a tacticully good and intelligent use of our army. Since the army is not designed for that kind of war, i'd say change the tactics. To keep employing troops in the way they are being empoyed is foolhardy, and a diservice to their memory and current service. That really pisses me off to see. For any folks out their who think Iraq is going to have a democratic government or that they want one exactly, your most likely severly mistaken. That is a totally different environment and culture, to believe so is assuming everyone wants to be like America because were so great and everyone elses's government sucks. That is very arrogant. I predict that as soon as or not very long after the army leaves, the region will descent into even more violence. Terrorist will most likely leave Iraq because we will have left and start attacking us somewhere else. It's easier to attack us there then fly all the way to America. Of course not all of them will leave they will be involved in the massive cultural suicide we have stirred up. This is even with the Iraqi army built up to survive the onslaught. I believe some of the members of the Iraqi army have religous and societal affiliations and will help break it up in the process. Let's just say if it holds together it's a miracle. It's like a massive house of cards were constructing only to have it fall apart as we leave. If this is something that it's worth it to you to be involved in, to die for by all means go ahead, i am too smart to get involved with this and can tell what will probably happen. If you think i will blindly follow my government and support something i don't believe in which is a bad situation and an ill use of our military, i will not. How supporting the troops is waving at our government and going along and saying "Go on and get killed Johnny boy i'm with ya" i don't know. One of the steps of a crumbling country is it's citizens seeing no evil and going along with the process.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That's the point of these little thingys: :) :( :eek: :confused: :lol :aok :O :t
and when I corrected your grammar, I used the winky ;) thingy.
LOL, Holding Mc Groin, i saw the winky but wasn't sure, sorry anyway.:D
-
:)
-
LOL.. soooo... after all this, we are back to the same old thing.. skyrock and moray and ledpig don't like the way the war is run but have no idea of what to do.... moreover..... they admit (no paragraphs so you have to wade through it) that....
We can't just run away... that the troops need to be there. so really, all they are doing is whining... no suggestions for a solution... no ideas... no nothing but whining... and this somehow "supports the troops"?
The media watching the troops like hawks hoping one of em makes any mistake that they can crucify him for is "supporting the troops"?
moveon.org and the democrats calling the troops too stupid to have a real job is "supporting the troops"?
Pulling the troops out before they get they get the results that they have sacraficed so much for is "supporting the troops"?
I think you are just to dishonest to say that you really don't give a crap about the troops and that you just hate the current administration and realize that victory in iraq means defeat for the weepy, menopausal, socialist democrats that you want in power.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOL.. soooo... after all this, we are back to the same old thing.. skyrock and moray and ledpig don't like the way the war is run but have no idea of what to do.... moreover..... they admit (no paragraphs so you have to wade through it) that....
We can't just run away... that the troops need to be there. so really, all they are doing is whining... no suggestions for a solution... no ideas... no nothing but whining... and this somehow "supports the troops"?
The media watching the troops like hawks hoping one of em makes any mistake that they can crucify him for is "supporting the troops"?
moveon.org and the democrats calling the troops too stupid to have a real job is "supporting the troops"?
Pulling the troops out before they get they get the results that they have sacraficed so much for is "supporting the troops"?
I think you are just to dishonest to say that you really don't give a crap about the troops and that you just hate the current administration and realize that victory in iraq means defeat for the weepy, menopausal, socialist democrats that you want in power.
lazs
Laz
Obviously, with your 20K posts you are too busy spouting off the agenda than to use your brain and think about things. Your lumping of people into categories and subsequently villifying them, without knowing or understanding their ideology shows your burgeoning amount of idiocy. The fact you take the time to post 21000 posts on this BBS speaks volumes on the lack of time you actually devote to resource gathering or actual thought on the subjects you diarrhea from the mouth constantly about.
I personally have no party affiliations. I am not a socialist. I simply look at things as what is best for this country, and that is simply from my opinion as a citizen in this country with one vote, just like you. Sir, I have not berated you in this post or lumped you into the neo conservative grouping I might logically devolve you into. I don't know you and I don't care to... but I also don't pretend to. So, DON'T assume sir, that I have any leaning toward democrat or republican. I have a funny way of thinking that a goverment claimed democratic, which in reality is a republic, should effect what IS THE PEOPLE'S WILL.
-
For Laz...
21,000 posts ..
Figure an average of 5 minutes per post. (Probably statistically too small, considering you are likely a slow typist, but I'll use it anyway.)
=105,000 minutes
=1750 hours
=73 DAYS You've spent of your life typing posts onto this BBS. 73 DAYS.
Please sir, start using your time to go OUTSIDE or to READ A BOOK or two. You may possibly learn what critical thinking is. How could you possibly understand ANYTHING more than anyone, when do you take time to research your position?...obviously you don't do much except post here.
You opinionated blowhard.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOL.. soooo... after all this, we are back to the same old thing.. skyrock and moray and ledpig don't like the way the war is run but have no idea of what to do.... moreover..... they admit (no paragraphs so you have to wade through it) that....
We can't just run away... that the troops need to be there. so really, all they are doing is whining... no suggestions for a solution... no ideas... no nothing but whining... and this somehow "supports the troops"?
The media watching the troops like hawks hoping one of em makes any mistake that they can crucify him for is "supporting the troops"?
moveon.org and the democrats calling the troops too stupid to have a real job is "supporting the troops"?
Pulling the troops out before they get they get the results that they have sacraficed so much for is "supporting the troops"?
I think you are just to dishonest to say that you really don't give a crap about the troops and that you just hate the current administration and realize that victory in iraq means defeat for the weepy, menopausal, socialist democrats that you want in power.
lazs
Blah blah blah, you have nothing to add, you simply read over what you dont like, and go back to the same old Dem/Rep blah blah blah. Are you that selfconcience that it was a republican adminstration that started this debacle? I dont care what political side the administration was on that started it, it was a bad move from the get go and we and our children will be dealing with it for a long time.
Secure our borders.
Use fire against fire.
Secure our borders.
Secure our borders.
Do not invade countries under false pretenses and use conventional warfare and occupation as a last resort only.
Secure our borders.
Secure our borders.
Fight fire with fire.
Secure our borders.
What part of the last 9 sentences do you not understand?
-
Let me ask this question to all those that oppose this war.
Do you think that if our troops are allowed to succeed, and iraq establishes it's own self sufficient gov't, that it would benefit the US to have them as an ally?
Side note:
I personally think it's ridiculous how the democratic party is doing everything to oppose and destroy our war efforts. I think if it was up to them, they'd pull out all our troops save 1, let him be slaughtered, then say we lost the war and it's all bush's fault.
-
Originally posted by Speed55
Let me ask this question to all those that oppose this war.
Do you think that if our troops are allowed to succeed, and iraq establishes it's own self sufficient gov't, that it would benefit the US to have them as an ally?
Side note:
I personally think it's ridiculous how the democratic party is doing everything to oppose and destroy our war efforts. I think if it was up to them, they'd pull out all our troops save 1, let him be slaughtered, then say we lost the war and it's all bush's fault.
listen lil lazs, just because someone opposes the war doesn't automatically mean he's democrat. I have stated too many times in this thread that I do not consider myself democrat or republican. I will probably be voting republican this round, so it has nothing to do with what party you're for and everything to do about policy.
I will pose this question to you, what if it took another 6 years, 20,000 lives, and $2 trillion to get IRAQ to be anything that looked like a stable government? Would it be worth it? How long would they stay our allies? Would you go back in if they freely voted Sadam Iran(ficticious name meaning someone who would allow IRAN to occupy its territory without a fight) into power? What will we do if the day we pull out and leave IRAQ a free nation, IRAN sends in tanks? What would we do if IRAN, Syria, and Saudi Arabia all moved troops in? Would you fight your old allies to defend your new one? The solution in IRAQ is not a simple one.
The problem I have with the policy on IRAQ, is it gives us no "real" out. We are sentenced to this outcome and will have to pay for it dearly.
-
:lol little lazs.
I never said you, or anyone else was a democrat, that's why i wrote :side note.
Your question is a "what if" question. I'll answer it if that happens.
My question has a good possibility of happening though, if the democrats, not saying you , would just back off and let our soldiers and generals do there jobs.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Would you fight your old allies to defend your new one?
you mean like using US troops to defend west Germany from a Russian invasion after WW2?
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
I agree that was one of the better posts on this whole meandering mess about a mess. I'm sorry he had to go there, once is enough. I tried to convince a couple of people i met to not go there and enlist and get involved in this. I didn't want to see them waste their lives. They had this crazy idea that it was the brave thing to do, the dutiful thing to do. I said don't pledge your duty to an administration and leadership that is failing you. That changed it's motives for why, what and how it's doing things constantly. That speaks to me that they don't know what they're doing. It's not the soldiers fault it's the administratrion that assigns them. Nothing we can do now, i tried to change this by not voting for him last time, and getting more troops killed and wounded. Supporting the troops does not mean blindly standing by and watching our government kill them. It does not mean blindly standing by and watching our government beat our soldiers head into a wall repeatedly. To see our government doing that extremely pisses me off. This is not something to sign up for, if any war was it was WW2. I'd sign up for that. It was army against army, nation against nation, good guy against the clearly seen bad guy. Not good guy against " That guy over there that could be a terrorist, i can't tell because he's wearing street clothes so i can't engage, don't want to upset the locals, so i gotta keep it PC. The soldiers are imerged in a land of enemies against the enemies, how you identify the bad guys to kill them at enough of a percentage to create massive and lethal destruction and an end to this war i don't know. I really wish BBB would explain it too me. That is not a tacticully good and intelligent use of our army. Since the army is not designed for that kind of war, i'd say change the tactics. To keep employing troops in the way they are being empoyed is foolhardy, and a diservice to their memory and current service. That really pisses me off to see. For any folks out their who think Iraq is going to have a democratic government or that they want one exactly, your most likely severly mistaken. That is a totally different environment and culture, to believe so is assuming everyone wants to be like America because were so great and everyone elses's government sucks. That is very arrogant. I predict that as soon as or not very long after the army leaves, the region will descent into even more violence. Terrorist will most likely leave Iraq because we will have left and start attacking us somewhere else. It's easier to attack us there then fly all the way to America. Of course not all of them will leave they will be involved in the massive cultural suicide we have stirred up. This is even with the Iraqi army built up to survive the onslaught. I believe some of the members of the Iraqi army have religous and societal affiliations and will help break it up in the process. Let's just say if it holds together it's a miracle. It's like a massive house of cards were constructing only to have it fall apart as we leave. If this is something that it's worth it to you to be involved in, to die for by all means go ahead, i am too smart to get involved with this and can tell what will probably happen. If you think i will blindly follow my government and support something i don't believe in which is a bad situation and an ill use of our military, i will not. How supporting the troops is waving at our government and going along and saying "Go on and get killed Johnny boy i'm with ya" i don't know. One of the steps of a crumbling country is it's citizens seeing no evil and going along with the process.
I am the paragraph Nazi.
I suggest you learn to use paragraphs. It's easy and hitting the enter key. I doubt many people read your post because it is a wall of text.
Remember, a cluttered post is a sign of a cluttered mind.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you mean like using US troops to defend west Germany from a Russian invasion after WW2?
We never fought russia. I am asking you would you fight Saudi Arabia if they wanted to go into IRAQ with Syria and IRAN?
-
skyrock... we are already in the country and it can't survive without us. You have nothing... of course we shouldn't get into fights we don't have the stomach for and that don't do us any good but... what do we do now?
you have nothing... secure the borders? what the hell does that have to do with anything? you will never be able to "secure" the borders...you looked at a map of the U.S.?
Fight fire with fire? now that is a good sounding but meaningless soundbite...We are fighting fire with fire... what the hell do you mean?
As for your question... Unlike you.. I answer and....directly. would it be worth a 20,000 lives and billions of dollars to have a secure country in that sea of islamofacist breeding grounds? hell yes. We are gonna have to face the fact that "convert or die" mean.... convert or die. it doesn't mean leave us alone and we will leave you alone. It means... your very existence (ask the jews) is offensive to us.
so please... quit evading like your democrat buddies and give us your plan... hell.... give us anyones plan that you agree with for getting our troops out.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock... we are already in the country and it can't survive without us. You have nothing... of course we shouldn't get into fights we don't have the stomach for and that don't do us any good but... what do we do now?
you have nothing... secure the borders? what the hell does that have to do with anything? you will never be able to "secure" the borders...you looked at a map of the U.S.?
Fight fire with fire? now that is a good sounding but meaningless soundbite...We are fighting fire with fire... what the hell do you mean?
so please... quit evading like your democrat buddies and give us your plan... hell.... give us anyones plan that you agree with for getting our troops out.
lazs
Lazs, I know you can read, so why do you continue to avoid comprehending that I am not a policy maker. If I were, we would not be in IRAQ right now.
Securing the borders would have been the first thing I'd have focused on after 9/11, along with planning the invasion of Afghanistan. To this day, 6 years after the attack, we have open borders. Completely unacceptable in my book. You say that securing the borders is impossible, just as I see a democratic ally in IRAQ as being impossible. The only difference is, to bomb us in our own country they would have to get in. It is possible and we have the means and funds to make it happen. Start with the ports, and work your way all the way down to every inch of our border. This should have been #1 priority after 9/11.
Fighting fire with fire means to use our superior technology to its fullest potential. The dollars wasted in IRAQ could have set up a network of intellegence unfathomed by man. Covert intellegence operations coupled with an anything goes policy towards undermining and anihilating the terrorists where they sleep. No paper trails, no identification, and no regrets. Kill them anyway you can and even use the most dastardly of tactics to beat them at their own game. This completely untracable operational system would use any means necessary to get to the terrorists and kill them. Even the use of our own sucide bombers! We have no problems dropping a smart bomb and accidentally killing civillians, so why be morally against sending willing participants in against the terrorists. I am willing to bet there are 1,000's in the US alone who would gladly sacrifice themselves in this way.
Again, this is not a dem/rep problem, it is an american problem, I mean fighting the terrorists.
PS I'm sure my comments about using our own suicide bombers will draw much criticism, but I do not think we should leave anything off the table.
PS2 You act like only Dems want out of IRAQ???????? CLUE.
Mark
-
Hijack attempt: Let the Dixie Chicks run. They are as likely to win as Hillary.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
I am the paragraph Nazi.
I suggest you learn to use paragraphs. It's easy and hitting the enter key. I doubt many people read your post because it is a wall of text.
Remember, a cluttered post is a sign of a cluttered mind.
Wow. First grammar, now paragraph structure. Now I'm going to have to review Leadpig's spelling .
-
Jeez thank you guys for counting my english literature pubic hairs, i appreciate it, i didn't know i lost one, now give it back. I just thought i was posting on a stupid ****ing bulletin board, not writing an english compositional thesis. You guys and the ****ing insults, with the cluttered mind comment, least i got brainwaves, what are you working with. Microwaves don't count.
Not you holding my groin your cool.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOL.. soooo... after all this, we are back to the same old thing.. skyrock and moray and ledpig don't like the way the war is run but have no idea of what to do.... moreover..... they admit (no paragraphs so you have to wade through it) that....
We can't just run away... that the troops need to be there. so really, all they are doing is whining... no suggestions for a solution... no ideas... no nothing but whining... and this somehow "supports the troops"?
The media watching the troops like hawks hoping one of em makes any mistake that they can crucify him for is "supporting the troops"?
moveon.org and the democrats calling the troops too stupid to have a real job is "supporting the troops"?
Pulling the troops out before they get they get the results that they have sacraficed so much for is "supporting the troops"?
I think you are just to dishonest to say that you really don't give a crap about the troops and that you just hate the current administration and realize that victory in iraq means defeat for the weepy, menopausal, socialist democrats that you want in power.
lazs
Can you guys say something without insulting calling us menopausal, weepy, whatever and telling people what they want and believe. That anyone who dosen't support the war is whining or weepy as you say. I think anybody who doesn't get the situation in Iraq and wants to keep doing it that way is an idiot and the want to keep doing it the way we been doing speaks of a moron who likes to hurt themselves repeatedly. Maybe you guys are just masochists, and you want the troops to be hurt over bull****. Yea thats really supporting them!!
I've noticed you right wing support the war guys can't listen to an argument completely, without putting words into peoples mouth. That you seem not to understand anything in the beginning. It's probably your big mouth followed by your big hollier than thou ego's that get in the way from hearing what i'm saying without telling me what i'm saying. Probabaly why your dumb bellybutton president couldn't figure out the end of this movie when he first started it.
Once again for the hard of hearing hear it is. We can't leave because were're commited there. I wouldn't have started this mess in the first place but since it's started we gotta at least try to patch it up. I do not believe in "Staying the Course" to infinity cause the course gets us nowhere. If you think this current road is going to get us a happy solution, an end to terrorism and a peaceful middle east where we can all hold hands and sing spirtuals you are stupid Lasz. If it dosen't get us this the soldiers lives are being wasted and a better plan must be effected.
Once again since you tell my point before i've said it here's my solution. Stated way back at the beggining of this post. An Excerpt of many about a possible solution.
Question 1. I would have fought the war by using CIA, military, and covert operatives, along with willing people from the area who are in the know, like the brave interpreters they have now (those guys are amazing), much as they're doing in Afganisthan. Sort of sniffing terrorist out with a combat roach bait that they can take back to the nest and kill the queen. Things such as infiltrating info such as terrorist meetings and bombing the crap outta them when they show up. Possibly getting operatives to hold arms sales in the guise of a helping entity (such as Iranian undercover arms traders) everybody shows up dies. You gotta weed em out like termites, get my drift. Large scale conflict on a country that may or may not have terrorist influence is not the way.
I agree the media are some truth bending *******s, and they tend to report the bad stuff. But you don't need to be a genius to see **** is fluffied up.
Pulling the troops out before they've finished before they've achieved success huh.. If they achieve success, i.e wipe out terrorism or at least stymie it enough, unite the region so it doesn't fall apart after we leave, and all the people embrace democracy in a "Let Freedom Ring" sing along orgy. If you think that's gonna happen as a result of us being there, you are a nut. That's the day i win the lottery, have a three way with, Carmen Electra and Elisha Cuthbert, and Pig's fly. So if that **** ain't happening, it ain't worth it buddy, the blood we spilling over their needs a tourniquet quick. To keep saying stay the course means your a dumb ****.
You telling me i don't give a crap about the troops, makes me wanna rip your ******* out your big mouth tie your intestines around your neck and hang you with em. I'm looking for a tree and a horse now. Thanks for throwing those words in my mouth pal. Jeez make a comment without being an insulting poosy. And for the record i couldn't give a rats bellybutton about who wins the elections as long as whoever it is does the job and patches up the situation. P.S. Not Hillary.
-
This man couldn't have said it better for me:
Today's GI is clearly better trained and led than those i commanded 40 years ago in Vietnam and 10 years ago in the Balkans. But as we see in Iraq and Afghanistan high technology doesn't always matter. We have discovered the enemy is resourceful and fights with improvised explosive devices (IED's) and suicide bombers. But the American GI is also resourceful and adaptive to conditions on the battlefield. He knows there are no time outs in war. And regrettably, many have paid the supreme sacrifice in service to their country.
U.S. troops go into harm's way in compliance with the political decisions made by civilian leadership. And that is the way it should be. But our senior political and military leadership need to ensure that the commitment of troops to combat is the last resort, not the first. When GI's are deployed we must provide the best equipment, the best prior planning, clarity of mission and conditions for success. To do less places our GI's at unacceptable risk. And for four years we have done less in Iraq-little or no planning for stabilization, insufficient troops, inadequate armor protection and reluctance to use diplomacy and the economic instruments of our power. And the American GI has paid a heavy price for our negligence.
As the troops accept accountability on the battlefield, so must responsible political and military leadership accept accountability for decisions made with regard to the conduct of war. There has been a great deal of the former and much less of the latter. In particular there has been a lack of moral courage by senior military leaders to stand up and be counted on the decisions that took us into war, and the conditions needed for success. We are better than that as a nation and better than that as a military.
By General. George A. Joulwan, U.S. Army (Ret.)
My thoughts exactly
Leadpig.
-
After reading though all of this mess I regret even posting to debate with you Leadpig and you SkyRock. LEADPIG your grammar, sentence structure and spelling, tell me you are still a pretty young guy. So it is only natural for you to follow the sheep's on MTV telling you the war in Iraq is wrong. This is common place with kids today. Why think for yourself when you have Susan Sarandon and Kanye West telling you what to think. Besides, you have more pressing matters to worry about. Halo 3 is about do be released.
SkyRock, where do I start? You seemed like a smart guy for a little bit there, and then you went off on this little bit: Originally posted by SkyRock
Fighting fire with fire means to use our superior technology to its fullest potential. The dollars wasted in IRAQ could have set up a network of intellegence unfathomed by man. Covert intellegence operations coupled with an anything goes policy towards undermining and anihilating the terrorists where they sleep. No paper trails, no identification, and no regrets. Kill them anyway you can and even use the most dastardly of tactics to beat them at their own game. This completely untracable operational system would use any means necessary to get to the terrorists and kill them. Even the use of our own sucide bombers! We have no problems dropping a smart bomb and accidentally killing civillians, so why be morally against sending willing participants in against the terrorists. I am willing to bet there are 1,000's in the US alone who would gladly sacrifice themselves in this way.
Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot? You, my little semi retarded friend have been watching way, way, to many episodes of 24. You suffer from an acute case of Jack Bauerism. While I did enjoy your colorful, albeit totally stupid plan for the war in Iraq, I must say you have it all wrong.
Here is the thing, you have a lot of issues standing in your way of flooding Iraq with a high tech spy ring. First and foremost is the culture. Most of the people in Iraq still live in mud houses with very little if any electricity. In fact the country it's self is not very wired. So your high tech spy ring is going to have to go low tech.
Even then, the Iraqis are not going to trust your spies. They can spot a westerner 2 miles out. Even if you do manage to talk to the locals, most still believe in magic. A lot of them think the insurgents have magical powers. Kinda like a lot of them thought Saddam had magical powers. Hence he was untouchable. Out of fear alone they will not talk to you about the Ali-Babas in the area.
The point I am trying to make here is you have to know your enemy. The only enemy you have ever met, was that soda machine that took your dollar that one time at band camp. Your little plan above made this perfectly clear.
So, I am going to withdraw from this one. You can't fix stupid and I am not about to try. You two think you have it all figured out and I am just going to let that be you two's little secret. Shhh, don't tell anyone that you have it all figured out. The rest of us might get jealous. You two have a good day.
-Spot
-
BBB you were in Iraq right? I'm just curious what's your feelings on the solution, your superiors decisions, your equipment, and the hand you've been dealt? Do you think there's a solution, a resolution to this. Do you feel your are able to effectively identify, engage and fight the enemy? And what do you think is going to happen after we leave? Also what is your paygrade and specialty. Sorry i know it's a lot of questions, but i just wanna know what you think. Btw big to you.
-
Originally posted by BBBB
After reading though all of this mess I regret even posting to debate with you Leadpig and you SkyRock. LEADPIG your grammar, sentence structure and spelling, tell me you are still a pretty young guy. So it is only natural for you to follow the sheep's on MTV telling you the war in Iraq is wrong. This is common place with kids today. Why think for yourself when you have Susan Sarandon and Kanye West telling you what to think. Besides, you have more pressing matters to worry about. Halo 3 is about do be released.
SkyRock, where do I start? You seemed like a smart guy for a little bit there, and then you went off on this little bit:
Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot? You, my little semi retarded friend have been watching way, way, to many episodes of 24. You suffer from an acute case of Jack Bauerism. While I did enjoy your colorful, albeit totally stupid plan for the war in Iraq, I must say you have it all wrong.
Here is the thing, you have a lot of issues standing in your way of flooding Iraq with a high tech spy ring. First and foremost is the culture. Most of the people in Iraq still live in mud houses with very little if any electricity. In fact the country it's self is not very wired. So your high tech spy ring is going to have to go low tech.
Even then, the Iraqis are not going to trust your spies. They can spot a westerner 2 miles out. Even if you do manage to talk to the locals, most still believe in magic. A lot of them think the insurgents have magical powers. Kinda like a lot of them thought Saddam had magical powers. Hence he was untouchable. Out of fear alone they will not talk to you about the Ali-Babas in the area.
The point I am trying to make here is you have to know your enemy. The only enemy you have ever met, was that soda machine that took your dollar that one time at band camp. Your little plan above made this perfectly clear.
So, I am going to withdraw from this one. You can't fix stupid and I am not about to try. You two think you have it all figured out and I am just going to let that be you two's little secret. Shhh, don't tell anyone that you have it all figured out. The rest of us might get jealous. You two have a good day.
-Spot
This was not my plan for IRAQ, it was how I would have approached the war on terror after 9/11. I have stated again and again theat it is not my job to have a plan for IRAQ as I am not a policy maker. It is my right, however, to be able to crtique my goverment.
This was how I would have attacked fighting terror after 9/11 and outside of Afghanistan. IRAQ would have been far more down the list of threats than the phillipines or indonesia.
Your comment about knowing your enemy is true, but intellegent planning is part of first, determining who your enemy actually is, and secondly, how to kill him without ever giving him any chance to kill you.
So before you blow a vein in your temple, make sure you are comprehending what you are reading.
:aok
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
This was not my plan for IRAQ, it was how I would have approached the war on terror after 9/11. I have stated again and again theat it is not my job to have a plan for IRAQ as I am not a policy maker. It is my right, however, to be able to crtique my goverment.
:
skyrock:: "hey your doing that all wrong"
me:: "well how should i do it?"
skyrock:: "don,t ask me. thats your job"
-
Originally posted by john9001
skyrock:: "hey your doing that all wrong"
me:: "well how should i do it?"
skyrock:: "you should have thought of that beforehand"
:aok
-
skyrock... nice non reply to BBBB.... He is of course, right and you must watch too many episodes of 24 tho... I don't know how you find the time with 70 hours a month holding your jstick.
Secure our borders? how isolationist do you think we can get? that is your solution really... run.... then hide. from the world... you seem to admit that there is a political group out there that wants all civilization that is not 9th century islam to be destroyed... at least you seem to realize that but your solution is... run... then hide...
secure the borders? so that not one illegal or one ton of coke or heroin ever get through again... thousands of miles of coastline... thousands and thousands of miles of border... yeah... right.... how naive can you get... even the soviets couldn't get it and look how hard they tried... we couldn't do it in vietnam.
covert... again...laugable.. as BBBB says... you watch too much spy tv...
What it boils down to is... you didn't say a thing when this started... now it is popular and a media thing to just leave so that is the bandwagon you are on... you have no solution and... you don't even know if the one we are doing now... right now... is a good one.
Be angry that we made mistakes... not that we are fighting the fight we will have to fight some day anyway.
Not that we are in one country doing it vs some other... iraq is a good one to make a stand....central...has oil... less homegrown terrorists..
I can't second guess the troops and the generals like you can.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock... nice non reply to BBBB.... He is of course, right and you must watch too many episodes of 24 tho... I don't know how you find the time with 70 hours a month holding your jstick.
Secure our borders? how isolationist do you think we can get? that is your solution really... run.... then hide. from the world... you seem to admit that there is a political group out there that wants all civilization that is not 9th century islam to be destroyed... at least you seem to realize that but your solution is... run... then hide...
secure the borders? so that not one illegal or one ton of coke or heroin ever get through again... thousands of miles of coastline... thousands and thousands of miles of border... yeah... right.... how naive can you get... even the soviets couldn't get it and look how hard they tried... we couldn't do it in vietnam.
covert... again...laugable.. as BBBB says... you watch too much spy tv...
What it boils down to is... you didn't say a thing when this started... now it is popular and a media thing to just leave so that is the bandwagon you are on... you have no solution and... you don't even know if the one we are doing now... right now... is a good one.
Be angry that we made mistakes... not that we are fighting the fight we will have to fight some day anyway.
Not that we are in one country doing it vs some other... iraq is a good one to make a stand....central...has oil... less homegrown terrorists..
I can't second guess the troops and the generals like you can.
lazs
Laz you hypocrite. Knocking Skyrock for 3 days a month flying Aces High, when you post on this BBS 21,000 times. Which, I already statistically proved is about 73 days of your life spent typing on here...and that's only with your average post time being 5 minutes....could go either way, since most of your posts so obviously scream out "LACK OF THOUGHT". Then again, your lack of grammatical understanding, could scream "SLOW TYPER", so that number could be 10 or 15 minutes per post. At 10 minutes per post... that's 146 Days of your life on this, DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PRODUCTIVE ABOUT ANYTHING.
73 days of your life spent typing on a BBS, minimum. 146 days maximum. Go outside bro. Read a damn book.... live your life better. You may seem more intelligent if you actually absorbed information that you didn't agree with, and were able to converse on it with some semblance of logic.
-
my average post it way less than 5 minutes...probly less than one.
plus..he is reading the threads.. as are you... I know from your replies that it doesn't look like you are comprehending what you read but you can see that you are reading em.
I don't watch the news... much anyway... I get news here and follow the links... I check em out... I debate with people who have opposite views... that is not doing nothing... watching survivor is doing nothing. you spend a lot of time here as does he (he mostly spends it in the kiddie pool tho talking about jsticks) yet... you get nothing from it.. you simply spout the soundbites you came with.
so yes...if I did things the way you do it would be doing nothing.. you might as well watch cnn as be here.
soooo... what is your solution? call the actors?
build the berlin wall all over America? maybe just.... run away and hope it all works out?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I can't second guess the troops and the generals like you can.
lazs
I guess if your dick was on fire and somebody told you it was you wouldn't second guess that either.
Secondly were're not second guessing the troops just the bastards that sent them there. It makes me angry that they would send troops, with so little planning, preparation, forethought and the tools to do their job. They shouldn't have to beg for what they want i.e. (body armor) etc. It pisses me off that they would send them into a guerilla war and mass social genocide and be so stupid that they wouldn't even realize that the army has not the tools or the fighting styles to match them. It pisses me off that they would be so short sighted to see they would need more troops and this proves to me that they didn't know what they were getting into.
So if thats what you call supporting the troops. If going along with that is what you call supporting the troops. I don't want you leading me. I guess if all the troops were running to jump over a cliff you'd support that too. Are you so blind you don't see this stuff is going on under your nose just a little bit. Do you think these thing will bring a good result. Then my friend i hope your never in charge of anything. You'd never rock the boat heh? Well sometimes it needs rocking. The U.S. civilian leadership and military leadership owes the troops this much and it's debt of gratitude.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
. You may seem more intelligent if you actually absorbed information that you didn't agree with, and were able to converse on it with some semblance of logic.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by lazs2
my average post it way less than 5 minutes...probly less than one.
plus..he is reading the threads.. as are you... I know from your replies that it doesn't look like you are comprehending what you read but you can see that you are reading em.
I don't watch the news... much anyway... I get news here and follow the links... I check em out... I debate with people who have opposite views... that is not doing nothing... watching survivor is doing nothing. you spend a lot of time here as does he (he mostly spends it in the kiddie pool tho talking about jsticks) yet... you get nothing from it.. you simply spout the soundbites you came with.
so yes...if I did things the way you do it would be doing nothing.. you might as well watch cnn as be here.
soooo... what is your solution? call the actors?
build the berlin wall all over America? maybe just.... run away and hope it all works out?
lazs
There is no cover all solution, Laz. Laz, with some foresight you may understand exactly what is going to happen in the future, in Iraq, anyway.
So...three years from now, ostensibly, Iraq has a standing democratic government and everything is exactly like Mr. Bush wants it to be. (far fetched as that may be, but I'll allow some dreaming here). He spoke last evening of "an enduring presence in Iraq, comparable to that in Korea". (which I'll remind you, we are technically still at war against North Korea, and have spent half a century just standing there, with our hands in our pants) Do you seriously, in any way, shape, or form, think that any government in that region is going to allow us to keep troops there? What do we do when they say GET OUT? You simply cannot embark upon nation building, and then put parenthesis around it. You can't MAKE a people like you or support your views. You must realize, at some point, a people must determine their own perspective and destiny.
While we will be in Iraq for the near future... I will secede that fact...You also must secede that once we prop them up, fix their backwards country with our money, they will most likely say, "thank you, now go home. We'll take it from here." We will not, repeat, NOT, retain any leverage in the region. Nation building is like raising a kid. Some go good, some go bad...BUT NONE DO EXACTLY WHAT THE PARENTS WANT. At some point in the foreseeable future, the Iraqi government will say "Goodbye". The Saudis will (are) in the process of doing the same. Hell, even in South Korea there are mumblings about kicking us out.
Now I ask you, is that all worth it? 2 Billion of our dollars a WEEK, in Iraq. We aren't in Iraq to fight Al Queda, you poor soul. Al Queda came to Iraq... BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE WE ARE!!!! My god man, do you fall into the lies all the time? Even Petraeus testified to this... that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 or Al Queda, and that Al Queda presence in Iraq is only due to the insurgency.
There is no right way to approach all of this. There is no right answer...only a mixed bag of wrong ones. Bush is only playing out the next year and a half so the nut isn't on his face. It's worth it to him, the 1000 or more dead soldiers and countless injured, so that his "legacy" isn't tarnished, any more than it already is. After all, he's already tarnished the careers of some of our highest ranking general staff, using them as political pawns. Patreaus is the next to fall.
I'm sorry the cost in Iraq far outweighs any potential gains we could possibly see. We need to let them figure out what THEY want to do... just like we did in our own civil war.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
plus..he is reading the threads.. as are you... I know from your replies that it doesn't look like you are comprehending what you read but you can see that you are reading em.
I don't watch the news... much anyway... I get news here and follow the links... I check em out... I debate with people who have opposite views... that is not doing nothing... watching survivor is doing nothing. you spend a lot of time here as does he (he mostly spends it in the kiddie pool tho talking about jsticks) yet... you get nothing from it.. you simply spout the soundbites you came with.
so yes...if I did things the way you do it would be doing nothing.. you might as well watch cnn as be here.
lazs
Sir,
I completely understand your position. You simply do not understand the facts. Your critical thinking skills are appreciably under developed.
I don't get my news from a BBS, which is how you admit to getting yours...and what exactly should I get from it? Debating with you is akin to debating string theory with a tree. I don't even get my news from american media, in general. There are better, non biased news organizations out there in the world.
As far as soundbites I bring.... Laz, I speak from my own mind, no soundbites here. You would do well to do the same. My position is my own, I can't help it if 70 percent of the population of this country agrees with it.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
What do we do when they say GET OUT?
Google Subic Bay
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
BBB you were in Iraq right? I'm just curious what's your feelings on the solution, your superiors decisions, your equipment, and the hand you've been dealt? Do you think there's a solution, a resolution to this. Do you feel your are able to effectively identify, engage and fight the enemy? And what do you think is going to happen after we leave? Also what is your paygrade and specialty. Sorry i know it's a lot of questions, but i just wanna know what you think. Btw big to you.
The info you requested has already been posted. If you reviewed the thread again you would find my answers.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
my average post it way less than 5 minutes...probly less than one.
plus..he is reading the threads.. as are you... I know from your replies that it doesn't look like you are comprehending what you read but you can see that you are reading em.
I don't watch the news... much anyway... I get news here and follow the links...
Try this one:
http://www.terroristmedia.com
An unedited disturbing look at the Iraq fiasco from behind the scenes. Check out who these "terrorists" are, most of them look far from devoted jihadists and closer to regular dudes.. the prevalent message in their videos: they're pissed-off at the trashing of their country by foreign occupiers.
One thing they don't talk about is following us home.
After watching the "enemy" in action, ask yourself if you wouldn't be doing the same thing if you were them.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
So before you blow a vein in your temple, make sure you are comprehending what you are reading.
:lol
I think you should take your own advice.