Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pfunk on October 03, 2003, 07:54:27 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/02/sprj.irq.casualties.ap/index.html
-
Looks like the casualties have been slow this week...
TIME TO RECAP!!!
:rolleyes:
-
yeah well... could of told that before US attacked Iraq.
Now, I hope US will also stay in Iraq despite the casualties and create the democracy in that country.
If the troops pull out anytime too soon, the US better not veto in UN or do wars anymore in the name of 'homeland defense'.
-
So USA cant defend our "homeland" the way we see fit - will Finland do the job for us?
-
I think the failure here is the Republicans are not send any of their war heros to Iraq.
They relying upon middle class Americans - mostly minorities to do the fighting.
If Rush, Karl Rove, Ashcroft, Bush (the Vetienam Texas National Guard hero who never showed up for duty), and the rest of all the patriotic draft dodgers in his cabinet had gone to Iraq - they would have found Saddam and all the other terrorist - or at least they would have died trying...
Wait the Republicans don't have any war heros besides McCain and Powel.
Wasn't it Bush who said "Bring it on."
Tough talk from a sissy draft dodger.
Bush and his rich buddies pick the fights and average Americans pay the price with their lives.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Bush and his rich buddies pick the fights and average Americans pay the price with their lives.
Isnt that the way its always been? Civil War, Revolutionary War, Vietnam, etc
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Wait the Republicans don't have any war heros besides McCain and Powel.
Oh yea, the dems are rife with war hero's. :rolleyes:
Wesley "I love genocidal maniacs" Clark
or
William "Coast Guard Willie" Clinton
Nexus...
Get off the partisan BS. Republicans and democrats are the same on this issue. They're in power because they are generally wealthy and connected. How many millionaires do you know enlist?
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
I think the failure here is the Republicans are not send any of their war heros to Iraq.
They relying upon middle class Americans - mostly minorities to do the fighting.
If Rush, Karl Rove, Ashcroft, Bush (the Vetienam Texas National Guard hero who never showed up for duty), and the rest of all the patriotic draft dodgers in his cabinet had gone to Iraq - they would have found Saddam and all the other terrorist - or at least they would have died trying...
Wait the Republicans don't have any war heros besides McCain and Powel.
Wasn't it Bush who said "Bring it on."
Tough talk from a sissy draft dodger.
Bush and his rich buddies pick the fights and average Americans pay the price with their lives.
Yeah, we should send J. F. Kerry over there. He'll do some professional ass-kicking on the bad guys regardless of race, age, sex or religion-kill them all, diversity. :(
-
I vote we pull the boys out and we install Pinochet and his crew as Presidente' and government of Iraq.
-
Yeah Pinochet is right on in Maggie Thatcher's books. He was a big help in squashing those Argies in '82.
-
"The objectives and methods of the terrorists and ambushers in Iraq are not hard to fathom. Their strategy is twofold. First, if each week they can kill five to six Americans, along with inflicting a few million dollars in damage, they hope to weaken public opinion here at home to such a degree that we might precipitously withdraw and leave a Lebanonized Iraq to the law of the jungle: bad for everyone else, good for them. "
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So USA cant defend our "homeland" the way we see fit - will Finland do the job for us?
I've been taught with different meanings for the defense and offensive than some of the americans.
Perhaps it'd been the best kind of defense for US to stay away from the middle east issues?
Like not supported Saddam and used veto right to save his arse.. etc.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I've been taught with different meanings for the defense and offensive than some of the americans.
Perhaps it'd been the best kind of defense for US to stay away from the middle east issues?
Like not supported Saddam and used veto right to save his arse.. etc.
That might work. I prefer the "beat the crap out of anyone that looks at you funny , take what you want, then leave them to rebuild their broken country" approach.
-
Otto: "Their strategy is twofold. First, if each week they can kill five to six Americans, along with inflicting a few million dollars in damage..."
According to some researchers' opinion, they must kill 2 americans per day for a few months for US troops to retreat into firebases and the the public support for the war to collapse.
miko
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
They relying upon middle class Americans - mostly minorities to do the fighting.
That was a pretty ill informed, what the heck, just plain ignorant statement.
http://icpac.indiana.edu/careers/military/minorities.xml
-
Look at the stats from the first 2 years in vietnam(63-64 I could be wrong here) and the last 2 years of troops lost in afghan and iraq.
The thing is, i understand the afghan occupation, but why and what we are doing in iraq is highly questionable. We are in there now and need to support our troops(by allowing the UN to take over alot of our troops dutys), but we shouldnt have gone in at all.
Attacking iraq was not defending America.
-
That might work. I prefer the "beat the crap out of anyone that looks at you funny , take what you want, then leave them to rebuild their broken country" approach.
that would be ok, but we seem to be using the-
"can't find the guy responsable, so start a fight with somebody so you look effective, give what you can't afford, throw away a few of our sons a week, then move in perminantly to rebuild their broken country" approach.
-
Oh where oh where do I start? :)
Originally posted by DmdNexus
They relying upon middle class Americans - mostly minorities to do the fighting.
'Mostly minorities to do the fighting'? A total lie - just like it was back in the era of Vietnam. I'll tell you what. You let me know the next time you are in Georgia, or Southern California, or Virginia, or North Carolina, or South Carolina. I'll give you the names of a couple of bars to go to. You go there and explain to the 'minorities' how they are being 'exploited' by 'fighting for the rich' (as opposed to volunteering to kill bad guys). I'll make sure you have a large audience anywhere you go. You make sure your dental insurance is up-to-date. :)
On a more somber note, I have mental images of plenty of good guys who have been killed over the past 2 or 3 years and none of them were members of a 'minority'. It took a statement like yours to actually cause me to think about specific details like that. There are a few guys I know who have been KIA who *to you* would be considered part of a 'minority group' - but that's your label for your *****ed-up agenda. They considered themselves to be Americans.
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Bush (the Vetienam Texas National Guard hero who never showed up for duty)
Bush did something more dangerous and challenging than you have ever done. He flew jet fighter aircraft. In the spirit of the above paragraph I could arrange for you to go to a bar or two in the states where you could explain to some USAF fighter pilots who never flew over SE Asia (read: the majority of the interceptor pilots flying for SAC) about how they were 'draft dodging sissies' and 'never did any dying'. The dental insurance advice is still very relevant in this case. When I think about how many guys I have seen get killed in 'peacetime' military aviation - you are a *****ing loser dude. A total *****ing loser lying about serious issues to support a petty argument that is itself based totally on lies.
Where did you get 'never showed up for duty' from? Did you pull it out of your prettythang along with the rest of the facts that define your reality?
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Wasn't it Bush who said "Bring it on."
Tough talk from a sissy draft dodger.
Here's a suggestion that might lead to you getting a little 'real-world' education. Before you explain to the above mentioned audiences how 'minorities do most of the fighting' and get beating within a inch or two of your worthless life, you should ask them what they think of the "Bring it on" quote. I love it. Most of the guys I know who are currently serving in the military love it. You apparently missed the point of the statement - probably because you are totally incapable of relating to the CiC or anyone directly involved in the current hammering of bad guys worldwide. Bush was saying "Bring it on" because he knew his fighters were up to the task of dealing with the opposition. 'Bring it on - it's nothing my guys cannot handle'. This type of talk may bother you. Why don't you go back to the coffee shop now and 'heroicially resist the evil Bush regime by dreaming up conspiracies to post to the internet' with your fellow 'freedom fighters'.
Another reality check - why do you call him a draft dodger? He was a member of the military already. Contrary to popular 'extremist' belief, his Dad did not hold any significant political office at the time (another reason why the 'Bush Jr. was skated into Yale' rumor is baseless). He was as succeptible to being activated to an active duty USAF fighter squadron and deployed to SE Asia as any of the couple thousand other ANG interceptor pilots flying at the time.
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Bush and his rich buddies pick the fights and average Americans pay the price with their lives.
I'm not average. The guys fighting and sometimes getting killed are not average, except in your eyes I guess. Your comments smack of the Clinton adviser who had that great quote: "The Nations best and brightest didn't die in Vietnam. The best and brightest never went to Vietnam".
What's the point of joining into a discussion if all you do is lie?
Mike/wulfie
p.s. For everyone else reading this reply - here's a graph showing monthly Coalition casualties:
(http://opinionjournal.com/best/casualties.jpg)
-
Wulfie,
>>Bush did something more dangerous and challenging than you have ever done.
Now this is a moronic statement... Bush not only did not show up for duty - he never once flew with his unit! That is a documented fact.
And if you think I'm wrong... what's your source of information that he did?
Because Bush said so?
Remember Bush also said he had irrefutable proof that Iraq has WMD and they had mobile chemical/biological labs running around the country inside of sophisticated trucks. Remember those beautiful Auto CAD pictures Powel showed to the UN security council - JUSTIFICATION FOR GOING TO WAR!
BS!
Bush and his cabinet were snorting lines in the oval office and free basing in the Lincoln room with Laura.
Where are these WMD that Bush had such convincing evidence on?
Bush also backed down from his "Bring it on" statement almost with in an hour after saying it - where's his gonads? Such a tough guy! So confident in his forces to fight - he should have stuck to his guns - he didn't because he's a sissy draft dodger.
That's why he's addicted to alcohol and was arrested for drunk driving. And when asked about it the first time he denied it, until guess what? Someone found proof he was arrested!
What a pathological liar he is.
His world of lies is getting exposed.
>>you are a *****ing loser dude. A total *****ing loser
Name calling? What's wrong? You can't have a discussion with out calling people names?
You let me get your goat Wulfie! LOL :D
My lefist socialist commie loving left wing liberal mission has been a success - Thank you!
-
The general's numbers look low.
http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html
-
But ya see Nexus, when your "facts" are wild distortions if not out right wrong or perhaps even lies, how can we possibly consider your conjecture?
-
bush was a deserter, probly because of his cocain addiction because of the instilation of the first cocain testing by the military. he couldnt fly without the medical and couldent pass the medical exam. his dad then used his influence ( unpruven ) to get him a discharge with a exit exam from a civilian doctor. he wont talk about it go figure coke heads cant ever keep **** strait ...just like errr him.
and i know a lot of vets viet nam and otherwise and am one myself your good guy bad guy crap is just that crap. belive me i and they werent in combat for some cowboy movie concept of right and wrong. man that pissed me off. play your conservative politics game but dont put me on your side "deleted bad word".
ohh yea can we get a credit on that chart. or the source figgures source wulfie?
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
bush was a deserter, probly because of his cocain addiction because of the instilation of the first cocain testing by the military. he couldnt fly without the medical and couldent pass the medical exam. his dad then used his influence ( unpruven ) to get him a discharge with a exit exam from a civilian doctor. he wont talk about it go figure coke heads cant ever keep **** strait ...just like errr him.
and i know a lot of vets viet nam and otherwise and am one myself your good guy bad guy crap is just that crap. belive me i and they werent in combat for some cowboy movie concept of right and wrong. man that pissed me off. play your conservative politics game but dont put me on your side pissant.
ohh yea can we get a credit on that chart. or the source figgures source.
I've been tellin' ya to ease up on the glue sniffin', it's hard on yer grammar.
-
Some of the posts in this thread are so stupid and uninformed, I find myself reaching a point where I don't even bother reading what people write anymore.
There used to be good political debate here. Now, it's simply mudslinging at politicians. Hardly Cerebral.
We now return you to the parade of hippies.
-
>>But ya see Nexus, when your "facts" are wild distortions if not out right wrong or perhaps even lies, how can we possibly consider your conjecture?
I started all this with conservative comments... now I'm enjoying the distorted rant...
I understand, now, why Rush, Hannity, Anne Coulter, and O'Reilly love to froth and sprew so much... it's rather exhilerating distorting facts and being absurd.
The truth is people who start wars never fight them, people who die in wars rarely know why.
The Iraq war is not about protecting America or ridding the world of an "evil" dictator.
Latin America has been waging a chemical war (drugs - weapons of mass destruction) against American's for years. We know who the governements, we know who the criminals are, and we know where they are. Yet we aren't occupying Columbia.
There are countries in Africa which have suffered far more than the Iraqi people, by far worse dictators. We're not talking hundreds of thousands of people dead (like in Iraq)... we're talking millions, brutal masacres of entire tribes, women, children, elderly, helpless people, babies ripped from the womb, be headings, rapes, every imaginable brutality one human can inflict upon another.
Why aren't we taking care of those dictators?
Often times these conflicts are across borders - making the region unstable.
The "moral" reason and justifications used to attack Iraq were not enough to go to war. The Bush Administration new this - because those were the conditions Congress imposed upon the War Powers act.
This administration had to lie and come up with a "Real and Present" danger (aka WMD) in order to justify this war.
This adminstration new that WMD and the link to Al Queda did not exist, and yet they continued to lie.
Why?
I don't have the answer to that question.
I know it's not about morality... no nation goes to war because of morality.
Iraq did not pose an immenant danger to America to justify Bush invoking the War Powers Act.
The Truth will be found. Bush is not that bright.. the CIA leak is a sign of that.
Leaking Bin Landen's cell is a sign of that.
Ignoring Al Queda for 8 months until they attacked us is a sign of that.
Not working with the UN, creating a huge defeciet, the situation with N.K., a tax cut for the rich - all examles of Bush's stupidity as a leader.
Bush has taken more vacation days than any other president in history - this guy is a lazy moron.
Ok wait he's not a total moron... he did sign the do-not-call bill.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Now this is a moronic statement... Bush not only did not show up for duty - he never once flew with his unit! That is a documented fact.
And if you think I'm wrong... what's your source of information that he did?
Because Bush said so? Name calling? What's wrong? You can't have a discussion with out calling people names?
You let me get your goat Wulfie! LOL :D
My lefist socialist commie loving left wing liberal mission has been a success - Thank you!
The current CiC was a fighter pilot for the ANG. This means he completed basic flight school for the USAF, finished high enough in his class to be selected for fighter training, and then completed advanced flight training as a fighter pilot.
Guys get killed in all phases of flight training. And he was assigned to other units previous to the unit that liars like you claim that he 'deserted from'. He was never charged with desertion. He was never even charged for UA.
I don't think you are wrong. I know you are a liar, and I know you are wrong. It's not my job to prove to some idiot that the sky is blue. Prove to me that he was lying when he said he flew jet fighters for the ANG.
I 'called' you adjectives that give an accurate description of your persona. We aren't having a discussion. You are lying about life and death occurances involving numerous people that I know personally to further your feeble attempts at feigning educated discussion on matters involving politics, national security, etc. I gurantee that you are incapable of ever 'getting my goat'. Do not fool yourself (again). This was not some 'verbal engagement' between you and I. I was slapping down a pathetic little liar (you) who sees nothing wrong with lying about guys who are currently engaged in combat and guys who have paid the ultimate price while serving a cause that you have no respect for.
"My lefist socialist commie loving left wing liberal mission has been a success - Thank you!"
Someday I wish I could be as cool as you. Instead of discussing matters intelligently I wish I could learn to lie and start endless identical arguments over the same lies.
You are pathetic.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
and i know a lot of vets viet nam and otherwise and am one myself your good guy bad guy crap is just that crap. belive me i and they werent in combat for some cowboy movie concept of right and wrong. man that pissed me off. play your conservative politics game but dont put me on your side "deleted bad word".
ohh yea can we get a credit on that chart. or the source figgures source wulfie?
I don't know if the 'good guy bad guy crap' applies to anything I said - let me know and we'll discuss it. By the way for serving in SE Asia. For what it's worth I don't think you can really compare the 'war on terror' with the war in SE Asia - you guys had to deal with much tougher circumstances in my opinion.
As for the credit(s) for the chart, here's the best I could do on short notice:
Origionally a summation from:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004090 (the chart is on this page)
Opinion Journal lists this 'blog' as where the chart came from:
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/004670.html#004670
And here's a detailed database of Coalition casualties in Iraq (linked from the Opinion Journal page listed above):
http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Details.aspx
Mike/wulfie
-
Don't try to speak for the GIs in Iraq. They either joined the military because they wanted to see combat, or were willing to risk going to combat for the benefits (college, insurance, etc).
I think the problem stems from the dumb democrats who try to join the military for a 'free ride'. Then they whine and cry when they have to actually do something.
And its the same democrats who put pressure on the President to pull out of Iraq, while the Republicans want to get the job done. In effect, this makes the President go into a stalling action like we have now.
-
Hey, you were a bit vague there LDV. Were you a Vietnam vet or one of the otherwise? Just curious.
-
davidpt40: Don't try to speak for the GIs in Iraq. They either joined the military because they wanted to see combat, or were willing to risk going to combat for the benefits (college, insurance, etc).
I know a few who would have never enlisted if they thought they would risk being sent into conflict.
My aquaintance's step-son was tricked by his enlistment officer to sigh for an extra year of military servce 5 instead of 4 - for a bonus sum of $3000. He was shipped to Iraq last week.
miko
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
I started all this with conservative comments... now I'm enjoying the distorted rant...
The lies I responded to were far from conservative comments.
I understand, now, why Rush, Hannity, Anne Coulter, and O'Reilly love to froth and sprew so much... it's rather exhilerating distorting facts and being absurd.
Funny, the majority of the educated people in the world that have a clue about matters would say the same thing about you.
The truth is people who start wars never fight them, people who die in wars rarely know why.
How poetic. I'm sure the Russians at Stalingrad didn't have a clue as to why they were called to arms. I'm sure the guys that volunteered to leave their current deployments to join task units in Afghanistan didn't have a clue either.
The Iraq war is not about protecting America or ridding the world of an "evil" dictator.
What was it about then? No, wait - I know - oil and Bush's evil plan to dominate the free world.
Latin America has been waging a chemical war (drugs - weapons of mass destruction) against American's for years. We know who the governements, we know who the criminals are, and we know where they are. Yet we aren't occupying Columbia.
No occupation. Plenty of Americans involved in combat operations down there though. Americans have been KIA fighting the FARC during the past couple of years. And if you weren't so pathetically stupid, you'd see the difference between the *elected* government of Columbia, which has been fighting their own brutal war on terror for years, being supported by the USA and the Iraqi dictatorship which terrorized it's own people and supported international terrorism being removed by the Coalition. You're ready to occupy Columbia? Why? They've been fighting drugs and terrorism tooth-and-nail for more than a decade now. You give new meaning to the adjective 'uninformed'.
There are countries in Africa which have suffered far more than the Iraqi people, by far worse dictators. We're not talking hundreds of thousands of people dead (like in Iraq)... we're talking millions, brutal masacres of entire tribes, women, children, elderly, helpless people, babies ripped from the womb, be headings, rapes, every imaginable brutality one human can inflict upon another. Why aren't we taking care of those dictators?
Shhhh. Don't tell anyone but we have guys operating all over Africa (that's a joke - everyone knows this but you). A major U.S. base is located in the horn of Africa. If Africa is so horrible, why aren't you pissed at the UN for handling it? As for why Iraq and not Africa - Iraq was by far more of a direct threat to the US and world stability. Yes - a direct threat to the US. Just because you haven't read information supporting this in the 'UC Berkely People's Green Press' does not mean it doesn't exist.
Often times these conflicts are across borders - making the region unstable.
Sort of like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?
The "moral" reason and justifications used to attack Iraq were not enough to go to war. The Bush Administration new this - because those were the conditions Congress imposed upon the War Powers act.
This administration had to lie and come up with a "Real and Present" danger (aka WMD) in order to justify this war.
Actually the initial votes in favor of military action didn't involve WMD as much as they did noncompliance with the cease fire agreements from back in '91. I am now waiting for you to tell me how Hussein was not a belligerent little bastard who tried to thwart the cease fire agreements he signed on a daily basis for 10+ years.
This adminstration new that WMD and the link to Al Queda did not exist, and yet they continued to lie.
So show me the unalterable proof that Iraq was no threat before we took action. You know - the proof provided by Hussein through total cooperation with UN inspection teams, etc.
Oh, wait - he didn't cooperate or comply in any way whatsoever. Why is this?
As for no Al-Q link - show me proof there is no link? An intercepted call to an Al-Q planner in Baghdad from an Al-Q hit team that zapped a U.S. diplomat says something, doesn't it? Before you say the Iraqis didn't know the planner was there...do some research on Iraqi internal security - services, apparatus, etc.
Iraq did not pose an immenant danger to America to justify Bush invoking the War Powers Act.
Yeah, you tell 'em 'Senator Internet'. Why in the heck aren't you running for office. You'd straigten everything out.
The Truth will be found. Bush is not that bright.. the CIA leak is a sign of that.
The sad thing is that the truth will be found, and you and your ilk will be unable to handle it, and will continue to lie - often as college professors, parents, etc. and we'll have to deal with even more morons for at least another 50 or so years.
Ignoring Al Queda for 8 months until they attacked us is a sign of that.
Ignoring? What do *you* (as opposed to people with a clue) mean by 'ignore'? Show me some proof that Al-Q was 'ignored' by the U.S. - while being led by any President - for the past 10+ years. Save yourself some time. I know you are wrong (again). Just do yourself a favor and stop lying for a couple of minutes a day.
Not working with the UN, creating a huge defeciet, the situation with N.K., a tax cut for the rich - all examles of Bush's stupidity as a leader.
Well I'm only really qualified to comment on N. Korea - but not wanting to waste time on information that you will block out to protect your massively skewed view of reality, I'll just sum up about N. Korea: "Wrong again". Your comment here though is revealing - you are a political extremist, as opposed to an educated human being. I pity you.
Bush has taken more vacation days than any other president in history - this guy is a lazy moron.
Proof on the vacation days? Even if it's true he isn't lazy. He's easily smarter and more educated than you are and he does more in a day than you do in a week.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by miko2d
davidpt40: Don't try to speak for the GIs in Iraq. They either joined the military because they wanted to see combat, or were willing to risk going to combat for the benefits (college, insurance, etc).
I know a few who would have never enlisted if they thought they would risk being sent into conflict.
My aquaintance's step-son was tricked by his enlistment officer to sigh for an extra year of military servce 5 instead of 4 - for a bonus sum of $3000. He was shipped to Iraq last week.
miko
There are guys who didn't want to see combat. But there are also many who jumped at the chance. There are guys who agreed to have a couple of years tacked on to their commitments to get into Afghanistan while there was still some payback to be had.
miko what unit is he with?
Mike/wulfie
-
wulfie: How poetic. I'm sure the Russians at Stalingrad didn't have a clue as to why they were called to arms.
I had relatives there. They had a very good clue - the Stalin's famous order #227 "No retreat without direct order under eny circumstances". There were KGB (NKVD) interdiction batallions set behind the fighting line that machinegunned anyone who would retreat (after running out of ammo, for example, or being wounded or accompanying one), would not attack on command or try to surrender.
Just a little fact that is often ommited but makes quite a difference.
So show me the unalterable proof that Iraq was no threat before we took action. You know - the proof provided by Hussein through total cooperation with UN inspection teams, etc.
Hans Blix said that inspections were proceeding with total cooperation of Iraqi's, they were clear on everything and needed a couple of months to settle the paperwork concerning disposal of some old chemicals.
UN is not pissed on US for unilateral action. UN is pissed because he asked for resolution from UN, got it and when Hussein unexpectedly fully cooperated, Bush still invaded.
miko
-
Originally posted by Westy
I vote we pull the boys out and we install Pinochet and his crew as Presidente' and government of Iraq.
Yeah and let Kissenger be his Foreign Secretary.
Why does Wuflie post so much of nothing all the time?
-
Wulf "Blitzer" is it?
>>Funny, the majority of the educated people in the world that have a clue about matters would say the same thing about you.
You now know what the majority of the people in the world would say? - LIAR.
>>The truth is people who start wars never fight them, people who die in wars rarely know why.
Give us a clue...
What danger did Iraq pose to the US's security?
There are no WMD.
Iraq - according to the Hanz Blitz - was fully co-operating with the UN.
Iraq had no deliver system to attack the US.
N.K. on the other hand....
Has the potention to have nuclear weapons.
Has said they are and will manufacture nuclear weapons
Has said they will use nuclear weapons
Has said that if the say does certain things like try to sanction N.K. via the UN, that such an action will be an act of war.
Why don't we take out N.K.?
And guess what N.K. even has missles!
Double standard.
However, I'll give you a clue.
N.K. is on the belly of China. It's not N.K. that's deterring us it's China and the Russia. China and Russia doesn't want American's to occupy a country that close to them.
>>What was it about then?
Oil? Possibily.
Could also be about showing off our weapons systems.
The US is the number one exporter of weapons in the world.
I'm sure it's about money - in one way or another it's about money.
How many Iraqi are there? Several million... that's several million potentual T-Mobile customers,
That's several million whopers, pepsi cola, Ford...
Consumers!
>>If you weren't so pathetically stupid, you'd see the difference between the *elected* government of Columbia, which has been fighting their own brutal war on terror for years
An elected corrupt government giving lip service to American support. Corrupt because judge after judge and jury after has been found to be paid off. Drug cartel king pins... under house arrest with their own guards protecting them.... and then when trial comes... they disappear.
Yeah - I think you're the one who is uninformed.
And after all this help from America, money, military, equipment... the drugs keep pouring in.... and pouring in... and addicting young Americans... thousands of Americans are dieing per year because from the pollution of drugs coming from Latin America.
It's not hard to find a cocaine farm - that's a pretty big operation.
Even our closest ally Mexico, had an Army General who order his troops to killed DEA agents (escuse me.. I misspoke Mexican Federales) during a narcotics raid. It was a massacre.
>> A major U.S. base is located in the horn of Africa.
No Chit!! Does that make you smarter than the rest of us because you know of only one base in Africa?
>>Iraq was by far more of a direct threat to the US and world stability.
How so? Give it up... I'm sure your listeners what to here the reasons.
Don't say WMD - because those have not been found.
Don't say because they had a massive and powerful military... because we saw how well their military did.
Don't say because the airforce could strike at will - because we all know they airforce was destroyed during the Gulf War.
Why is it the rest of the world... and I don't mean America and UK saw differently?
All those other educated people from many different countries - much more well informed than you and I... thought maybe diplomacy was better than war... and they couldn't find any reason for going to war with Iraq.
Share with us Mr. Educated and informed what we don't know and what the rest of the world does know.
Where was the immenant threat to US security some 10,000 miles away.
>>Hussein was not a belligerent little bastard who tried to thwart the cease fire agreements he signed on a daily basis for 10+ years.
Ah there you go again lying again. Hussein wasn't signing agreements on a daily basis for 10+ years.
I think you are exagerating.
>>Oh, wait - he didn't cooperate or comply in any way whatsoever.
Another lie. Hanz Blitz reported to the UN they were receiving full cooperation from the Iraqi..
I think you have selective memory... you only member the facts you need to justify killing thousands of people.
People did die didn't they. Not just Americans. Iraqis too.
Do you think every one of those Iraqs deserved to die?
Have you objectived a person's life to the point they are just an object of hate yet?
I don't think the common Iraq soldier had any choice over his fate - do you?
How many people died because Bush was impatient to go to war?
>>Show me proof there is no link? An intercepted call to an Al-Q...
See now you're contradicting our own intelligence sources and the white house.
Bush said there is no Iraqi Al-Q link. Is he lieing now or are you just uninformed.
By the way there are more Saudi Arabian links with Al-Q than Iraqi. Remember the majority of the hi-jackers of 9/11 were Saudis. None were Iraqi.
In Bin Laden's own words.. he hated the Iraqis - completely different religions and beliefs, completely different goals.
There is no link. Stop listening to Rush - he's a big fat idiot.
>>The sad thing is that the truth will be found, and you and your ilk will be unable to handle it, and will continue to lie
You're a fortune teller now eh? And you know how people think
Do you read minds? I think you're lying.
>> we'll have to deal with even more morons for at least another 50 or so years.
Calling people stupid and morons is hardly an educated way to discuss an issue. It shows your emotional immaturity and fustration in discussing a topic - so you have to restort to attacking and belittling the other person rather than simply stating your point of view.
Does it make you feel better to vent? Therapy would do you good.
>>He's easily smarter and more educated than you are and he does more in a day than you do in a week.
Ah there you go again... talking about things you know nothing about. You dont' know me or Bush personally - you have no idea who is better educated or who works more each day.
You're just fabricating lies again.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Hans Blix said that inspections were proceeding with total cooperation of Iraqi's, they were clear on everything and needed a couple of months to settle the paperwork concerning disposal of some old chemicals.
miko
When exactly did Blix say this? Kinda relevant don't you think?
-
Originally spewed from the anus of DmdNexus
There are no WMD.
Really? He destroyed them? When? Why didn't he take photos or offer evidence of such destruction? Because you are so sure there 'are no WMD', I assume you'll voluntarily quit the AH BBS if any are ever found?
Iraq - according to the Hanz Blitz - was fully co-operating with the UN.
Show me a single quote from Blix stating that Iraq was ever fully cooperating with the UN.
Iraq had no deliver system to attack the US.
He had the Mark 1 Mod 0 terrorist human being which is capable of carrying biological and/or chemical weapons.
N.K. on the other hand....
Has the potention to have nuclear weapons.
Has said they are and will manufacture nuclear weapons
Has said they will use nuclear weapons
Has said that if the say does certain things like try to sanction N.K. via the UN, that such an action will be an act of war.
Why don't we take out N.K.?
And guess what N.K. even has missles!
Yep, it has missiles...and several thousand howitzers, rocket launchers (as in rocket artillery), etc. - all within firing range of Seoul. So it's guranteed that in the first hour of war with N. Korea Seoul would effectively be hit by a nuke - in terms of tonnage of HE. When you have a large civilian populace 'under the gun' of massed artillery controlled by a madman, you need to use a little diplomacy.
Double standard.
No, just another clueless argument used by people like you.
However, I'll give you a clue.
That would be impossible. There is nothing I could learn from you with the possible exception of how to act like an uninformed idiot.
N.K. is on the belly of China. It's not N.K. that's deterring us it's China and the Russia. China and Russia doesn't want American's to occupy a country that close to them.
Really? Where'd you get your education on national security and international relations? I'd say you are dead wrong. And I know more about the subject than you ever will.
I'm sure it's about money - in one way or another it's about money. How many Iraqi are there? Several million... that's several million potentual T-Mobile customers, That's several million whopers, pepsi cola, Ford...Consumers!
Amen brother! Down with the WTO! Power to the People!
Not.
An elected corrupt government giving lip service to American support. Corrupt because judge after judge and jury after has been found to be paid off. Drug cartel king pins... under house arrest with their own guards protecting them.... and then when trial comes... they disappear.
You're living way in the past, in 'hollywood' history. The judges and juries aren't being paid off anymore - they're being killed or kidnapped by FARC terrorists. How many Colombians have you talked to in the past year? How many did you discuss the most recent Presidential candidates with? I think the answer to both is probably 'zero'. Admit it - you don't have clue #1 about Colombia. 'Drug Cartel King Pins'? LOL? You're education on world events comes from 'Miami Vice' I take it?
Please show me a single media report - from any Nation's media - stating that Columbia's current government is 'corrupt'.
Yeah - I think you're the one who is uninformed.
You can think what you want. I've been to Colombia more than once and my job involved dealing with the topic at hand. What's your background?
It's not hard to find a cocaine farm - that's a pretty big operation.
Define 'pretty big'. I've seen cocoa processing facilities of all sizes. Regardless of size, they're under heavy foliage in the center of a large enclave occupied by the FARC, which finances itself with drug $$$. After you straighten out the U.S. Government why don't you cruise on down to Colombia and set everyone straight with another of your '2 sentence solutions to any complex issue'. I don't think you can. But what do I know - I've only been there and seen what's going on first hand.
A major U.S. base is located in the horn of Africa.
No Chit!! Does that make you smarter than the rest of us because you know of only one base in Africa?
Well since you are supposedly not clueless, why don't you tell me where it is and what goes on there? And if you can tell me that, I will find your opinion that the current administration is doing 'nothing' about scumbags in Africa to be a little 'self-contradictory' to say the least. And while we're on the topic of the slaughter of innocent people in Rwanda...who was President at the time (keep in mind that I don't think the current President is 'guilty' of anything for not intervening during the most recent crisis in Rwanda - I know that such a decision involves the input of many career professionals...not just a 'let's go' by the CiC) of the most recent 'large wave of atrocities'?
How so? Give it up... I'm sure your listeners what to here the reasons.
Don't say WMD - because those have not been found.
So they never existed? When were they destroyed if they did exist? Where were they destroyed? The US has huge facilities tasked with destroying chemical weapons - they need to be elaborate in order to cleanly burn the chemical agents. Iraq has no such facilities. So if they destroyed them in a 'dirty' fashion, where is the contaminated soil? Where are the fumes?
Don't say because they had a massive and powerful military... because we saw how well their military did.
They did have a massive military. The Coalition destroyed it during a several-week-long 'Quagmire'.
Why is it the rest of the world... and I don't mean America and UK saw differently?
You forgot to include a few dozen other Nations. No big deal it's par for the course with you.
All those other educated people from many different countries - much more well informed than you and I
Speak for yourself. Your average German doesn't know 1% of what I do regarding these topics. And it wasn't the leadership of the German military that was against action in Iraq. It was the German running for political office. And his friends, who compare Bush to Hitler. Maybe you should move over there and buy them all strap-ons. You might truly be happy then.
Share with us Mr. Educated and informed what we don't know and what the rest of the world does know.
Often times the rest of the world is wrong. And if you ever read what I write on these topics...ah...nevermind.
Ah there you go again lying again. Hussein wasn't signing agreements on a daily basis for 10+ years.
The violations were taking place on a near-daily basis. I wasn't lying. The problem is that you cannot read very well.
Another lie. Hanz Blitz reported to the UN they were receiving full cooperation from the Iraqi..
Give me one quote saying that Iraq was cooperating fully. One single quote. Make sure it includes 'full cooperation' in some form please.
Calling people stupid and morons is hardly an educated way to discuss an issue. It shows your emotional immaturity and fustration in discussing a topic - so you have to restort to attacking and belittling the other person rather than simply stating your point of view.
You call what you type on this BBS an attempt at discussion? I called you stupid and a moron because you are stupid and you are a moron. I don't have to 'resort' to 'attacking' anyone. I can state my view just fine with people actually interested in a discussion. You are not one of these people.
Ah there you go again... talking about things you know nothing about. You dont' know me or Bush personally - you have no idea who is better educated or who works more each day.
Yet you are knolwedgeable enough to claim that our President is stupid and lazy. I've worked for people that reported directly to the President (Regan, Bush Sr., Clinton). I believe I have a better idea of his daily routine than you do.
Your posts to this BBS tell me all I need to know about your intelligence and education.
Mike/wulfie
-
They relying upon middle class Americans - mostly minorities to do the fighting.
This is so stupid as to make my jaw drop. I would like DMDNExus post the statistics, the actual numbers of the ethnic origin of those fighting in Iraq.
DMDNexus, try to avoid vomiting out old rhetoric left over from the Vietnam war days.
Better yet, if you cant say anything even close to intelligent, I suggest you say nothing at all.
dago
-
LOL the old "Anybody who served in the military 1964-1972 but didn't go to Vietnam is a draft dodger." Wulfie why do you even bother. Pearls, swine, etc.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Yeah and let Kissenger be his Foreign Secretary.
Why does Wuflie post so much of nothing all the time?
I don't know but next time you talk to the guy tell him to change his BBS ID so no one confuses him with me. :)
Mike/wulfie
-
It's O.K. if your confused wulfie, after all the lies and spin on Iraq by Bush and Co a majority of Americans are confused too.
Your not alone. :lol
-
I think Ozzy said it best
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds, oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'till their judgement day comes, yeah!
Now in darkness, world stops turning
As the war machine keeps burning
No more war pigs of the power
Hand of god has sturck the hour
Day of judgement, god is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings
ALL RIGHT NOW!
-
The ignorance displayed on this subject is palpable. Miko, sometimes you make sense, sometimes you say such stupid things. Wulfie, you are wasting electrons trying to show facts to these children.
-
Need to simplify this for you Mr. Wulfie.
You like to call names but don't answer questions.
>>Really? He destroyed them? When? Why didn't he take photos or offer evidence of such destruction?
You're the educated one... who's been everywhere, knows everything, worked for assistants to the President.
The UN didn't find any weapons - Bush's top WMD investigator didn't find any - and now Bush can't say the Iraqis weren't co-operating, because the US military can go any where it wants to in Iraq... and has and nothing has been found.
Put up or shut up - where are the WMDs?
How about... there aren't any. They were destroyed during the first Gulf War...
probablely - yes...
possiblely - yes...
You know that just might be the correct answer, and this whole damn war was a big charade!
>>Show me a single quote from Blix stating that Iraq was ever fully cooperating with the UN.
It was in the very last report he gave the UN - go read it.
It was all over TV - pay attention.
>>He had the Mark 1 Mod 0 terrorist human being which is capable of carrying biological and/or chemical weapons.
Well watermelon that gives us justification to kill every Iraqi on sight - they just might be a terrorist with a bomb.
It's easy to kill people when they are no longer seen as human - isn't it.
Objectify the enemy is the first step to not seeing him as human.
Who's evil now?
>>When you have a large civilian populace 'under the gun' of massed artillery controlled by a madman, you need to use a little diplomacy.
Double standard.
It's easy to stomp all over 3rd world countries when the political reprecussions are lower.
so with your reasoning that makes going to war with Iraq ok.
Yet N.K. not ok - right? Because N.K. would cause more what? Political damage right... do we really care about casualties? Do we?
I get it... it's the bully doctrine to foreign diplomacy... makes sense... that's pretty much how the world community views us now.
>>Really? Where'd you get your education on national security and international relations? I'd say you are dead wrong. And I know more about the subject than you ever will.
Oh you want to swap nation security credentials - sort of a way to bolster your point of view - that what you say is right and what I say is wrong?
Some how I doubt you have any.. mostly because you haven't said anything.. you like to do the name calling thing and act like you know chit... which you don't.
Oh wait, you do have a top secret compartmented SBI clearance don't you? Please tell us about it.
And you have access to SIGINT, HUMINT, ELINT and all kinds of other watermelon too - right?
You probably know USSIGs backwards and forwards.
You've worked for the CIA, NSA, NSOC, and the situation room at the white house. right?
Or are you just another DEA dweeb who thinks he's in the know?
You haven't said chit... please tell us and impress us with your secret knowledge Mr. Presidential aide.. what were you? A senate page?
You didn't answer the question....
What's the reason for the war in Iraq - there were no WMD... that was a ruse - not the real reason.
>>You can think what you want. I've been to Colombia more than once and my job involved dealing with the topic at hand.
I bet you have, probably ensuring Mr. Bush's cocaine delivery got to him?
You're still not saying anything
>>Iraq has no such facilities. So if they destroyed them in a 'dirty' fashion, where is the contaminated soil? Where are the fumes?
If they had no WMD... and if they did not destroy WMD that they didn't have....they would not need to have such facilities...
I know I'm stretching your ability to think logically here...
ok... if all that were true, then there would be no contaminated soil and there would be no fumes.. and there would be no UN sanction violations... because there were no WMD.
Got it! Is there the slightest possibility you could see that logic?
Or are you privy to secret "columbian" South African intelligence that the White house and the US Intelligence community doesn't have?
Perhaps you should call up your buddy Mr. Bush and let him in on where those WMD are... because he can't find them the coke up his nose has him in a stupor and he's stumbling over the word "subbbblimanable"
>>I've worked for people that reported directly to the President (Regan, Bush Sr., Clinton). I believe I have a better idea of his daily routine than you do.
Prove it - Name names - who did you work for and what were your job responsibilities.
Let me quess you're a butler in the senate cafeteria, or were you the shoe shine boy?
LOL
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Need to simplify this for you Mr. Wulfie.
I've had COs and direct superiors who were involved with NSC briefings earlier in their careers. It was from them that I learned what a day in the life of the President is like. It was from them that I first learned what went into a Presidential decision on a National Security matter (in terms of the # of career professionals involved at every level of the decision making process).
I'm in the military. I hold a security clearance. I have been present in situation rooms and operations centers more than once. I work or have worked on intelligence and CT related issues. I have been to Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Pakistan and Colombia - some more than once - while serving in the military.
All of the above doesn't really matter as far as this BBS goes however, as nothing 'from work' would ever make it onto any BBS. The exception to this is situations involving first hand knolwedge that is nowhere close to sensitive/classified/etc. A good example of this is my pointing out how wrong you were when you stated that 'minorities do all the fighting'. I know this is nonsense because I have been at the location of 'the fighting' and 'I wasn't the only white guy there'. Even this personal experience isn't really required however - a couple of guys debunked you with some internet links.
I also have a M.A. in National Security Studies. I spend a great deal of my 'free' time (which is fairly limited right now) researching open source intelligence on the internet. Mainly I do this to be better at my job. An added bonus is that I can point guys who browse this BBS to good (open source) data on current issues as opposed to what CNN scrolls 24/7 or what lunatics like you spew.
So, what's your background and how is it relevant to discussions on Foreign Relations and/or National Security?
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by wulfie
Oh where oh where do I start? :)
'Mostly minorities to do the fighting'? A total lie - just like it was back in the era of Vietnam. I'll tell you what. You let me know the next time you are in Georgia, or Southern California, or Virginia, or North Carolina, or South Carolina. I'll give you the names of a couple of bars to go to. You go there and explain to the 'minorities' how they are being 'exploited' by 'fighting for the rich' (as opposed to volunteering to kill bad guys). I'll make sure you have a large audience anywhere you go. You make sure your dental insurance is up-to-date. :)
On a more somber note, I have mental images of plenty of good guys who have been killed over the past 2 or 3 years and none of them were members of a 'minority'. It took a statement like yours to actually cause me to think about specific details like that. There are a few guys I know who have been KIA who *to you* would be considered part of a 'minority group' - but that's your label for your *****ed-up agenda. They considered themselves to be Americans.
Bush did something more dangerous and challenging than you have ever done. He flew jet fighter aircraft. In the spirit of the above paragraph I could arrange for you to go to a bar or two in the states where you could explain to some USAF fighter pilots who never flew over SE Asia (read: the majority of the interceptor pilots flying for SAC) about how they were 'draft dodging sissies' and 'never did any dying'. The dental insurance advice is still very relevant in this case. When I think about how many guys I have seen get killed in 'peacetime' military aviation - you are a *****ing loser dude. A total *****ing loser lying about serious issues to support a petty argument that is itself based totally on lies.
Where did you get 'never showed up for duty' from? Did you pull it out of your prettythang along with the rest of the facts that define your reality?
Here's a suggestion that might lead to you getting a little 'real-world' education. Before you explain to the above mentioned audiences how 'minorities do most of the fighting' and get beating within a inch or two of your worthless life, you should ask them what they think of the "Bring it on" quote. I love it. Most of the guys I know who are currently serving in the military love it. You apparently missed the point of the statement - probably because you are totally incapable of relating to the CiC or anyone directly involved in the current hammering of bad guys worldwide. Bush was saying "Bring it on" because he knew his fighters were up to the task of dealing with the opposition. 'Bring it on - it's nothing my guys cannot handle'. This type of talk may bother you. Why don't you go back to the coffee shop now and 'heroicially resist the evil Bush regime by dreaming up conspiracies to post to the internet' with your fellow 'freedom fighters'.
Another reality check - why do you call him a draft dodger? He was a member of the military already. Contrary to popular 'extremist' belief, his Dad did not hold any significant political office at the time (another reason why the 'Bush Jr. was skated into Yale' rumor is baseless). He was as succeptible to being activated to an active duty USAF fighter squadron and deployed to SE Asia as any of the couple thousand other ANG interceptor pilots flying at the time.
I'm not average. The guys fighting and sometimes getting killed are not average, except in your eyes I guess. Your comments smack of the Clinton adviser who had that great quote: "The Nations best and brightest didn't die in Vietnam. The best and brightest never went to Vietnam".
What's the point of joining into a discussion if all you do is lie?
Mike/wulfie
p.s. For everyone else reading this reply - here's a graph showing monthly Coalition casualties:
(http://opinionjournal.com/best/casualties.jpg)
well said SIR
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
and i know a lot of vets viet nam and otherwise and am one myself
what year? what unit? where were you in country?
Please respond. I have other questions
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Need to simplify this for you Mr. Wulfie.
You like to call names but don't answer questions.
I answer plenty of questions on this BBS. You are the one who appears adept at changing the subject when you don't like the answer, or when you are caught making uneducated or intentionally false statements. 2 of the most recent examples involve Colombia and 'minorities' in the U.S. Armed Forces.
The UN didn't find any weapons
Please explain what *you* mean - specifically - when you say that the UN didn't find *any* weapons.
Bush's top WMD investigator didn't find any
Again - what do you mean when you say that 'Bush's top WMD investigator' didn't find *any* weapons? Be specific.
- and now Bush can't say the Iraqis weren't co-operating, because the US military can go any where it wants to in Iraq... and has and nothing has been found.
The military has gone anywhere it wants to in Iraq and nothing has been found? Are you saying that every possible place that WMD could have been hidden has been searched by now?
Put up or shut up - where are the WMDs?
Oooooh. Is this an attempt at 'command presence'? :)
How about... there aren't any. They were destroyed during the first Gulf War...
probablely - yes...
possiblely - yes...
What information leads you to believe this statement to be true? Provide some type of specific answer (i.e. 'Coalition troops found X units of biological agent Z at location Y on this date and reported their destruction').
You know that just might be the correct answer, and this whole damn war was a big charade!
Now you are telling me what I know? That's pretty amusing considering how often you've been proven to be incorrect in only the past 24 hours.
>>Show me a single quote from Blix stating that Iraq was ever fully cooperating with the UN.
It was in the very last report he gave the UN - go read it.
It was all over TV - pay attention.
If it was that widespread spend the 5 minutes to list a link to the actual report. Be specific. I want to see Blix stating that Iraq had given his teams 'total cooperation'. I only recall him saying that there were some positive developments in terms of Iraqi cooperation. Of course, there's no way he'd spin a report because the UN knew that military action was imminent and pressured him to do so. That would never happen.
>>He had the Mark 1 Mod 0 terrorist human being which is capable of carrying biological and/or chemical weapons.
Well watermelon that gives us justification to kill every Iraqi on sight - they just might be a terrorist with a bomb.
It's easy to kill people when they are no longer seen as human - isn't it.
Objectify the enemy is the first step to not seeing him as human.
Who's evil now?
Your words and your words alone. If you search my various posts on the topic, you'd see that long before I was stupid enough to waste a couple of hours debunking your posts my position on Iraqi soldiers was that they were 'caught in the middle' - between a stupid dictator's actions and the inevitable response from the rest of the world. I've said the same about Afghanis fighting for the ATF. I have some sympathy for the 'average' (read: conscripted, or non-politically motivated) Iraqi soldier. I spoke with no small # of them after they surrendered in 1991.
>>When you have a large civilian populace 'under the gun' of massed artillery controlled by a madman, you need to use a little diplomacy.
Double standard.
It's easy to stomp all over 3rd world countries when the political reprecussions are lower.
So with your reasoning that makes going to war with Iraq ok.
Yet N.K. not ok - right? Because N.K. would cause more what? Political damage right...do we really care about casualties? Do we?
I get it... it's the bully doctrine to foreign diplomacy... makes sense... that's pretty much how the world community views us now.
You sure do have a wandering brain sometimes. It's a lot more simple than you think. N. Korea has Seoul 'held hostage' due to the close proximity of massed N. Korean artillery. The dictator leading N. Korea is not a friend of the people of S. Korea. Thus the populace of Seoul is under constant threat of destruction from a hostile leader. One Nation's civilians are under the constant and imminent threat of death from another Nation's unstable and 'evil' leader.
Iraq's leadership did not *yet* have the same ability - to wipe out a couple of million innocent foreigners almost immediately. Are you saying it would have been wiser to delay acting against him until *after* he gained this capability? This is why the restriction on SSM ranges (which Iraq was found to be lying about in terms of compliance by Blix himself) was so important.
I'd say we care about noncombatant casualties a great deal. We've even gone out of our way on several occasions any not killed as many enemy soldiers as we could, because we felt their morale and loyalty were questionable as they were 'caught in the middle' (see above for what I mean by this). One example is using B-52 strikes vs. advance positions of Iraqi units (long since abandoned in most cases) instead of PGM attacks vs. currently occupied MLR positions during the 1991 Gulf War. USAF leadership figured that a big display of firepower would cause many of the soldiers in the units witnessing the display to surrender. It worked.
You seem to think that the U.S. does not care about killing people. Please specifically state why you think this. Another example that makes me believe the opposite of what you believe - during the 1991 Gulf War all targets to make the ATO had to be cleared by a military lawyer first. If there was a military target with civilians nearby, the question "We can hit it but do we need to to hasten the end of the war?" was asked before such targets made the ATO.
What's the reason for the war in Iraq - there were no WMD... that was a ruse - not the real reason.
A ruse? What do you mean by ruse? Answer specifically. Also, by 'not the real reason' are you saying that the only reason for removing Hussein was WMD? Are you saying that was the only reason put forth by the U.S.?
>>You can think what you want. I've been to Colombia more than once and my job involved dealing with the topic at hand.
I bet you have, probably ensuring Mr. Bush's cocaine delivery got to him?
You're still not saying anything
A slanderous lie about our President, followed by another lie about what I've said. Let's recap here - you said that the U.S. had a double standard because 'the U.S. was doing nothing about Colombia, a major source of drugs - termed WMD by you - entering into the U.S.' I then corrected you on the reality of the Situation in Colombia, i.e. that the U.S. and Colombian governments were heavily involved in combatting the FARC - which controls the enclaves where the majority of the 'drug WMDs' you spoke of come from. You then added that this didn't matter because the Colombian government was 'corrupt', judges and juries bought off, etc. I then corrected you again - on the character of Colombia's government.
I know I'm stretching your ability to think logically here...
ok... if all that were true, then there would be no contaminated soil and there would be no fumes.. and there would be no UN sanction violations... because there were no WMD.
Got it! Is there the slightest possibility you could see that logic?
Before you declare yourself victorious, explain the Iraqi rotation of topsoil at known NBC sites? You know - the topsoil rotation that was questioned in the UN. The topsoil rotation that went unexplained by the Iraqis and had no other possible purpose than to hide topsoil that would reveal checmical agent residue when tested?
Let me quess you're a butler in the senate cafeteria, or were you the shoe shine boy?
I was neither. But if I did either for a living, basic reading skills and an internet connection would allow me to run circles around you when discussing these topics.
Mike/wulfie
-
I've figured out who wulfie really is - Ding Chavez.
How is Mr C. doing these days? :D
-
Originally posted by k2cok
I've figured out who wulfie really is - Ding Chavez.
How is Mr C. doing these days? :D
You've got me on this one. I have no idea what you are talking about. Enter it into the record books. :)
Mike/wulfie
-
Wulfie, it's pearls before swine.
I do enjoy the swine grunting though; pretty funny watching them attempt intelligent discourse.
However, it's the smell of the pigsh t that offends. If you ever do get them into one of those bars you mentioned, please post a time/date group. I think filming it for Cable could be very lucrative.
:D
-
Originally posted by wulfie
You've got me on this one. I have no idea what you are talking about. Enter it into the record books. :)
Mike/wulfie
HINT: Tom Clancy
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
HINT: Tom Clancy
Still drawing a blank. It must be in reference to one of his later books? The 2 Clancy books that I read were 'The Hunt for Red October' and 'Red Storm Rising'. Just tell me is 'Ding Chavez' derogatory? I get the feeling it is. :)
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by wulfie
Still drawing a blank. It must be in reference to one of his later books? The 2 Clancy books that I read were 'The Hunt for Red October' and 'Red Storm Rising'. Just tell me is 'Ding Chavez' derogatory? I get the feeling it is. :)
Mike/wulfie
He's a special forces guy... I think he's introduced in "Clear and Present Danger" IIRC.
I can't see that it's derogatory. IMHO, he is one of Clancy's better characters.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I think he's introduced in "Clear and Present Danger" IIRC.
I can't see that it's derogatory. IMHO, he is one of Clancy's better characters.
Are his later books any good in your opinion? I was 'warned off' Clancy after Red Storm Rising by several people. They told me his books shifted from interesting to 'Jack Ryan Saves The World Single Handedly'. Maybe I shouldn't have listened.
I think Red Storm Rising is one of my favorite fiction books of all time.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by wulfie
Are his later books any good in your opinion? I was 'warned off' Clancy after Red Storm Rising by several people. They told me his books shifted from interesting to 'Jack Ryan Saves The World Single Handedly'. Maybe I shouldn't have listened.
I think Red Storm Rising is one of my favorite fiction books of all time.
Mike/wulfie
IMHO, it's all downhill after Red Storm Rising, but there is some worthwhile reading between that and the later stuff where Ryan becomes the mouthpiece for Clancy's political agenda. These are worth reading:
Patriot Games
The Cardinal of the Kremlin
Clear and Present Danger
The Sum of All Fears
I think his first two, RSR and the Hunt for Red October are the best of the litter.
-
Rainbow Six isn't bad either.
-
I agree, Red Storm Rising was his best, downhill after that.
-
Ding is one of the best characters-young punk from the 'hood joins the Armed Forces, becomes a man.
-
Still waiting for the clarification LDV. Are you a Vietnam vet or just a vet? You let Wulfie assume you meant Vietnam, please confirm or deny. BTW, I was in the Air Force during the Vietnam war but that doesn't make me a Vietnam vet.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Still waiting for the clarification LDV. Are you a Vietnam vet or just a vet? You let Wulfie assume you meant Vietnam, please confirm or deny. BTW, I was in the Air Force during the Vietnam war but that doesn't make me a Vietnam vet.
AKIron, you won't get a clarification, and you know the reason why.
I get real burned by folks who claim to be Vietnam Vets and were born in the 70's.
:mad:
Not saying LDV is lieing (yet)
Ya know what I mean?
Regards;
-
miko: My aquaintance's step-son was tricked by his enlistment officer to sigh for an extra year of military servce...[/i]
wulfie: miko what unit is he with?
He is in the Navy. I do not know which speciality. They are not as worried about his safety (well, they are quite worried about it but it's quite normal, considering) as they are pissed off at the enlistment officer who sweet-talked a kid into spending an extra year in service with $3,000 extra bonus exploiting the fact that his parents were not with him at enlistnment.
There are guys who didn't want to see combat. But there are also many who jumped at the chance. There are guys who agreed to have a couple of years tacked on to their commitments...
About 10% of males fit the psychological profile of "the warrior" - meaning they feel OK about fighting. They are the guys who would aim and shoot as opposed to "earth-huggers" and "freezers". A small fraction of them are far enough on the phsychopathy scale that they would actually be looking for a fight.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
About 10% of males fit the psychological profile of "the warrior" - meaning they feel OK about fighting. They are the guys who would aim and shoot as opposed to "earth-huggers" and "freezers".
miko
I guess that's 10% of the general populace. I think that at least 90% of the males in the military fit the profile.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
About 10% of males fit the psychological profile of "the warrior" - meaning they feel OK about fighting. They are the guys who would aim and shoot as opposed to "earth-huggers" and "freezers". A small fraction of them are far enough on the phsychopathy scale that they would actually be looking for a fight.
miko
Where are you getting this number? You pulling it off the top of yer head or outta the crack in yer ***?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
About 10% of males fit the psychological profile of "the warrior" - meaning they feel OK about fighting. They are the guys who would aim and shoot as opposed to "earth-huggers" and "freezers". A small fraction of them are far enough on the phsychopathy scale that they would actually be looking for a fight.
miko
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I guess that's 10% of the general populace. I think that at least 90% of the males in the military fit the profile.
Originally posted by AKIron
Where are you getting this number? You pulling it off the top of yer head or outta the crack in yer ***?
I think I know what miko2d means and if I am correct I'd agree with him.
The guys I am talking about - who volunteered to get to Afghanistan A.S.A.P. and agreed to a ~2 year extension of their active duty commitment were all special operations guys. The reason for the 2 year extension was so they would be around to pass on lessons learned from very modern/recent combat experience by acting as instructors for various training programs in the special operations community. In other words, if they were going to form and send some 'task' units they wanted to make sure they were sending guys who would benefit the community with the experience they were certain to gain.
Once you get below the 'tier' of units that are all-volunteer and the most likely to see combat in some form or another (special operations and Ranger mainly) you are going to have a certain % of guys who are not 'eager' to get into combat (some would say this makes them more intelligent :)). They volunteered or selected an infantry or armored unit, but their mindset at the time of their selection was not "I am doing this to see combat". I would say the mindset was more along the lines of "I am in a combat unit and am prepared to fight if we go to war". There is a difference between the two in a 'peacetime' or 'low intensity' environment. These guys are not lacking in bravery or professionalism in the least bit, but there is for certain a difference in 'agressiveness'.
Also the guys miko2d is referring to make up a % of the 'regular' infantry, etc. In almost every unit you are going to have guys that are 'hot for action', etc. But the bigger the unit and the less stringent the selection the more variation you will find in terms of 'agressiveness' (that's not the best term but it's the best one I could think of at the time).
When I use 'agressiveness' I don't mean 'agressiveness in combat'. A good way to put it - if you took an infantry company a certain small % of the guys in that company are going to volunteer every time patrols, etc. Those are the guys that I'm talking about when I say 'agressive'. Those are the type of guys that are most likely volunteer for Ranger school, etc.
Sandman if he meant 10% of the military he wouldn't be too far off. The vast majority of military personnel (excluding the USMC, which has a higher % of personnel in combat units than the other branches) are not in combat units. And even in combat units - barring the 'top tier' of units that are composed of personnel who volunteered for those units for a chance to see some type of combat - a certain % of the personnel in those units did not join up 'looking for combat'. That's why tactical and operational leadership is so important - a certain % of any non-'elite' combat unit is going to need an agressive leader to enable them to have an effect on the battlefield.
Mike/wulfie
-
Perhaps if miko meant only 10% of males would charge into battle without hesitation and experience at war I might agree but that's not what he said.
I'm pretty confident that much larger numbers than 10% of males in the involved countries fought in WWII and most of them aimed and fired.