war

[coolex]

this pole is to find out if the majority of people are for the war or not ( pro, anti) i personaly wish we never over there, i supprt our troops but do not feel we should be over there ( not the soldiers fault) do not flame on people opinions , just debate

[ELewandowski]

I have to agree with you coolex. I am 100% behind all of our troops. I do not agree with our President at all. I strongly believe that we are in Iraq for the wrong reasons. I don't know of any reasons we should be in Iraq. What happened to Bin Laden? I have to admit, Bush is very good at distracting the American people who voted for him away from what we should be doing with what he has led some of us to believe is most important. I do like to watch his public speech's. They make for a good laugh. What an idiot he is.

[quads14589]

I am for the war becuase if we never went over there in the first place then they would of already bombed more of the US and there would of been more damage. I support our troups alot and they need to get done what is right for there country.

[<DRS>GPF]

im in full support of the troops.. get them anything they need..

but as far as im concerned, let other countries take out their own trash..

those troops could be deployed state-side on borders and airports etc.

[Prey]

i am for the war and for our troops, i may not support the war for the same reasons our gov't states we went in but i support it none-the-less

we should have overthrown the iraqi gov't under the clinton administration when sadam hussian gassed the kurds, but clinton was way too much of a p**** to.

and for those that dont know, saddam used chemical weapons on the kurds basically as a punishment for the support the kurds gave america and allies during the 1st gulf war

so ya, i believe the iragi people needed and deserved liberation

and as far as the other comment....... well Al Qaeda and the Taliban are direct results of "letting other countries take out their own trash", so nope, i do not support that logic at all

[Byte]

Considering I took an oath against "all enemies foreign and domestic"... I'm for the war!

Than again, I'd invade Utah if I was told to!

But really. I support our government regardless if it was Rep or Dem, right or left. I'm (military) a "bullet" not the "gun".

[mike_repine]

I'm for the WAR and I agree with the president that you have to take the fight to the enemy or we'll be dealing with them here on US soil. The information gathered from enemy combatants in Iraq and other countries has in fact deterred terror further attacks here in the US and elsewhere. Having our troops in Iraq is bringing the cowardly terrorists out so we can put some lead in their *ss. We're getting them little by little, unfortunately we're paying the price for our safety in troop casualties. I wish there was another way to bring about peace but unfortunately all these cowards understand is killing. So lets get them before they get us! Thank goodness we're not just sitting around waiting for the next attack on innocent civilians.

As for Bin Laden, I wish we could have got him back in Afghanistan when Gary Bernstein (CIA Agent) had eyes on him in the hills of Tora Bora. For some reason he wasn't given the special forces he requested from General Tommy Franks (Centcom Commander) to take him out. I think it would have been extremely helpful then to have taken him out. I think now it wouldn't be quite as effective in damaging their network. They seem very adapted to replacing top leaders when one is killed.

[ballz2thewall]

Byte hit the nail right on the head, If I didn't care I would have never joined the military!

[coolex]

Originally posted by ballz2thewall
Byte hit the nail right on the head, If I didn't care I would have never joined the military!


im not asking if you care about it , im asking if you believe that we should have started it or not. i care about it, i pray for the safe return of our soldiers, there my heros, and i support the troops, but i dont believe we should have ever went over there in the first place

basically i support the troops not the war

if that makes any sense

[Byte]

Originally posted by coolex
im not asking if you care about it , im asking if you believe that we should have started it or not. i care about it, i pray for the safe return of our soldiers, there my heros, and i support the troops, but i dont believe we should have ever went over there in the first place

basically i support the troops not the war

if that makes any sense

Your point is understood Coolex. No body is calling you a commie or anything. The American people have every right to be for or against the war and it shouldn't reflect on their patriotism.

I think Ball2thewall and I are just saying we support our government and the decision.

Please remember, it would be like a vegan getting signed to a pro football team and being offended over throwing a pigskin around!

We signed up to fight our countries battles and protect the freedoms of the American people. We fight, we win, we wait for the next fight.

[ELewandowski]

Originally posted by quads14589
I am for the war becuase if we never went over there in the first place then they would of already bombed more of the US and there would of been more damage. I support our troups alot and they need to get done what is right for there country.

Umm. Iraq didn't bomb us. Alqaeda did with our own Jets.

[coolex]

ok cuz i dint want to be looked at as less patriotic as any one else

[Prey]

i should hope no one in here would think less of you or that you are not patriotic because you disagree with the war.

patriatism is a lot deeper than just your view of the current administration

[coolex]

Originally posted by PismoLocal
Not to be a dick or any thing but do any of you high school guys even know why we are in Iraq?


why just the high school guys?

and i used to think it was to make sure that they didnt have weapons of mass destruction, then it was to get hussien out, then it was to rebuild them , then it was to give them democracy.

well thats word going around my high school any ways

[F-16Guy]

In my opinion, it really doesn't have much to do with Iraq, afghanistan, etc. It has more to do with Islamic fundamentalism. Unfortunately, it's really hard to sell a war like that, so you have what we have now. If you think that Islamic purists are confined to the Middle East, think again. There are thousands of non-Muslims being slaughtered in Africa, the far east, and many other places across the globe for their religious beliefs. I think any kind of religious extremism can be dangerous, and right now, Islam is getting out of hand. America will wake up when a couple of malls or a football stadium full of people gets blown up. Until then, the Jane Fondas and Michael Moores will continue to make a bunch of noise.

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Byte


Than again, I'd invade Utah if I was told to!



That is something you should really rethink.

[Prey]

Originally posted by Pappy
That is something you should really rethink.

maybe you should read the Oath of Allegiance

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Prey
maybe you should read the Oath of Allegiance

Ive read it and repeated it when I was sworn in, that does not mean a soldier should follow an order to invade any state in the Union blindly!

[Prey]

Originally posted by Pappy
Ive read it and repeated it when I was sworn in, that does not mean a soldier should follow an order to invade any state in the Union blindly!

it means you are 1 sworn to defend our constitution blindy, and 2 uphold the duties of your office

the oath of enlistment states the same regarding the constitution but you swear "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"

you do not have the option of choosing which orders you will follow. and any failure to do so is punishable by court marshall

[Pappy]

following any order that you feel is not within your morals is also questionable. i was never asked to kill a child, and would have refused. and that order can come from the president, it wouldnt be followed. it does not mean to follow every order you are given in certain circumstances, and when domestic enemies are thrown in the mix things could get really interesting.

[Prey]

Originally posted by Pappy
following any order that you feel is not within your morals is also questionable. i was never asked to kill a child, and would have refused. and that order can come from the president, it wouldnt be followed. it does not mean to follow every order you are given in certain circumstances, and when domestic enemies are thrown in the mix things could get really interesting.

it means in that scenerio you could have been court marshalled.

and furthermore, you have absolutely no idea why or the intell behind the order to kill that child, for all you know that kid could have 5lbs of ricin (or any other chem/bio device) stored neatly in his back pack, and based on your morals you have just allowed innocents in a large area to be killed so you did not have to shoot one child.

this is why we follow orders!!!!

[Pappy]

I can agree that every situation can facilitate the need for taking a life, even if that meant a child. But stating that you would invade any of these 50 states without any thought would be likened to saying you would kill a child without a set of scenarios to bolster the reasoning behind it.

If I was ordered to kill a child, there had better be some damn good intell or they could have my rifle and cart me off to the brig.

This issue was and has been discussed many times in my life, thankfully neither situations ever came to be. And not following orders does not always mean a court martial. There are a ton of documented cases where a soldier was not court martialed for failing to carry out an order that did not seem correct.

I am 110% behind our military, but that does not mean I or others do not know right from wrong and would take the position of not following an unjust order.

[Prey]

1st off, i am not questioning your loyalty to country or military, i think we are both adult enough to have an adult conversation and express our opninions

2. byte, myself and i am sure you were way way way down on the military chain of command, someone has rationalized the need for nearly every action prior to committing that action, in bytes statement, he was saying given the order he will follow it, it is right and i agree with him, he is not, nor did he ever say he was the decision maker, as a matter of fact he state he was the "bullet not the gun"

3, the cases where men and women get out of disobeying a lawful order is when the order is deemed unlawful, no one that i know of has ever gone without punishment for disogeying a LAWFUL order. and in the cases i know of the unlawful order was related to directing an individual to perform an unsafe AND un-necessary act

[Pappy]

All I know is that when my crosshairs touched thier target it was going to be dead. If I was ordered plain and simple to shoot a child that was not apparent as an enemy combatant, I would have refused. Make no mistake, children die in combat, but NO soldier I have ever met or known would do it if ordered. I do know those that did shoot woman and even a few kids, but they were on the battle field firing a weapon.


I would not execute a prison on orders either, but I wouldnt need an order if the situation deemed appropriate.

[Byte]

Originally posted by Pappy
That is something you should really rethink.

Pappy,

Clearly there would be reason for such an order from the government. Not because they started driving the opposite way on the streets. Come on now. Have some faith in your fellow humanoid.

Here's a clip a cut for you.


Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic

This phrase was added in 1862 as a direct result of the Civil War- specifically, to address the possibility of Union soldiers joining the Confederacy (most notably the forces commanded by Gen Robert E. Lee). That is, people who had previously sworn allegiance to the United States were now fighting against it.

Although people now have little concern about another civil war, our military must still prepare for all enemies and contingencies. The terrorist attack of 11 September 2001 caught many Americans off guard. The response to the launching of fighter escorts shows how the nation’s leadership faced the dilemma of flying combat air patrols over the United States (defending the Constitution) while trying to comply with current laws on posse comitatus (supporting the Constitution).26 Military officers cannot simply maintain the status quo- they must look toward the future, identify emerging trends, and develop capabilities to counter the entire range of threats. Apparently, our current capability to respond to and, more importantly, prevent a future asymmetric attack is inadequate. Officers must ensure that they address all enemies and not merely advocate servicecentric needs at the expense of national requirements. For example, we have long known about the shortage of intelligence from human sources that we need if we are to analyze the capability and intent of emerging nonstate actors; yet, the Air Force intends to purchase over 300 F-22 aircraft at a cost of $63 billion to replace existing fighters that can already counter the air forces of any major state actor for the foreseeable future.27 We must think hard about making improvements to an existing service strength instead of funding a known national shortfall.28 Our oath demands that we support and defend against all enemies- not just high-profile or high-profit threats.

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Byte
Pappy,

Clearly there would be reason for such an order from the government. Not because they started driving the opposite way on the streets. Come on now. Have some faith in your fellow humanoid.

Here's a clip a cut for you.

Yeah, I also remeber when military resourses were used in Idaho and in Texas, wrongfully IMO

[Prey]

Originally posted by Pappy
All I know is that when my crosshairs touched thier target it was going to be dead. If I was ordered plain and simple to shoot a child that was not apparent as an enemy combatant, I would have refused. Make no mistake, children die in combat, but NO soldier I have ever met or known would do it if ordered. I do know those that did shoot woman and even a few kids, but they were on the battle field firing a weapon.


I would not execute a prison on orders either, but I wouldnt need an order if the situation deemed appropriate.


and i dont want to appear like i am ganging up on you so i will just say, that there is not always time for a full explination, you as an american have the freedom of choice, you as a military person do not, if you do not act, you have no idea what the ramifications are except to yourself

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Prey
and i dont want to appear like i am ganging up on you so i will just say, that there is not always time for a full explination, you as an american have the freedom of choice, you as a military person do not, if you do not act, you have no idea what the ramifications are except to yourself

We need to look no further then the situations in Iraq as our soldiers were hung out to dry by following orders to harrass prisoners and such. Times are changing FAST, and the military had better bring itself up to speed along with it.

[Prey]

Originally posted by Pappy
We need to look no further then the situations in Iraq as our soldiers were hung out to dry by following orders to harrass prisoners and such. Times are changing FAST, and the military had better bring itself up to speed along with it.

that is interrogation, and not nearly as bad as they would use.....

i can promise this, i have been through SERE school as a naval aircrewman, what gets my goat is the pictures they showed were not even as bad as the things that happen to americans in the school, yet the public gets enraged over it.

where were all these bleeding hearts when our vietnam vets needed them

i found that utterly ridiculous on both the media's part and american reaction,

we could just behead them, they seem to be having great success with that method.

[Byte]

Originally posted by Pappy
We need to look no further then the situations in Iraq as our soldiers were hung out to dry by following orders to harrass prisoners and such. Times are changing FAST, and the military had better bring itself up to speed along with it.

Which would actually encourage "unconventional warfare" and real time decision making (field level).

I'm curious how our dialog switched from following orders from the President, to military criminal actions. Clearly you know the difference and trust that us service members do as well.

[Pappy]

LOL...funny you stated that as I have a friend that served in the SEALS since 89. He basically said exactly the same thing as you and expressed the same opinion on the prisoners. The end result though, was that those caught were prosocuted and court martialled for actions that you and I both know came from higher up.

[Byte]

Originally posted by Prey
i found that utterly ridiculous on both the media's part and american reaction, or we could just behead them, they seem to be having great success with that method.

Gets less press too!

Not that I'm condoning that of course...

[Prey]

Originally posted by Pappy
LOL...funny you stated that as I have a friend that served in the SEALS since 89. He basically said exactly the same thing as you and expressed the same opinion on the prisoners. The end result though, was that those caught were prosocuted and court martialled for actions that you and I both know came from higher up.

they were IMO only prosocuted to appease islamics and americans... again, only IMO

[Prey]

Originally posted by Byte
Gets less press too!

Not that I'm condoning that of course...

LMAO, your stupid LOL

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Byte
Which would actually encourage "unconventional warfare" and real time decision making (field level).

I'm curious how our dialog switched from following orders from the President, to military criminal actions. Clearly you know the difference and trust that us service members do as well.

I was using that to draw a comparison with regards to following orders.

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Prey
they were IMO only prosocuted to appease islamics and americans... again, only IMO

fact remains they were prosocuted. If they had failed to carry out the orders to treat the prisoners in such fashion ,where would they be?

[Byte]

Originally posted by Pappy
fact remains they were prosocuted. If they had failed to carry out the orders to treat the prisoners in such fashion ,where would they be?

I think you know the answer to that...

[Prey]

Originally posted by Pappy
fact remains they were prosocuted. If they had failed to carry out the orders to treat the prisoners in such fashion ,where would they be?

1, it was insane that they were prosocuted IMO, i am sure there were much more severe violations of the geneva convention going on ..... they IMO were just scape goats to calm the public and end further investigation

2, without interrogation, without intelligence

i am of the mind, the end justifies the means

as far as i am cocerned, if it saves 1 american soldier, pull their finger nails skin em and bathe them in alcohol

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Byte
I think you know the answer to that...

go ahead, tell the site where you think they would be or what would have been done to them.

[Prey]

PS, they were prosecuted for giving and following UNLAWFUL orders, they are prison gaurds, they all know the writing of the geneva convention and all willing broke it, not to mention they on one hand deserve to have been punished for taking pictures of it, that was mind numbingly stupid!!!!

[Pappy]

Ummm, Iraq and terrorists are not members nor have they signed to the Geneva convention, therefore they are not entitled to the rights it is supposed to afford.

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Prey
deserve to have been punished for taking pictures of it, that was mind numbingly stupid!!!!

couldnt agree more!

[Byte]

Originally posted by Pappy
go ahead, tell the site where you think they would be or what would have been done to them.

Honestly Pappy, I'm not at liberty to speculate. I wasn't there, I don't know what orders were given and by whom. Or if any orders were given from higher up. I'm not in a position to critique the government on the issue really.

I don't necessarily disagree with you or Prey on this one.

Oliver North comes to mind...

[Pappy]

LOL..Ollie sure turned that into some $$ though:D

[Prey]

Originally posted by Pappy
Ummm, Iraq and terrorists are not members nor have they signed to the Geneva convention, therefore they are not entitled to the rights it is supposed to afford.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE DO NOT FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTION!!!!!!!!!

YES!!!!!!!!!!! they are entitled to the rights as we are a geneva following country, what that means is they cannot be prosecuted as war criminal and are not required to treat their POW's IAW the geneva convention

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Prey


we should have overthrown the iraqi gov't under the clinton administration when sadam hussian gassed the kurds, but clinton was way too much of a p**** to.



This occured in 1992, right after the cease fire and I beleive Bush was still in office.

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Prey
THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE DO NOT FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTION!!!!!!!!!

YES!!!!!!!!!!! they are entitled to the rights as we are a geneva following country, what that means is they cannot be prosecuted as war criminal and are not required to treat their POW's IAW the geneva convention

Go explain that to those in GITMO

[Prey]

Originally posted by Pappy
Go explain that to those in GITMO if you wanna go back into that, the gassing of the kurds i think started in 1987, in 92 bush was turning over to clinton, so i guess you can say they were both at fault.


as far as gitmo, can you prove with the exception of the prosecuted indivuals that the rest of them are not acting IAW geneva convention

[Byte]

Originally posted by Pappy
Go explain that to those in GITMO

and the supreme court agrees. Even though as you said the terrorist aren't bound by the Geneva Conventions. We are.

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Prey



as far as gitmo, can you prove with the exception of the prosecuted indivuals that the rest of them are not acting IAW geneva convention

I could research the Geneva convention and with out a doubt I am sure I could find several accordances that are in violation. We are going on 3 years of incarceration without trials for one, and this is being discussed nationally as a major greavence with the Geneva convention articles backing those incarcerated up. The president was just shut down by the supreme court who found that it was a violation of the Judicial and Executive branch to hold military tribunals for those at Gitmo. Like it or not, GITMO is failing.

As far as turning it over to Clinton, you stated Clinton was a ***** yet he inherited the issue from bush. Its a tit for tat issue but when stated as you did makes Clinton the scapegoat. And i cant stand Clinton, just clearing that up.

[Prey]

Originally posted by Pappy
I could research the Geneva convention and with out a doubt I am sure I could find several accordances that are in violation. We are going on 3 years of incarceration without trials for one, and this is being discussed nationally as a major greavence with the Geneva convention articles backing those incarcerated up. The president was just shut down by the supreme court who found that it was a violation of the Judicial and Executive branch to hold military tribunals for those at Gitmo. Like it or not, GITMO is failing.

As far as turning it over to Clinton, you stated Clinton was a ***** yet he inherited the issue from bush. Its a tit for tat issue but when stated as you did makes Clinton the scapegoat. And i cant stand Clinton, just clearing that up.

this is just MO, and i cant remember exactly when it happened in 92 but i am thinking like late summer....

1. it was not a bush issue, it was a national issue, 2 it takes time to gear up , the only reason this iraq invasion was so quick was we had everything we needed in place from the afgani war

it was on clintons shoulders, he is not a scape goat, he and to be fair, all the world owed it to them (kurds) to stick up for them!

[Pappy]

And for anyone wanting some enlightment on GITMO and the Geneva convention....http://disam.osd.mil/itm/IMSO/FAQS/02-GuantanDetainees.pdf


It does a good job explaining how we can get around the geneva convention etc. Dont mistake my posts as against pretty much anything we have done as a country. I do try and see both sides to issues though.

[Prey]

oh by the way, when you start talking about incarceration and trials, you are talking about war criminals, not POWs like we were

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Prey


it was on clintons shoulders, he is not a scape goat, he and to be fair, all the world owed it to them (kurds) to stick up for them!

Its not the first time the USA had let down allies.

[Prey]

Originally posted by Prey
oh by the way, when you start talking about incarceration and trials, you are talking about war criminals, not POWs like we were

oops, never mind, i thought we were still talking about iraqi's,

you switched without letting me know :macho

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Prey
oh by the way, when you start talking about incarceration and trials, you are talking about war criminals, not POWs like we were

I am fully aware of that, check out the link I posted.

I do however find it funny that we like to use the Geneva convention any way we see fit.

[Prey]

yep, that is why i made that post right above yours

[Pappy]

No doubt the issue can get confusing. I would have prefered a faster end to GITMO> I think it opens the USA up to even more anti american hatred. I know they claim they are still gather intel, but after this amount fo time they are way out of the loop. I dont really know what they should do with them either :p


As far as the Iraqi's, I dont think anyone has the answers. Its a no win situation in the short term.

[Byte]

Originally posted by Pappy
I am fully aware of that, check out the link I posted.

I do however find it funny that we like to use the Geneva convention any way we see fit.

This may seem petty but there are 4 conventions, a number of annexes and some protocols. Referring to a "Geneva Convention" would be referring to an individual article.

I'm just saying...

Its the "Monk" (USA network) in me... ;)

OK, back to our regularly scheduled discussion. :D

[Prey]

and i might look at #3 article 118, it appears that particular article justifies the detention of the afgani combatants

[Byte]

Originally posted by Prey
and i might look at #3 article 118, it appears that particular article justifies the detention of the afgani combatants

O geez... the three of us are going to get awarded "forum debate degrees" after this...

[Pappy]

Anyone willing to bet on the outcome of gitmo and its "tribunals" for its detainees?

[Ghost-Rider]

I am for it i belive that it would have happened eventually and better now than later when their stronger and ( not bashing the democrats on here ) but the democrats on the news blow things so out of proportion and dramatize it all and if you look at other wars so far their have wars with much more deaths and a lot of people have it wrong i hate seeing signs in people yards that say stop the war on iraq its in iraq not at iraq.

[Byte]

Originally posted by Pappy
Anyone willing to bet on the outcome of gitmo and its "tribunals" for its detainees?

I thought the tribunals were deemed unconstitutional?

But, I see what your saying. Years of court appearances and lots of tax dollars. Sucks...

[ballz2thewall]

Originally posted by ELewandowski
Umm. Iraq didn't bomb us. Alqaeda did with our own Jets.

Just to clear that up Saddam and his bath party funded Osama and the Alqaeda to carry out the attack on the U.S! So yes I feel as though we should be in Iraq trying to help the people rebuild what was destroyed. It all falls back on the old saying " to each his own"! Meaning you are intitled to your own thoughts. Saying that, I am for whatever my country needs me to do to protect them. Just like the Soldiers before me and the ones who will come after me. If any of this makes your rootbeer float!

[Byte]

Originally posted by PismoLocal
Not to be a dick or any thing but do any of you high school guys even know why we are in Iraq?

This statement is about as accurate as your last post.


Originally posted by F-16Guy
In my opinion, it really doesn't have much to do with Iraq, afghanistan, etc. It has more to do with Islamic fundamentalism. Unfortunately, it's really hard to sell a war like that, so you have what we have now. If you think that Islamic purists are confined to the Middle East, think again. There are thousands of non-Muslims being slaughtered in Africa, the far east, and many other places across the globe for their religious beliefs. I think any kind of religious extremism can be dangerous, and right now, Islam is getting out of hand. America will wake up when a couple of malls or a football stadium full of people gets blown up. Until then, the Jane Fondas and Michael Moores will continue to make a bunch of noise.

Please understand, Islamic fundamentalism is a lot different from extremists or radicals. The difference is huge and should be recognized. Islam is a very peaceful way of life.

The media has coined "fundamentalists' and use it liberally.

[Prey]

Originally posted by PismoLocal
It is actually the other way around Saddam was captured in December 03, and Al-Zarqawi took the flag when Saddam was captured and he didn't formally join forces with Al-Queda until October 7th 2004. So Al-Queda is in part organizing and funding the war in iraq. Saudi Arabia and the Bin laden family are the primary sponsors of Al-Qaeda more specifically the Bin Laden family there corporation makes over five billion dollars a year. Some suspect that Bin Laden is in Saudi Arabia right now but we can't do jack about it because they provide most of our oil.

"formal link between al qaeda and irag in 2004", i guess the informal link since 1994 could have held no indirect implications on 9/11??

[Prey]

Originally posted by PismoLocal
What event in 94 are you referring to that ties Saddam to Osama or al-qaeda?

bin laden requested support from hussein in 1994, i thought you would know that??

[Byte]

Originally posted by PismoLocal
I don't quite follow you care to explain?

One, assuming we are all high school kids.

Two, being so sure Saudi Arabia and Usama are linked. Yes he is from there and his family has a lot of money. But, he has been banned from his own country and has funded attacks towards the Royal family. So you statement isn't very educated and I thought I would point it out.

[Prey]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48970-2004Jun17.html

or you might try the 9/11 reports.


while you read this, keep in mind, even the commission and congress are not privy to all reports gathered by intelligence

[Prey]

you have never been there have you? and dont really have that good of a grasp on their culture.

and i am not trying to be insulting. things in the middle east are not anything like here, a persons word actually means something there

[Byte]

Originally posted by PismoLocal
When I said highschool kids, I didnt assume how old everyone was I looked at there profiles.

I am aware that Bin laden was exiled from his country to sudan but his family claims to have contact with him. Do you honestly think his family doesnt give him money?

OK, so am I a high school kid?

Again, I was pointing out your half truths and personal opinions you were passing as facts.

If I knew where his money came from I would be an Officer at the CIA not in the Navy. If you have the inside scoop maybe you should contact the authorities and help them out.

[coolex]

i have a question for prey pappy or any one else that could answer it

what is GITMO

or what is it an abriviation for

[Byte]

Originally posted by coolex
i have a question for prey pappy or any one else that could answer it

what is GITMO

or what is it an abriviation for

Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

[Prey]

Originally posted by coolex
i have a question for prey pappy or any one else that could answer it

what is GITMO

or what is it an abriviation for

gitmo = guantanamo bay cuba

[coolex]

thanks ive herd of that place just not the abrevviation for it, thanks

[Robin Hood]

Against. If we really wanted to capture Bin Laden and create democracy we could've done it already.

I know something had to be done about the terrorists, and it's good we took a stand, but I just don't see a point in staying there anymore.

Also.. I think Bush is an idiot. :p

[stalefish_132]

i'm for the war in Iraq and afghanistan. I am not an American citizan nor do i live in the sates. if the U.S. didn't go to war in Iraq then who else would? for all the terrists that tyhere is in the middle east somthnig has to be done with them because why should be able to keep killing innocent people? the situation in afghanistan is kinda a mess right now but hopfully will get cleaned up. as for Iraq, it is good that sadam is no longer running Iraq or even hiding in his little whole.
as far as i'm concernd, the Canadian Army is a joke, i honnor those men and women that put their lifes on the line every day but it is so stupid how everythnig is so out dated and obsolite that if Canada ever got attacked, well lets say i'd head for the hills:eek2: sorry for the long pointless post thats just the way i see things.

[LittleMissE]

Sorry if this has already been said I dont have time to read everything so I only read a few for now I well read the least tomorrow!!!


I support the war b/c like someone said without it we would probably still be getting bombed and attack all the time, as americans (soilders do the work) cant let some weaker country attack us and not show them that they were wrong to do it or we might start getting attacked by more in more countries. I have I friend over there right now whos been there twice the first time got sent home b/c he was shot in the back and now I heard from one of our friends that talked to him a few days ago and he got hurt again and might be home next month unstead of oct.