21,500 Troops [Archive] - ATV Riders Forum

katch26

01-11-2007, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by mx3mom
Sadam was a tyrant but is it our job to protect everyone, even if they don't protect themselves.

absolutely the US made that pact after the attrocities of the holocaust. There are plenty of reasons to be over there, where as our reasons being a lie......thats your misguided opinion.
Chronicle of the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein:

Hussein's regime killed, tortured, raped and terrorized the Iraqi people and its neighbors for over two decades.

Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of Saddam's actions.

Saddam had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.

1980-88: Iran-Iraq war left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead.

1983-1988: Documented chemical attacks by Iraqi regime caused some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

1988: Chemical attack on Kurdish village of Halabja killed approximately 5,000 people.

1987-1988: Iraqi regime used chemical agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages.

1990-91: 1,000 Kuwaitis were killed in Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

1991: Bloody suppression of Kurdish and Shi'a uprisings in northern and southern Iraq killed at least 30,000 to 60,000. At least 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

2001: Amnesty International report: "Victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

Human Rights Watch: Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds.

Refugees International: "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis."

Iraq's 13 million Shiite Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, faced severe restrictions on their religious practice.

FBI: Iraqi government was involved in a plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.

The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors.

From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the U.N. Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.

thats just a brief overview.....from 1992 to 2002 Saddam prevented the UN inspectors at everytime....now let me ask you this over a ten year period a dictator who used nerve gas on civilians refuses to let people in to inspect the country for said nerve gas until he's ready for them (time to hide it). What logical reason could you suggest to argue the logic behind thinking HE ACTUALLY did have it?, also how would that not accurately define the word terror?

A little more info Saddam is obviously well reknowned at hiding...but before you question whether or not he hid the"weapons of mass destruction", did you know he hid war planes after he was sanctioned against having an air force?, YEP gave them to Iran for safe keeping who went on to keep them as restitution for the 10 year war.

01-11-2007, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Prey
its people like you that try to lead people into beleiving these soldiers died in vain because you lack the basic strategic understanding, are clueless about terrorism and what it means to america, have no idea what a big picture is but will ramble on with ignorant fodder anyhow.

let's not switch things around here...everyone in america supports our troops...EVERYONE!! let's not make the connection between not believing in this "wrong" war with lack of support and respect for our troops....i think everyone is getting sick of that "switcheroo".....let me say this though...when you have a group of people like our troops willing to make the ULTIMATE sacrifice....you just better make sure it's for the reason that they were told!! because sending them off to die for lies like we we've told from the beginning of this war, does not lesson their honor, it completely destroys the honor of the people that sent them...

Prey

01-11-2007, 07:58 AM

mxmom, bin laden is not was not a master mind, he is just a front man for al qaeda, you hang him, you make him a martyr, increases sympathy and essentially enrollment in al qaeda making the war even more difficult

you guys may not agree with it, but going to war in irag is the number 1 reason we are not fighting the war on terrorism on american soil, it has centralized the war on terror to the middle east and if you think about it, how many successful attacks by terrorist have been pulled off on american interest/allies since the war in iraq started.

as far as sending more troops over, its not very good logic, it works fine if you know your enemy, not so good in a gorilla type war where the enemy shares the same face as the innocent. special forces are a good example, could you perform a spec-ops mission with a large group of non-specialized forces, sure, but the casualty rate increases and so does the risk. it is much better to keep the numbers lower and more specialized, other wise you just add additional targets and casualties.

smr

01-11-2007, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by garandman
It IS nuts.

It SHOULD be 200,000 troops.

Go in there, wipe the insurgent off the face of the earth.

What people don't realize is the terrorists are fighting a 1,000 year war.

NEVER IN OUR LIFE TIME will we be safe.

So tell me folks -

What do you propose? Stick your heads in the sand and hope they kill you last?

You do realize....they want YOU dead. Dead.

Whatta you gonna do about it, other than b!+c# about Bush?

I agree with you 100%

It's funny how so many people are so busy hating Busch that they don't realize we need to be in Iraq and we must win.

Prey

01-11-2007, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by dlerch
let's not switch things around here...everyone in america supports our troops...EVERYONE!! let's not make the connection between not believing in this "wrong" war with lack of support and respect for our troops....i think everyone is getting sick of that "switcheroo".....let me say this though...when you have a group of people like our troops willing to make the ULTIMATE sacrifice....you just better make sure it's for the reason that they were told!! because sending them off to die for lies like we we've told from the beginning of this war, does not lesson their honor, it completely destroys the honor of the people that sent them...

there is no "switcharoo" you just dont know what you are talking about..

01-11-2007, 08:10 AM

"katch" by some of that reasoning we should be in alot of places...like; darfur, n.korea, china, saudi arabia, cuba....human rights atrocities go on and on everyday all around the world...as far as the chemical weapons he had...the only reason we knew he had them is because we gave them to him to fight iran!! and if he really had usable weapons, why didn't he just use them when we attacked? doesn't care about his people, hates americans, he can't miss....torture, good one ever hear of abu garib, oh right that torture wasn't quite the same, i guess we get to pick and choose which torture is ok, and which isn't...please:rolleyes: , and the killing of kurds another misunderstood happening...we've killed alot of americans for the same reason saddam killed the kurds...it was called the CIVIL WAR, yeah we also at one time had a group of people that wanted their own country, with its own rules, and we did the same thing saddam did, killed a bunch of them!! and before you try another famous "switcheroo" i do not think saddam was i good guy by any means, but i'm just sick of the fact that we keep getting told different reasons for why we are there!!! the original reason was NUKES!! plain and simple, not all this other stuff, these are things that the administration thought up after the original was found out to be a big fat LIE!!!

01-11-2007, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Prey
there is no "switcharoo" you just dont know what you are talking about..

yeah, you right, i and about 160 million other americans are clueless...sorry my mistake...:ermm:

Prey

01-11-2007, 08:18 AM

^^ you wonder why i say you dont know what you are talking about, the civil war was based on a split not only of the people but the government too, its was not the people versus the government with the government having much more advanced weaponry, not even close to the same. and the civil war was in no way a punishment, it was difference of opinion

the rational for going into iraq was based on chem/bio weapons and the possiblity of mining uranium, and the long term possibility of nukes, we did not go there cause of "nukes"

01-11-2007, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Prey
^^ you wonder why i say you dont know what you are talking about, the civil war was based on a split not only of the people but the government too, its was not the people versus the government with the government having much more advanced weaponry, not even close to the same. and the civil war was in no way a punishment, it was difference of opinion

the rational for going into iraq was based on chem/bio weapons and the possiblity of mining uranium, and the long term possibility of nukes, we did not go there cause of "nukes"

"difference of opinion" so 600,000 americans died because a difference of opinion, that's a stretch...
ok it wasn't exactly the same, but the logic is the same...here's an anology; we have the state of washington no longer wanting to be a part of the u.s. and they take up arms to do it, granted they are not going to have the same weapontry the government has...what do you think government would do...my point being how far is the gov. allowed to go to keep control of an uprising?

and as far as "nukes" , i watched the state of the union address just like everyone else..he said he "may" already have them, but if not he's close....lies, and the chems/bios, if he did have them we didn't mind it so much when we were giving them to him...the hypocrasy in this country knows no bounds!!

Prey

01-11-2007, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by dlerch
ok it wasn't exactly the same, but the logic is the same...here's an anology; we have the state of washington no longer wanting to be a part of the u.s. and they take up arms to do it, granted they are not going to have the same weapontry the government has...what do you think government would do...my point being how far is the gov. allowed to go to keep control of an uprising?

we sure in the he!! would NOT gas washington

Prey

01-11-2007, 08:26 AM

in addition, we would not go into washington and murder them after they laid their arms down, which is exactly what saddam did

01-11-2007, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Prey
in addition, we would not go into washington and murder them after they laid their arms down, which is exactly what saddam did

look the whole point is this, if we were so concerned about the kurds or the iraqis in general, why didn't we do something about it when it happened? it happened 10 years before we attcked iraq!! it only really became a problem with the u.s. after the "weapons" lie didn't pan out for the administration...

FHKracingZ

01-11-2007, 08:43 AM

prey, i respect what you are saying and you are saying it with great knowledge of whats going on. but answer this. How come its always gotta be our job to protect the world. Many countries hate us because we try to help an enemy of them even if its for the pity of the people. If saddam was gonna make bio weapons he wouldnt use them on us first. Notice how hes got a pattern of not doing anything to us? He may of enriched uranium by so did north korea 20 years ago and all we did is blow up the factorys and delay the problem another 20 years. Let saddam run his country the way he wants. Just because he ran his country in a different way then we do , dosnt mean its wrong and or time to stick our foot in. just my .2 cents

Eviltanker

01-11-2007, 08:44 AM

For those of you that whine about Bush, do something about it like vote. You also need to stop watching the liberal news channels like CNN. I was over in the Anbar province for a year and I am probably going back. I am sick of hearing people P%$s and moan about this War! AM I a little irait about it? Yes. You people that whine didn't just lose over 25 friends in the past year. This war needs to be finished over there with more manpower if not the flood gates WILL open and YOu will see terrorism here. Right now they are concentrating on the soldiers in IRAQ, if they withdraw the Insugency WILL follow. So to all the folks that complain about the war I say this, Until you have been on the battle field and had to fight for you and your buddies life, or had to pick up a small child that was killed because there parent was helping the coalition and the insugency found out about it. SHUT UP. You want to make a difference join the military and go to war then you will have something to bit## about! We fight to protect those that can't protect themselves.

Prey

01-11-2007, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by dlerch
look the whole point is this, if we were so concerned about the kurds or the iraqis in general, why didn't we do something about it when it happened? it happened 10 years before we attcked iraq!! it only really became a problem with the u.s. after the "weapons" lie didn't pan out for the administration...

thats my point, the kurds happened several administrations before bush, the checm/bio weapon thing was nothing new, and iraq had been violating UN saction from the second they were imposed. sure saddam was a bad guy, and i am sure at some point down the road he would have supported al qaeda.

so with that said, do you really think that bush just sent soldiers to die because he is sadistic, or is it just possible that it did centralize the war on terror like i said! that iraq is central in the middle east and logistically makes sense to have a base/s of operations there

saddams track record just made the war easy to pitch to americans while achieving the goal of keeping the attacks on america elsewhere, something you and the 160 million americans enjoy every single day but still have the gull to complain about.

Prey

01-11-2007, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by FHKracingZ
prey, i respect what you are saying and you are saying it with great knowledge of whats going on. but answer this. How come its always gotta be our job to protect the world. Many countries hate us because we try to help an enemy of them even if its for the pity of the people. If saddam was gonna make bio weapons he wouldnt use them on us first. Notice how hes got a pattern of not doing anything to us? He may of enriched uranium by so did north korea 20 years ago and all we did is blow up the factorys and delay the problem another 20 years. Let saddam run his country the way he wants. Just because he ran his country in a different way then we do , dosnt mean its wrong and or time to stick our foot in. just my .2 cents

LOL man, we are not protecting the world, al qaeda is not mad and attacking the world, they are attacking us and that is who we are protecting.

Eviltanker

01-11-2007, 08:55 AM

BINGO

FHKracingZ

01-11-2007, 08:57 AM

Look over the last 50 years. Our involvment in conflics/wars are us getting involved in stupid little wars with stupid little countries. We ALWAYS stick our nose in other peoples business. and if it wasnt for Isreal i believe 9/11 would of never happened. 9/10 muslims hate us for that single reason. and you kno its true

Prey

01-11-2007, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by FHKracingZ
Look over the last 50 years. Our involvment in conflics/wars are us getting involved in stupid little wars with stupid little countries. We ALWAYS stick our nose in other peoples business. and if it wasnt for Isreal i believe 9/11 would of never happened. 9/10 muslims hate us for that single reason. and you kno its true

from the late 40s up until 1991 our involvement was very particular to communism, go ahead and look it up.

and LOL isreal was not the cause of 9/11 ..... we were as a result of democracy versus communism

we, THE USA spawned al qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, and we did this by making gorilla fighters and arming them to fight ruissia, and as soon as rusia left, so did we without helping them re-establish gov't, or their country.....

and waaa-laaaa, 9/11 happened, now people cant seem to learn from the past and want us to prematurely pull out of iraq and potentially create the same situation

FHKracingZ

01-11-2007, 09:07 AM

anybody who thinks us pulling out of iraq is a good idea is stupid....it will make the situation worse and whoever takes over the country which would be another tyrant like saddam will hate us forever.

Quad18star

01-11-2007, 09:08 AM

I'm curious to know why the 20 000 extra troops that you guys are sending , aren't going to Afghanistan to find Osama .:confused:

He's the one that ordered the attacks on Americans , initiated an "Act of War" against your country and has admitted it through video . So now that Saddam was found , tried and hung for his crimes , logically shouldn't more attentioned be focused towards finding the leader of a Terrorist Organization before he orders more attacks ?!?!

Troops are fighting blind against their enemy in Iraq ... the enemy can be anyone from a 40 year old man , to a 20 year old woman or a 12 year old kid . What is going to stop these radicals from loading their car with fuel and letting it explode on the first military vehicle they see ?? Doesn't matter if there's 20 000 extra troops , troops are still going to die from the explosion .

The extra troops might help against those fighting with guns , but the enemy has found their new way of attacking ( drive-by bombings) and it has been successful for them so far .:ermm:

Just my opinion , but I think your troops would be better off in Afghanistan and your Government would get more support from it's people if they did so .

Eviltanker

01-11-2007, 09:12 AM

either/ or,.... It doesn't matter. When I get called I get called. It don't matter if I think it's right or Wrong, it's just time for me to do my thing. This war would go alot smoother if the news wouldn't be all over the soldiers buts. You cant move real stealthy with a cameraman following you. I wish they would show the whole picture not just what will get ratings. I don't see why americans are so obsessed with death. since I've been home I prefer to watch my little boy who's first 1 1/2 years of life I missed cuz of the war. Nobody will ever agree on this war and like I said from my stand point it doesn't matter what I think about this war. It's not the first time I was sent across the pond and it will not be my last. I guess what I'm saying is Support it or not, The next time you complain about it think about the Soldiers that went and lost friends and now live with the repercutions. it really bothers alot of us to come home and hear all the bi@#hing.
Show some respect, We do what alot of people are afraid or don't have the intestinal fortitude to do.
Sorry this is just a sore subject. I got harrased by some collage punks when I got home and was in uniform on the street. They actually yelled at me like I started the war!

Eviltanker

01-11-2007, 09:19 AM

Quad18star
[ I'm curious to know why the 20 000 extra troops that you guys are sending , aren't going to Afghanistan to find Osama . ]

The extra troops are to help relieve pressure so that we can get the frickin Iraqi army(not the brightest bunch) on there feet. We are doing a totally operation in Afghanistan. I don't even want to get into that mess.

01-11-2007, 09:21 AM

Bush is retarted. Cant he just die or sumthing.:rolleyes:

Eviltanker

01-11-2007, 09:26 AM

Vote next time. Don't worry his term is up anyway. We would have gone to Iraq a lot sooner if the military wasn't down sized so bad in the mid 90's. Yes I know this for sure because I've been in since 1990 before alot of riders on here were born.

Prey

01-11-2007, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Quad18star
I'm curious to know why the 20 000 extra troops that you guys are sending , aren't going to Afghanistan to find Osama .:confused:

He's the one that ordered the attacks on Americans , initiated an "Act of War" against your country and has admitted it through video . So now that Saddam was found , tried and hung for his crimes , logically shouldn't more attentioned be focused towards finding the leader of a Terrorist Organization before he orders more attacks ?!?!

Troops are fighting blind against their enemy in Iraq ... the enemy can be anyone from a 40 year old man , to a 20 year old woman or a 12 year old kid . What is going to stop these radicals from loading their car with fuel and letting it explode on the first military vehicle they see ?? Doesn't matter if there's 20 000 extra troops , troops are still going to die from the explosion .

The extra troops might help against those fighting with guns , but the enemy has found their new way of attacking ( drive-by bombings) and it has been successful for them so far .:ermm:

Just my opinion , but I think your troops would be better off in Afghanistan and your Government would get more support from it's people if they did so .

the 21,500 troops, its coming up on campaign time again, americans have not seen with their own eyes any improvement and the republican party needs to come up with something tangable IMO.

killing bin laden has the only benefit of upping american morale, other than that its very similiar to if bush were killed, like him or hate him, it would still unite us and make us a vicous adversary for a few years. does bush's death mean the us stops rolling... heck no, he is not the thinker of this country, he is just the guy who presents the ideas of a much smarter staff ..... just like bin laden, sure he was a hero in the afgani/russian war, he was brave, and he got a lot of press for it, that does not make him a strategist.

sandmanblue

01-11-2007, 09:32 AM

:mad: Flippin libs! SHUT UP!

Saddam is gone. Do you want him back? Would you rather have a tyrant that has attacked neighboring countries in a quest for domination of the worlds oil supply back in power? No? Then we are there for a reason - to keep a tyrant and his followers from attempting world control. Would you rather we left Hitler alone and tried to negotiate with him... Oh, Europe tried that and got their arses kicked! Lesson learned - remove the guy before he can cause major damage. Don't you people get that?????

Now, with Saddam gone, is it over? No. Until the country is stabile, we must stay and complete the job, not cut and run and leave the country in ruins. If we leave and it is not stabile, then his followers will be much more likely to do it again - and they will be emboldened by our unwillingness to finish the job. That's what they are counting on... Wimpy liberal Americans that can't deal with the fact that this world is VERY harsh. The people we are dealing with are testosterone filled lunatics, not estrogen based girly, girls... Hello??? You can't fight them with flowers...

When will it be over? I'll answer that with this question. If we could have taken Hitler out before he took over Europe, but it would have cost 50,000 US troops over 20 years, in order to save the millions he slaughtered, would it have been worth it? Yes? We lost 10,000 men in ONE day (D-Day) during the last World War. ONE SINGLE DAY! And yet, we lose 3,000 and the libs are screaming for us to LEAVE????

If we have to stay in Iraq for 10 years, 20 years... And it costs us 10,000 men or more... Is it worth that price to ensure that a dictator that paid ZERO attention to the paper tiger of the UN was removed and never had the chance to dominate Kuwait, then Saudi Arabia, and a whole lot more??? Of course it is...

People that don't have the stomach for war need to leave it to the men that are willing to fight for our security, not whine and moan about who to blame for their own pathetic, gutless existence.

The problem now is that way too many people that have no clue what is it that we are fighting (aggressive, determined fanatical MEN) are getting in the way and putting roadblocks in the way of our military (insert Cindy Sleezhand here). Those people need to STFU and leave the fighting to those that know how to do it, rather than sitting behind their keyboards and complaining about how the world isn't going the farsical eutopian way that they believe it should.

Terrorism is NOT going to stop when we finally leave. Get that through your thick, panzy-arse heads. Just because YOU want this mess to be over, because YOU can't handle the reality of this earth, and the fighting and wars that have gone on for centuries, doesn't mean that the rest of us that are willing to protect the freedoms that we all enjoy here are willing to pay the price for your gutless, ignorant mindset.

I am SOOOO sick of the libs absolutely ruining this country. You don't care one bit about what our sons and daughters will be facing in the future. It's all about how to make yourselves feel good now. Only about today - unwilling to pay the price for a stabile and happy tomorrow...

This is why most women and other gender bending people don't join the miltary. They don't know when to fight. They think that everyone else has "feelings" and can be negotiated with. Guess what? Those heartless fanatics over there want YOU dead too. Why not just go over there are negotiate instead of badmouthing the very government that has provided you with everything you have. Including security, energy, booming economy, extremely low unemployment, stabile interest rates... Nope, you idiots have to complain about us sending more troops to ensure our own security and the stability of a country torn apart by war.

This is going to last for generations people - better get used to it now - either that or start bowing toward Mecca like those other scumbags!
:mad: :mad: :mad:

01-11-2007, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by dlerch
[B]sorry but you'll just have to deal with, and be patient about people like garandman, they think this war is right, it's called ideology, of course they aren't the ones fighting it, or the ones sending friends or family to do it either...

Typical liberal mush for brains.

Typical in that you did NOT address any of my reasoning, you just make personal staements about ME.

You been to a soldiers funeral? You represented the dead soldiers unit at the funeral? You look a momma in the eye, and thank her for her sons service?

I have.

Don't talk about what you don't know about.

And you have CONSISTENTLY shown not to know JACK about this situation.

01-11-2007, 09:40 AM

Well i better not get drafted. :grr:

01-11-2007, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Member#0
Bush is retarted. Cant he just die or sumthing.:rolleyes:

Look in a mirror, pal.

Prey

01-11-2007, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Member#0
Bush is retarted. Cant he just die or sumthing.:rolleyes:

listen guy, you have any right to any opinion you want bro, but just tell me this and gather up all your little lib firends for it, what is the right way to deal with terrorism, cause this is one of the fields i work in...... and i can promise you i dont have a better solution

should you decide you want to see what life would be like without the war centralized in the middle east, join the military or go live on the gaza strip for a few months,

there is still potential for american streets to resemble iraq or the gaza strip, its all in how we handle the remainder of the war

01-11-2007, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by dlerch

i have 2 questions...

1) why are we even in that country(iraq)? and if someone says 9/11 i'm gonna puke! it has been proven that iraq had no connection. and no saying "saddam was a bad guy" yeah well there are a bunch of "bad" guys all over that we seem to be fine with leading their countries...

Simple - fight them in Boston, or fight them in Baghdad.

Since yer of a Hollyweird intellect, think "Blackhawk Down." Run from terrorists, and they'll come to the US to kill us.

and 2) what exactly is "victory" in iraq? can i get a definite description...because i'd be willing to bet that if we actually had a clear end result that we are striving for, people would be more willing to support it... [/B]

Simple - victory is "no more atacks in the homeland."

This is a 1,000 year war, in the terrorists mentality.

Now, I've answered your questions.

What would YOU do? Other than hate Bush? That is NOT O a solution to a 1,000 year war.

01-11-2007, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by garandman
Look in a mirror, pal.

Well nothings better since he became pres, every thing got worse. If he wants to screw with iraq so bad why dont he just drop some nukes on them and be over with it.

01-11-2007, 09:45 AM

01-11-2007, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Prey
listen guy, you have any right to any opinion you want bro, but just tell me this and gather up all your little lib firends for it, what is the right way to deal with terrorism, cause this is one of the fields i work in...... and i can promise you i dont have a better solution

should you decide you want to see what life would be like without the war centralized in the middle east, join the military or go live on the gaza strip for a few months,

there is still potential for american streets to resemble iraq or the gaza strip, its all in how we handle the remainder of the war

Just ban all iraq people from being in usa. They get caught in usa they get shot. Be much easier.

01-11-2007, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Member#0
Well nothings better since he became pres, every thing got worse. If he wants to screw with iraq so bad why dont he just drop some nukes on them and be over with it.

Hey, I'm not against the nuke option, but its not that simple. Terrorists are about 1 in 1,000 of the population. They hide in civilians clothes. They don't fight under any flag. Their tactics are not the type you can drop bombs and declare victory.

They are scattered across teh globe. Have you been paying attention AT ALL to what's been going in in Somalia, with al Queda?

This is a global, 1,000 year war. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you'll not embarrass yourself with your comments.

Not better? Have we had another 9 /11? Have we had another Cole bombing? Have we had another 1998 WTC bombing?

No, we have not.

That's definitively better.

Open your eyes man. Accept the truths that are right in front of you.

Prey

01-11-2007, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Member#0
Just ban all iraq people from being in usa. They get caught in usa they get shot. Be much easier.

i gonna assume you are a little younger..??

1, that is murder and totaly violates the constitution that we enjoy freedom by and love
2, iraqi does not = terrorist and niether does muslim
3, that is profiling (this is where the younger thing comes in, profiling has been as issue in the US for several decades)

Eviltanker

01-11-2007, 09:57 AM

Liberals remember this..... the war commitee is comprised of pretty equal numbers of dems and libs. JOHN KERRY is on it. Bush asked to go to war but, THEY HAD TO OK IT!
Until you have gone through this shut up and think about this. You think you got it tough.look at the following pics and ask yourself if you got the guts to defend your brothers and your countries freedoms. I do what I can and hope that someday my son will not have to. Will the world ever live in peace? NO so deal with it.

Eviltanker

01-11-2007, 09:58 AM

this one hurt

Eviltanker

01-11-2007, 10:00 AM

My Baby

Eviltanker

01-11-2007, 10:02 AM

Sometimes we couldn't get there in a tank or HMWWV

Eviltanker

01-11-2007, 10:05 AM

What they look like if we found them before they blew

sandmanblue

01-11-2007, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Member#0
Well nothings better since he became pres, every thing got worse. If he wants to screw with iraq so bad why dont he just drop some nukes on them and be over with it.

Have you been there? Do you watch the news?

Elections with a 70% involvement - better than the USA. Nobody being thrown off of building because they didn't vote for Saddam either...

Even with the terrorists blowing people up, there are less murders going on than in our largest cities on a daily basis.

Did you see all the people cheering in the Detroit suburbs when Saddam was hanged? IRAQI's were cheering. THEY know how much improvement there has been.

You libs need to look at the big picture instead of only inside your own little lives.

This is going to last a long time and since negotiating with fanatics doesn't work - WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION?

All this whining and complaining, but no solutions.

It's always blame, blame, blame with libs... :mad: :mad:

And to those that lost loved ones, remember, there are plenty of us that have lost loved ones as well. It is not a pleasant thing. It was their sacrifice that has allowed us to live as we do now. We owe them our lives.

Idiots like Sleezehand want to take that sacrifice and throw it all away because they don't want to see the big picture. They are so stuck in their own feelings that they can't see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Again, this is why women don't wage wars. They don't know how to do it. It's just in their genetic code. Just like most men can't multitask. Gotta live with what God gave us and accept what has hasn't given us.

If it were up to women and gays, we would war war by carrying a grudge towards our enemies forever and insulting the clothes they wear. That doesn't secure anyone's freedom.

The guys with the biggest sticks always win the fight. Get used to it. It's what the world is... If you don't have it in you to fight, then shut up and let those that will protect you do it and accept the results. Seems liike our forefathers have led us all down a pretty good path so far.

And yet another case why Billary should NEVER be elected!

derekhonda

01-11-2007, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Member#0
Well nothings better since he became pres, every thing got worse. If he wants to screw with iraq so bad why dont he just drop some nukes on them and be over with it.

Can I make a guess? You are 13, aren't you?

Thanks to all the men and women in service. My cousin just got back from his year tour in iraq, he had some amazing stories to tell, but overall said the job was gettin done.

One question. Everyone is so quick to say bush made so many mistakes, blah blah blah. What would you have done different? Anyone? DLerch? Make a case that sitting around with our thumbs in our asses would have been the best move to make. History will not back you up, I promise.

Chin_Chilla

01-11-2007, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by sandmanblue
:mad: Flippin libs! SHUT UP!

Saddam is gone. Do you want him back? Would you rather have a tyrant that has attacked neighboring countries in a quest for domination of the worlds oil supply back in power? No? Then we are there for a reason - to keep a tyrant and his followers from attempting world control. Would you rather we left Hitler alone and tried to negotiate with him... Oh, Europe tried that and got their arses kicked! Lesson learned - remove the guy before he can cause major damage. Don't you people get that?????

Now, with Saddam gone, is it over? No. Until the country is stabile, we must stay and complete the job, not cut and run and leave the country in ruins. If we leave and it is not stabile, then his followers will be much more likely to do it again - and they will be emboldened by our unwillingness to finish the job. That's what they are counting on... Wimpy liberal Americans that can't deal with the fact that this world is VERY harsh. The people we are dealing with are testosterone filled lunatics, not estrogen based girly, girls... Hello??? You can't fight them with flowers...

When will it be over? I'll answer that with this question. If we could have taken Hitler out before he took over Europe, but it would have cost 50,000 US troops over 20 years, in order to save the millions he slaughtered, would it have been worth it? Yes? We lost 10,000 men in ONE day (D-Day) during the last World War. ONE SINGLE DAY! And yet, we lose 3,000 and the libs are screaming for us to LEAVE????

If we have to stay in Iraq for 10 years, 20 years... And it costs us 10,000 men or more... Is it worth that price to ensure that a dictator that paid ZERO attention to the paper tiger of the UN was removed and never had the chance to dominate Kuwait, then Saudi Arabia, and a whole lot more??? Of course it is...

People that don't have the stomach for war need to leave it to the men that are willing to fight for our security, not whine and moan about who to blame for their own pathetic, gutless existence.

The problem now is that way too many people that have no clue what is it that we are fighting (aggressive, determined fanatical MEN) are getting in the way and putting roadblocks in the way of our military (insert Cindy Sleezhand here). Those people need to STFU and leave the fighting to those that know how to do it, rather than sitting behind their keyboards and complaining about how the world isn't going the farsical eutopian way that they believe it should.

Terrorism is NOT going to stop when we finally leave. Get that through your thick, panzy-arse heads. Just because YOU want this mess to be over, because YOU can't handle the reality of this earth, and the fighting and wars that have gone on for centuries, doesn't mean that the rest of us that are willing to protect the freedoms that we all enjoy here are willing to pay the price for your gutless, ignorant mindset.

I am SOOOO sick of the libs absolutely ruining this country. You don't care one bit about what our sons and daughters will be facing in the future. It's all about how to make yourselves feel good now. Only about today - unwilling to pay the price for a stabile and happy tomorrow...

This is why most women and other gender bending people don't join the miltary. They don't know when to fight. They think that everyone else has "feelings" and can be negotiated with. Guess what? Those heartless fanatics over there want YOU dead too. Why not just go over there are negotiate instead of badmouthing the very government that has provided you with everything you have. Including security, energy, booming economy, extremely low unemployment, stabile interest rates... Nope, you idiots have to complain about us sending more troops to ensure our own security and the stability of a country torn apart by war.

This is going to last for generations people - better get used to it now - either that or start bowing toward Mecca like those other scumbags!
:mad: :mad: :mad: Very Very Very well put! :macho

sandmanblue

01-11-2007, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Eviltanker
Sometimes we couldn't get there in a tank or HMWWV

THANK YOU! What you and all the other guys over there are doing will make this world a better place.

DON'T let the lib idiots get to you! They are wrong. They are gutless. They know nothing of honor and service to their country!

I am proud to have people like you in this country with me. If you're ever in AZ, PM me - I'll buy you a beverage...

Quad18star

01-11-2007, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by sandmanblue

Again, this is why women don't wage wars. They don't know how to do it. It's just in their genetic code. Just like most men can't multitask. Gotta live with what God gave us and accept what has hasn't given us.

If it were up to women and gays, we would war war by carrying a grudge towards our enemies forever and insulting the clothes they wear. That doesn't secure anyone's freedom.

From every post I've read from you , you're always making a certain negative remark towards either women , gays or people of a different race . Seems like you have some issues against people that aren't exactly like you , and that is the EXACT reason why this World is in such a mess ... people like you can't accept differences .

So no women are fighting in the war ? You don't think there are gays fighting the war ? Give your head a shake and get out of the 1920s ...men , women and gays , along with different races are all equal now . Women don't all stay home and push a mop around all day , all gays don't walk around with pink shirts and limp wrists .

Eviltanker

01-11-2007, 10:33 AM

from sandmanblue
[I am proud to have people like you in this country with me. If you're ever in AZ, PM me - I'll buy you a beverage...]
Tank you and it's a deal bro.. And for all the libs here....

01-11-2007, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by derekhonda
Can I make a guess? You are 13, aren't you?

No:rolleyes:
Not trying to be a A hole but every military guy i know and see think their the best thing to walk on earth.

wheeltrax

01-11-2007, 10:38 AM

All I'm going to say is thanks to those that serve. I have about 10 friends that are over seas or in the armed forces. While yes this war is not pretty, it does have to be addressed. If we don't go over there we have a chance for more terrorism and violence over here. I will admit, I do not know everything about it, I just know that I support MY friends, Your friends, Your Family, and most of all My country. To everyone in the military.. thanks

Eviltanker

01-11-2007, 10:41 AM

Really? You must have met some a-holes, All my bro's act like regular folks out of uniform. We only get cranky when people that havn't done a thing in the war try to arm-chair quarterback it.

01-11-2007, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by wheeltrax
All I'm going to say is thanks to those that serve. I have about 10 friends that are over seas or in the armed forces. While yes this war is not pretty, it does have to be addressed. If we don't go over there we have a chance for more terrorism and violence over here. I will admit, I do not know everything about it, I just know that I support MY friends, Your friends, Your Family, and most of all My country. To everyone in the military.. thanks

Wasn't the only terrorism on the twin towers? No terrorist can do that again cause of the highly incresed secerity in the air port. They will have to fly a plane from iraq to do it again and it would be shot down before it got here.

wheeltrax

01-11-2007, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Member#0
No:rolleyes:
Not trying to be a A hole but every military guy i know and see think their the best thing to walk on earth.

Now since I just posted my thoughts, and read yours. I feel offended. If it wasn't for them, you may not be alive. And from your comments, They don't think they are the best thing to walk on earth, they are PROUD of serving our country and to stand up and support US civilians, even though some of them don't support them in return. Think next time before you talk.

Eviltanker

01-11-2007, 10:46 AM

Ditto

Rastus

01-11-2007, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Member#0
No:rolleyes:
Not trying to be a A hole but every military guy i know and see think their the best thing to walk on earth.

Younger then? :confused:
I believe our military servicemen and women have a certain amount of duty and pride in theirself and their country that oozes out, something you might not understand just yet.

And as far as accepting differences like Quad18star is talking about, isn't that the whole reason we're in this fight? If Islam would join us in the 21st Century, we might be able to gain some ground.

21,500? Not enough..., we need more heavy units but don't have it. We can thank Bush Sr. and Clinton for that, along with Rumsfeld. Airplanes and fancy gadgets are nice for short engagements, but nothing beats real boots on the ground.

01-11-2007, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by wheeltrax
Now since I just posted my thoughts, and read yours. I feel offended. If it wasn't for them, you may not be alive. And from your comments, They don't think they are the best thing to walk on earth, they are PROUD of serving our country and to stand up and support US civilians, even though some of them don't support them in return. Think next time before you talk.

Maybe thats why a bunch of them military guys came at me that one time. :D Got me too:eek2: :D

Rastus

01-11-2007, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Member#0
Maybe thats why a bunch of them military guys came at me that one time. :D Got me too:eek2: :D

Probably because you forgot to think before you talked...:p

01-11-2007, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Rastus
Probably because you forgot to think before you talked...:p

yep i think so. And the fact that i didnt know i was all around the military guys lol

bwamos

01-11-2007, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Rastus
Probably because you forgot to think before you talked...:p

Member#0 = blue450yo, blue450yoyo, villlageidiot, slow, and whatever other 20+ handles he's had before they got banned.

01-11-2007, 11:25 AM

To our soldier EXriders.com members -

Thanx for all you do.

Not that I need to tell you, but ....ignore the bed wetting liberals.

We're with ya....foursquare.

smr

01-11-2007, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Joe400ex
U know people like u are funny. Bush is ruining many familys lifes for no reason, if u think what he is doing is good then y dont u go to war.

Be careful what you say. I am a combat Vet. I saw action with the 1st of the 502nd infantry. I do know whats going over there and I have fought. I did my time and now I enjoy what I fought for...Freedom

I have a letter I keep with me that an Iraq kid gave me. It says to please kill saddam. I'm not the guy that put the noose around his neck but I sleep better at night nowing the Iraq people got what they wanted.

Eviltanker

01-11-2007, 11:41 AM

Smr, Were you at Camp Corregidor?

sandmanblue

01-11-2007, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Quad18star
From every post I've read from you , you're always making a certain negative remark towards either women , gays or people of a different race .

Truly an ignorant statement if I ever heard one. Maybe you should read my posts before publically making a fool of yourself - plus you better quote me in the process, otherwise you don't know what you are talking about...

Who gives a rats arse about those comments or why I say what I say? I'm not on trial. This is about the asinine whining and complaining from the pacifist libs that are US citizens and don't respect this country, nor the sacrifices that others have made in order to further our democratic way of life and the freedoms thereof.

If you are not referring to the subject of Iraq, troop buildups, war on terror or liberal mentality, then your're just sidetracking this thread in order to NOT answer my question about - WHAT IS THE SOLUTION? If troop build ups and staying the course isn't it, then WHAT IS?

Tell us all how the war should be run from now on, and tell us all what is going to happen. Enough with the destructive criticism if you have nothing further to add.

01-11-2007, 12:08 PM

Eviltanker your willingness to put your life on the line is appreciated in a way that cannot be thanked enough for. And may i ask a sincere question? let me ask you...if you found out, or believed for one second that we are actually in iraq for a reason like; the oil, or for the contract saddam put on bush senior, or to make haliburton a ton of money, or anything other than the original reasons given(nukes etc.)would it bother you? i understand your frustration in those of us that haven't been there...but i assure you that the problem is nothing against the fine men and women over there trying to accomplish something, my problem is with the people that may or may not have asked you and your commrades to make great sacrifices based on lies. i assure you my concern is not for my own personal safety, but for that of our troops and the innocent iraqi people...i hope that is understood...

honda350r

01-11-2007, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by garandman
Werd.

The list of things these dopes don't understand is truly scary.

Oh ,I get it now!! Agree with you or else we are stupid ..

sandmanblue

01-11-2007, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Quad18star

...men , women and gays , along with different races are all equal now .

Oh really? Equal according to the law, but not equal in physical, mental, and chemical composition...

Need I cite examples of how some genders and races are better at certain activities? If we are equal, why are there women's teams and men's teams? Why are there weight categories in many sports? Basketball. Hockey. Don't see equality in race there either do you? Humans are inherently UNequal. It's called diversification of species... Mental equality? Not even worth discussing. Chemical equality? Not everyone has equal amounts of testosterone and estrogen. Are your breasts the same as Pam Anderson's?

Equality - BS!

Lawful equality does NOT in any way shape or form mean that we are are equal in physical, chemical, emotional, or intellectual attributes. Liberals would love for everyone to be completely equal. They bring uo lawful equality as some sort of proof that humans are all made the exact same way - but they are not, and to think so is completely contradictory to science, not to mention just plain stupid.

250r4life

01-11-2007, 12:30 PM

honda250xrider

01-11-2007, 12:45 PM

I think its about time they start to send more troops over there. I remember saying this awhile back and nearly everyone on here got there panties up in a bunch when i mentioned it.

smr

01-11-2007, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Eviltanker
Smr, Were you at Camp Corregidor?

No, I was at Camp Eagle 2. I was there during the first gulf war.

I fought in the battles at FOB Falcon and Cobra.

sandmanblue

01-11-2007, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by dlerch
...we are actually in iraq for a reason like; the oil, or for the contract saddam put on bush senior, or to make haliburton a ton of money, or anything other than the original reasons given(nukes etc.)w

Right out of the lib playbook - did you have to re-read it to post that babble? Nukes were NEVER the reason and you know it...

I suppose Saddam didn't invade Kuwait and pose a threat to Saudi Arabia and the worlds energy supply...

I suppose that he abided by all the UN resolutions asking for immediate disarmament and access to all weapons by inspectors...

I suppose that Clinton didn't have anything to do with Haliburton during his presidency and that there are 4 or 5 other companies that are capable of performing that same work...

I suppose that Bush and Cheney were the only people in Washington that made the decision on which contractor to use...

I suppose that Saddam is a good guy and we would be better off with him still building his army and weapons up, starving his people, murdering his adversaries...

I suppose that a truck load of cash was taken out of the Iraqi banks and secretly transferred to Bush and his cronies, but they were stupid enough to use private companies to make the transfer and they were all paid in cash... Nevermind that it would have been easier and more clandestine to use a Swiss account and wire transfers....

I suppose that the WTC was bombed by our own government, and the bombs just happen to be on the exact floors that the planes hit, but they didn't go off when the planes hit, even though there was a huge fire from the fuel, but were set off a long while afterwards in order to bring down the buildings and allow Bush to go into Afghanistan and Iraq to dominate the worlds oil supply...

Lerch - your hero's in the dem party voted to go into Iraq. Voted to go into Afghanistan, shot missles at bin Laden, attacked an aspirin factory in Somalia, sent our military into Bosnia (and we are still there...

Again - All you are doing is reciting the lunacy of the left wing libs instead of using that big chunk of gray stuffed inside your head... Not to mention the fact that you - like so many - only offer criticism - no solutions...

I'll be waiting for that brilliant solution from you folks....

bwamos

01-11-2007, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Member#0
Wasn't the only terrorism on the twin towers? No terrorist can do that again cause of the highly incresed secerity in the air port. They will have to fly a plane from iraq to do it again and it would be shot down before it got here.

Umm.. no... they weren't even the only attack that day. :huh
To beleive that it can't or won't happen again is simply shortsighted.

1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.

1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.

1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1
995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.

1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)

2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

Quad18star

01-11-2007, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by sandmanblue
Oh really? Equal according to the law, but not equal in physical, mental, and chemical composition...

Need I cite examples of how some genders and races are better at certain activities? If we are equal, why are there women's teams and men's teams? Why are there weight categories in many sports? Basketball. Hockey. Don't see equality in race there either do you? Humans are inherently UNequal. It's called diversification of species... Mental equality? Not even worth discussing. Chemical equality? Not everyone has equal amounts of testosterone and estrogen. Are your breasts the same as Pam Anderson's?

Equality - BS!

Lawful equality does NOT in any way shape or form mean that we are are equal in physical, chemical, emotional, or intellectual attributes. Liberals would love for everyone to be completely equal. They bring uo lawful equality as some sort of proof that humans are all made the exact same way - but they are not, and to think so is completely contradictory to science, not to mention just plain stupid.

SO you're going to try and tell me a woman can't make the same decision that a man can make ? If America had a woman President and it was attacked , do you think she's sit there and say No to war ? Get real buddy .

Last time I checked , there were women in the military , women serving as firefighters , women working on the farms throwing bails of hay around , women working in the oil fields doing the same work that men are doing . Most of the women in these fields would put you and I , along with 95% of the people on this site to shame in a day's work . SO there goes the physical part of it .

Now if you want to talk about the chemical make up of men and women , I've seen men with larger breasts than some women have . But as far as I know , a set of tits doesn't mean you can't make a rational decision or perform physical work . Also if you aren't able to multi-task , you might want to work on that cuz I think 90% of men can actually multi-task ... you know drink a beer and change the TV chanel all at the same time .

I've seen women play in mens leagues for different sports . There's been women playing in professional golf , professional hockey , ever heard rumors about a pro female ATV racer that is set to compete against the guys this year . Now go down to any local level of sports and you'll see mixed teams . The main reason you never see many women in Mens Pro sports teams is because some of the guys don't want the women there .. it'll take away from the Macho'ism of the game . :rolleyes: Most are afraid of change .

You're quick to call others ignorant , but you might want to sit back and look at yourself , then make judgement over who is ignorant and who is not .

250r4life

01-11-2007, 01:11 PM

to tell you the truth, i wouldnt mind if we were there for the oil... to be honest, that is the one thing i am mad about- that we are not there for the oil as well... if i were president, as long as we are there helping them out and spending money and lives, i would be taking oil as repayment... it'd be great- gas would be $.25 a gallon instead of $2.40...

bwamos

01-11-2007, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by 250r4life
gas would be $.25 a gallon instead of $2.40...

Nah it would be $0.25 w/ $2.15 tax, and we'd still be blaming the oil companies.. lol.

We're paying an average of $0.42/gallon in gasoline taxes now.

Quad18star

01-11-2007, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by 250r4life
to tell you the truth, i wouldnt mind if we were there for the oil... to be honest, that is the one thing i am mad about- that we are not there for the oil as well... if i were president, as long as we are there helping them out and spending money and lives, i would be taking oil as repayment... it'd be great- gas would be $.25 a gallon instead of $2.40...

I don't know about you , but I don't Help someone out and expect to be repayed for my aid . If I don't want to help my neighbour out , I don't do it ... but if I do give him some help , you won't see me going into his garage , stealing and emptying his jerry cans full of gas into my car .

I think repayment to your Government for their aid will be the new Iraqui government and military making sure would-be terrorists are caught before they even get started ... that's when their new government and military has control over the country which could be quite a long time .

smr

01-11-2007, 01:25 PM

01-11-2007, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Quad18star
SO you're going to try and tell me a woman can't make the same decision that a man can make ? If America had a woman President and it was attacked , do you think she's sit there and say No to war ? Get real buddy .

Now if you want to talk about the chemical make up of men and women , I've seen men with larger breasts than some women have . But as far as I know , a set of tits doesn't mean you can't make a rational decision or perform physical work

Oy....where to start....

Here is guess....yer NOT gonna like the answer.

1. NO....on average a woman CANNOT make the decisions a man can make. Even a woman trained and indoctrinated in tactics and strategy cannot as consistently process information in the manner necessary.

Scientific studies CONSISTENTLY shows fundamental differences in mental processes and physiological reactions to stress and conflict between men and women.

I had a boss a few years ago... the joke around the office was about her needing a good wife to cook and do housekeeping. IF EVER there was a woman who could perform mentally as well as a man, it was this woman.

Well, for whatever reason, she couldn't see how spending $100,000 in payroll was worth saving $1,000,000 in expenses. Her unwillingness to accept a 1000% return on investment caused both me and the controller to ditch her.

2. First, tits get in the way. Any honest woman would tell you that. In fact, I hear and witness it all the time - women themselves admitting it.

Second, its is extrmemly naieve, even borderline delusional, to think a woman can perform on a physical level as well as a man.

01-11-2007, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Quad18star
I don't know about you , but I don't Help someone out and expect to be repayed for my aid . .

And that is why you should NEVER be allowed to control a nation.

Nations don't work the same way people do.

01-11-2007, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by garandman
Oy....where to start....

Here is guess....yer NOT gonna like the answer.

1. NO....on average a woman CANNOT make the decisions a man can make. Even a woman trained and indoctrinated in tactics and strategy cannot as consistently process information in the manner necessary.

Scientific studies CONSISTENTLY shows fundamental differences in mental processes and physiological reactions to stress and conflict between men and women.

I had a boss a few years ago... the joke around the office was about her needing a good wife to cook and do housekeeping. IF EVER there was a woman who could perform mentally as well as a man, it was this woman.

Well, for whatever reason, she couldn't see how spending $100,000 in payroll was worth saving $1,000,000 in expenses. Her unwillingness to accept a 1000% return on investment caused both me and the controller to ditch her.

2. First, tits get in the way. Any honest woman would tell you that. In fact, I hear and witness it all the time - women themselves admitting it.

Second, its is extrmemly naieve, even borderline delusional, to think a woman can perform on a physical level as well as a man.

Every one knows guys are the ones that always make stupid decisions. Kind of like electing bush for pres. Maybe iraq should come over here and get bush and hang him over their in iraq just like we went after sadom.

redrocker

01-11-2007, 01:37 PM

I support our commander in charge
and all of the troops

01-11-2007, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Member#0
Every one knows guys are the ones that always make stupid decisions. Kind of like electing bush for pres. Maybe iraq should come over here and get bush and hang him over their in iraq just like we went after sadom.

I get it.... yer an "imbroglio / agent provacateur...."

Got to be.

Cuz no one can be that insipid without trying.

:devil:

sandmanblue

01-11-2007, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by 250r4life
what are you talking about sandman? you act like different breeds of dogs are used for particular uses, or that different horses have particular uses... (for some of the less sharp in the crowd, there was a heavy dose of sarcasm there)... although i havent agreed with you on other subjects, im right here with ya on this one...

Big thumbs up there!

I - like so many other people - am sick and tired of the whining, complaining, gotta be fair and we're all equal crap, spewed out of the mouths of libs. No solutions, just blaming and accusations.

6 months ago, Pelosi was saying that more troops would be a good thing. Now it's the opposite. Waffle, waffle... No consistency, no logic, no reason. It's all just a political battle for these scumbags. Whatever they can do to cause problems for Bush. To heck with the country. Get Bush at all costs! "They got Clinton so now we need to get back at them by going after Bush..." GGGRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

They won't be happy unless we suffer a huge embarrassment and loss in Iraq and they will blame it all on the Republicans in order to further their quest for control of the government. They act like spoiled little brats that got their arses whooped and need to play dirty to get back at the class president that didn't give the chess club enough recognition during the pep rally.

These are the WORST people on ths planet. Lower than the scum of Al-quifa... At least the terrorists are up front with what their goals are - worldwide Islam. The dems hide behind a cloak of lies, deceit and accusations of wrongdoing in order to gain control of this country.

Loathing doesn't even remotely descibe the feelings I have for them...

I can't wait for these fools to run Hillary in '08. She will get trounced! There's no way that our country is going to elect a woman to be our President. We would be the laughing stock of the entire Muslim world. Anyone that thinks that they would respect us after electing a woman to represent us is in serious need of electro-shock therapy. With the way they treat their own women... Just moronic to think that she'd be the best choice...

I predict McCain will be our next president. Dems will lose seats because of their bungling and mean spirited actions during their short two upcoming years controlling the congress. Please quote me on this.

Hondadudeehhhh

01-11-2007, 02:07 PM

I really dont know that much about the war in Iraq. Not enough to determine whether Bush made a good or bad decision. I do know the wars in the middle east are civil. The battle between the Shiites and Sunnis has been going on for 1,200+ years. The Shiites have been blowing themselves up because they are the minority and trying to show their views of Islam is correct. I dont know, is 21,000 more American troops is suppose to stop that?

250R-Dee

01-11-2007, 02:09 PM

Some of the opinions that have been voiced in this thread are truly appalling. Too many people have formulated blind opinions and are refusing to see the OBVIOUS:..... Leaving IRAQ is not an option until the area is secure and stable!!! Many of you need to get over the reason(s) why the war started so you can concentrate on supporting the troops who are protecting your right to WHINE.

The majority of you have never served in the military and most likely never will. TEAMWORK and training are the keys to staying alive when you are in a HOT combat zone. If a member of a patrol/unit starts doubting his/her reason for living up to the CONTRACT that he/she signed to obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief (CIC) and to protect American interest then members of that patrol/unit will have an increased risk of NOT leaving the war zone alive. Loners, hotshots and superstars get people killed during times of conflict. Troops in this conflict are entrusting their lives to the troop who is supposed to be covering them on the right, left, rear, front or whatever. Without this simple bond a lot of people will die. Trust is a part of teamwork!

Can we win this conflict? Hell yes, but the ignorant among us need to realize that if we do not crush this issue NOW it will be beyond the WORLD's control when it resurfaces in the future. Like mentioned previously: winning = greatly reducing the chance of worldwide terrorists issues from this region in the future.

I have a couple hundred friends from all branches of the military right now and I support them 1,000%. Supporting the troops and supporting policial agendas are two totally different things. You can always move to Cuba, NK, Argentina, Iran, Iraq or one of those other turdhole countries if life in the US of A does not live down to your subpar standards.

Reality Slap to the noggin': More troops are going to the big sandbox and the war can not be won without them.

Here's my gripe and it's a real gripe. War is not for politicians! Politicians start wars while our military stars do the battles. Get those idiot politicians out of the way so the Generals/Admirals can do their job!! Thanks to political BS and an OVERZEALOUS media this war has been stretched out much longer than expected.

More troops equate to more people doing the work and less strain on the troops who are already in the area. More checkpoints can be setup. More trainers for Iraqi troops can be utilized.... blah blah blah!!!
:devil: Semper Fi:devil:

01-11-2007, 02:20 PM

sandmanblue

01-11-2007, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Quad18star
SO you're going to try and tell me a woman can't make the same decision that a man can make ? If America had a woman President and it was attacked , do you think she's sit there and say No to war ? Get real buddy .

Last time I checked , there were women in the military , women serving as firefighters , women working on the farms throwing bails of hay around , women working in the oil fields doing the same work that men are doing . Most of the women in these fields would put you and I , along with 95% of the people on this site to shame in a day's work . SO there goes the physical part of it .

Now if you want to talk about the chemical make up of men and women , I've seen men with larger breasts than some women have . But as far as I know , a set of tits doesn't mean you can't make a rational decision or perform physical work . Also if you aren't able to multi-task , you might want to work on that cuz I think 90% of men can actually multi-task ... you know drink a beer and change the TV chanel all at the same time .

I've seen women play in mens leagues for different sports . There's been women playing in professional golf , professional hockey , ever heard rumors about a pro female ATV racer that is set to compete against the guys this year . Now go down to any local level of sports and you'll see mixed teams . The main reason you never see many women in Mens Pro sports teams is because some of the guys don't want the women there .. it'll take away from the Macho'ism of the game . :rolleyes: Most are afraid of change .

You're quick to call others ignorant , but you might want to sit back and look at yourself , then make judgement over who is ignorant and who is not .

Wow, I didn't think it was possible to post replies that would supercede your prior posts in irrational thought.

I have to pick one part of this which summarizes your complete lack of logic and reason.

"Now go down to any local level of sports and you'll see mixed teams"

Where in heck do you ever see mixed teams in professional sports? It's only in the little leagues where girls are told that they can be as good as boys, until they get their teeth knocked out or ribs broken when playing any contact sport - then they find out that boys and girls are NOT created physically equal.

With your logic, Mohammed Ali and Mike Tyson would have had a woman beat them in boxing. Schwarzenegger would have been beat by Mrs. Olympia. Steven Hawkings would have an intellectual mentor that was female...

Women have plenty of strengths. They are different than men's. There are plenty of intelligent women in all walks of life. They DO make decisions differently than men. We as humans used those to become the dominant species on this planet. They do have chemical differences in their bodies that affect their size, weight, body structure, hair growth, and thought processes. To assert anything contradictory is just ridiculous and not worth responding to any further...

And drinking a beer while watching tv is not multitasking in the least...

When will people accept the fact that millions of years of evolution cannot be undone just because you want to tell everyone they are equal.

I really can't believe that somebody could be so blind.

Equal, huh... I suppose men can have children equally as well as women.... :rolleyes: Yeah, I'd like to see that competition.... :confused:

I can't waste any more time on your nonsense...

sandmanblue

01-11-2007, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by 250R-Dee
Some of the opinions that have been voiced in this thread are truly appalling. Too many people have formulated blind opinions and are refusing to see the OBVIOUS:..... Leaving IRAQ is not an option until the area is secure and stable!!! Many of you need to get over the reason(s) why the war started so you can concentrate on supporting the troops who are protecting your right to WHINE.

The majority of you have never served in the military and most likely never will. TEAMWORK and training are the keys to staying alive when you are in a HOT combat zone. If a member of a patrol/unit starts doubting his/her reason for living up to the CONTRACT that he/she signed to obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief (CIC) and to protect American interest then members of that patrol/unit will have an increased risk of NOT leaving the war zone alive. Loners, hotshots and superstars get people killed during times of conflict. Troops in this conflict are entrusted their lives to the troop who is supposed to be covering them right, left, rear, front or whatever. Without this simple bond a lot of people wold die.

Can we win this conflict? Hell yes, but the ignorant among need to realize that if we do not crush this issue NOT it will be beyond the WORLD's control when it resurfaces in the future. Like mentioned previously: winning = greatly reducing the chance of worldwide terrorists issues from this region in the future.

I have a couple hundred friends from all branches of teh services right now and I support them 1,000%. Supporting the troops and supporting policial agendas are two totally different things. You can always move to Cuba, NK, Argentina, Iran, Iraq or one of those other turdhole countries if life in the USofA does not reach your subpar standards.

Reality Slap to the noggin': More troops are going to the big sandbox and the war can not be won without them.

Here's my gripe and it's a real gripe. War is not for politicians! Politicians start wars while our military stars do the battles. Get those idiot politicians out of the way so the Generals/Admirals can do their job!! Thanks to political BS and an OVERZEALOUS media this war has been stretched out much longer than expected.

More troops equate to more people doing the work and less strain on the troops who are already in the area. More checkpoints can be setup. More trainers for Iraqi troops can be utilized.... blah blah blah!!!
:devil: Semper Fi:devil:

Another big thumbs up! Another person that understands... Thank God for people like you...!

rtm1216

01-11-2007, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by 250R-Dee

Here's my gripe and it's a real gripe. War is not for politicians! Politicians start wars while our military stars do the battles. Get those idiot politicians out of the way so the Generals/Admirals can do their job!! Thanks to political BS and an OVERZEALOUS media this war has been stretched out much longer than expected.

More troops equate to more people doing the work and less strain on the troops who are already in the area. More checkpoints can be setup. More trainers for Iraqi troops can be utilized.... blah blah blah!!!
:devil: Semper Fi:devil:

Bush did not listen to the Generals and Admirals when we first went into Iraq. That is why we are in the mess we are in now. If he had applied the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force / numbers from the start we could have handled any uprising that came up. Instead he went with Rumsfeld war on the cheap strategy and look where we are.

At the start the war had the full support of politicians and the media. That started to waver when it became obviously clear that the reasons the US public were given as to why we went there in the first place turned out to be false. The media has reported what they see in fromt of them. They are not making up the number of attacks, the body counts, the number of wounded, etc.... Just because they report something you do not want to hear does not make them wrong. They are just doing their jobs. If they have to wear body armor and are shot at whenever they leave the green zone they are not going to report that it's like Disnet World there. The media was also all gung-ho in for war in early 2003. Pull up some articles from back then if you don't believe me.

Increasing the number of troops now is too little too late. When he was advised years ago to increase the number of troops in order to control the insurgency Bush said no. In fact he claimed 'Mission Accomplished' and even egged them on by saying to them 'Bring it on'. The 21,500 is not enough. They should either go all out withh 100k+ and really make a statement or we get out asap and let them kill themselves. The whole Iraq thing has been a disaster since Day 1. I have lost all faith (not that I ever really had any) in Bush. This was confirmed to me last night while watching him speak. He looked anything but presidential and confident - the man is a joke.

01-11-2007, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by rtm1216

The media has reported what they see in fromt of them. They are not making up the number of attacks, the body counts, the number of wounded, etc....

Not entirely true - same way teh media reports stories.

They do report OUR body counts. They DO NOT report enemy dead.

They DO NOT report roads rebuilt, schools rebuilt, hardly reported at all on the election. They don't report how rape rooms are closed. They hardly reported AT ALL on the Constitution - a 5,000 year old nation enacts a Constitution, and it doesn't even make the medias radar screen. They don't report ANYTHING that would show the successes of our troops....cuz that might make Bush look good. Media = paid liars.

Increasing the number of troops now is too little too late. When he was advised years ago to increase the number of troops in order to control the insurgency Bush said no. In fact he claimed 'Mission Accomplished' and even egged them on by saying to them 'Bring it on'. The 21,500 is not enough. They should either go all out withh 100k+ and really make a statement or we get out asap and let them kill themselves. The whole Iraq thing has been a disaster since Day 1. I have lost all faith (not that I ever really had any) in Bush. This was confirmed to me last night while watching him speak. He looked anything but presidential and confident - the man is a joke.

So many misstatements. But you do show your agenda.

You hate Bush. Don't lie to us, you always have.

That's obvious.

And don't insult our intelligence by saying you support the troops. You don't. You loathe them, like Clinton.

Know how I know that? Cuz they are all there voluntarily, and they support the C in C.

You little marxists are funny - you think you hide your agenda. You don't.

SRH

01-11-2007, 03:09 PM

dont rip my head off but bush doesnt strike me as smart, he doesnt instill (sp) confidence , he just scares me, im not sure if what he did intitially was wrong or right, but saddam was ruthless, thats what was needed to control them, there is no doubt bush jr had a grudge , after saddam wanted to whack dad, i think more than anything he edged for the war as revenge, part of me likes bush as president hes a mans man, but that doesnt mean hes smart, i think were into another vietnam situation, and im still asking myself why.....and the soldiers, i mean i commend them on there bravery but i cant help feeling sorry for them, there brainwashed into being in this for his cause and they risk life for it, when i just see it as life wasted

i dont want to hear well there protecting us, im not buying it, and if anything this war has drawn more resentment towards the us, and really upped things, id never get involved until i see camels flying over my backyard droppin bombs

in the end i dont know id hate to be in his position is all i wanna say
:chinese:

250R-Dee

01-11-2007, 03:11 PM

I edited some my errors:blah:

Bush is Bush! With that being said, he is is the BOSS!! You know..... The CIC. I do not want to speak bad about the CIC but most people in leadership roles take the advice of their EXPERTS before making decisions but ultimately it is that leaders choice to use that advice or go on his own decision. You can't blame The CIC completely because there are also political advisors with little to NO MILITARY experience who are also prodding The CIC with their opinions and advice while The CIC is seeking advice from his military advisors.

Getting back to the topic! More troops are going to the big sandbox and we need to support them. Actually more troops are needed but the only way to support such an action would be to activate the DRAFT. That would be bad for the military because our trained warrior force would get diluted with whiny brats with no concept of teamwork so their whiny acts of self-preservation and pure IGNORANCE would get thousands of skilled warriors killed or injured.

Here's a good example of self-preservation and stupidity: When I was going through combat training for the USMC we had a hotshot punk from NYC that always caused problems for us. He thought he could use his street persona to make himself look tough but he quickly learned that there is no "I" in TEAMWORK. During a night movement exercise this idiot left his post machinegun so he could sneak a couple puffs from a cigarette. Not only did he leave his position without a weapon but he also gave away our position by lighting a cigarette. Had we been in a combat zone that act of stupidity would have gotten many people from our 14man squad killed because cherry from the cigarette go be seen from 40~50 yards with ease. On the next night he did something totally unbelievable. Instead of using handwarmers or MRE heaters to stay warm, like the rest of us, this moron of morons actually started a fire. And it was not a small fire! My 6 man patrol spotted the fire from almost 500 yards away as we were returing to camp. Needless to say that idiot did become a Marine but they cycled him through combat training twice since he was having such a difficult time comprehending orders. Yes, we were under orders to not smoke at night and to NOT start fires eventhough common sense should have prevailed during these situations. Don't worry because the military has special bases for people like him and they normally feel right at home when they get to Fort Leavenworth :scary:.

There is a war raging.
The US military is involved.
Whining will not stop terrorist.
Support ours troops so you can whine while sipping on a Latte!
WINNING will get things under control!!

Semper Fi:devil:

AbnMP13

01-11-2007, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by garandman
And its STILL not to late to level Fallujah. Turn "Fallujah" into a verb.

I'll help elect you! That quote is GREAT! Been over there twice myself, I don't dabble in politics, I just go and do what I'm told.

I'm sure I'll go back once more before I retire (in 3 years, not that I'm keeping track) and I'll gladly do so. Like some others on here, I've seen schools built, I've seen wells dug and thus I know we're doing good things for those people. Yet that is the same things that you'll never see on the news.

I only have one thing to say, if you don't like the current administration, then get out and VOTE! If you didn't vote in the past two elections then SHUT UP!

01-11-2007, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by AbnMP13
I'll help elect you! That quote is GREAT! Been over there twice myself, I don't dabble in politics, I just go and do what I'm told.

Movies are only movies, but that line in BHD seemed to sum it up -

"When that first bullet whistles past your head, all the political $&%^@#*% goes right out the window, and the only thing that matters is the guy next to you."

I'm sure I'll go back once more before I retire (in 3 years, not that I'm keeping track) and I'll gladly do so. Like some others on here, I've seen schools built, I've seen wells dug and thus I know we're doing good things for those people. Yet that is the same things that you'll never see on the news.

I only have one thing to say, if you don't like the current administration, then get out and VOTE! If you didn't vote in the past two elections then SHUT UP! [/B]

Thanx for what you do.

It matters.

Pappy

01-11-2007, 03:39 PM

anybody paying attention to the info released from this weeks Gulf States Alliance meetings?

All arab countries, all agreed #1 threat in region is Iran.

interesting seeing Iran is behind the insurgency in Irag, and behind the turmoil in Lebanon with Hezbollah.

01-11-2007, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Pappy
anybody paying attention to the info released from this weeks Gulf States Alliance meetings?

All arab countries, all agreed #1 threat in region is Iran.

interesting seeing Iran is behind the insurgency in Irag, and behind the turmoil in Lebanon with Hezbollah.

What I think we're NOT being told is that right now, Iraq is more about having a base to attack Iran.

Pappy

01-11-2007, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by garandman
What I think we're NOT being told is that right now, Iraq is more about having a base to attack Iran.

While I somewhat agree, I highly doubt it will happen anytime soon. Iran, according to some of the information released from the GCA summit revealed Iran has several plans in place to march right into Iraq the moment the United States rolls out. I see our roll in Iraq changing to more of a preventive measure to further stabilize the region in the future.

infantry317

01-11-2007, 03:49 PM

I get so po'ed when I read these posts of these little ********. You liberal, non-helping, lazy pos' accuse veterans (correct me if I'm wrong, Garandman, Pappy, trx250rJapan, many others and myself are vets) of being armchair war-mongers.

We have served our time, what have you done for your country or humanity? If I had my way, there would be a draft at 19 for all: Men & Women, take your choice, Peace Corps or Military both are dangerous and force you to go out of your comfort zone and help others.

American military die overseas or American civilians die here.
Make your choice...This is a holy-war for many of these morons.

Pappy

01-11-2007, 03:58 PM

Times change I geuss...not for the better as I see it, but that is just my opinion.

When I was 15 and 16 I was foaming at the mouth to finally be getting close in age to sign up. The middle east was hot and I just knew I would get in on the fun. Panama, Grenada all kept my furvor up only to be littl emore then a training exercise for the most part. There was always Russia to think about, infact at 16 if you told me you were Rusiian you might as well start dialing 911, that was to be our war. Not to be, we ran them bankrupt:p

By the time 91 came around it looked great until it was over before it got started:mad:

I also remember for the first time in my life thinking how I would not want to go, and that was under the Clinton administration. I almost felt shamed in just thinking it, and I almost lost some teeth trying to explain what I was feeling to my father who was a decorated Marine from the Vietnam War era. So while 1000% percent behind my country and it's military, I can also see where todays youth would get signals so mixed that fighting for anything short of an enemy coming down mainstreet seems pointless. I can understand this.

I hope that makes sense.

derekhonda

01-11-2007, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Member#0
Wasn't the only terrorism on the twin towers? No terrorist can do that again cause of the highly incresed secerity in the air port. They will have to fly a plane from iraq to do it again and it would be shot down before it got here.

are you ****ing serious? You are 13 aren't you?

Eviltanker your willingness to put your life on the line is appreciated in a way that cannot be thanked enough for. And may i ask a sincere question? let me ask you...if you found out, or believed for one second that we are actually in iraq for a reason like; the oil, or for the contract saddam put on bush senior, or to make haliburton a ton of money, or anything other than the original reasons given(nukes etc.)would it bother you? i understand your frustration in those of us that haven't been there...but i assure you that the problem is nothing against the fine men and women over there trying to accomplish something, my problem is with the people that may or may not have asked you and your commrades to make great sacrifices based on lies. i assure you my concern is not for my own personal safety, but for that of our troops and the innocent iraqi people...i hope that is understood...

Dlerch, you just side skipped around my question. I didn't ask if hypothetically 10 years down the road blah blah blah...I said right now. What if YOU were wrong, and we employed YOUR strategy of passiveness? I'm not trying to link 9-11 to iraq (even though they are, through other terrorism that saddam harbored and funded) So what would have happened then? Another attack on american soil? Any other answers except spitting out the same nonsense you have been for a year?

idro

01-11-2007, 04:07 PM

I signed up willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice so that my family and friends will not know what its like to see terrorism on home soil ever again.

As long as we are fighting them on their home ground, they have no need to come over here trying to kill civilians.

AbnMP13

01-11-2007, 04:15 PM

Eviltanker your willingness to put your life on the line is appreciated in a way that cannot be thanked enough for. And may i ask a sincere question? let me ask you...if you found out, or believed for one second that we are actually in iraq for a reason like; the oil, or for the contract saddam put on bush senior, or to make haliburton a ton of money, or anything other than the original reasons given(nukes etc.)would it bother you?

I'll answer that HELL NO !!!!!!!!!!!!

I, of my own free will, raised my hand and VOLUNTEERED to serve my country, and I've volunteered to do it three more times since 1990. NOT TO ASK WHY!

If you don't think this nation is worth fighting for, then leave.

Why did I do it? Because I love knowing the fact that as my kids grow older, that they'll be able to sleep at night with LESS fear of terrorists attacking AMERICAN soil. If we pull out of the middle east now, we'll be considered cowards and more attacks will happen on American soil.

How's that saying go? "THESE COLORS NEVER RUN!"

ridered11

01-11-2007, 05:36 PM

sandmanblue, i might not have agreed with you on music and such

but i sure as hell agree with you on this, type away..........

http://files.blog-city.com/files/O05/150158/p/f/stamp_image_liberals_i_want_you_to_move.jpg

Quad18star

01-11-2007, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by ridered11
sandmanblue, i might not have agreed with you on music and such

but i sure as hell agree with you on this, type away..........

http://files.blog-city.com/files/O05/150158/p/f/stamp_image_liberals_i_want_you_to_move.jpg

orca0294

01-11-2007, 06:28 PM

I did not read the last 3 pages - people telling people they must be younger or 13? you guys are the ones sitting back fighting about this..not just stating your opinion.

Don't you love how they teach you in school that fighting is not the answer to your problems but only for short term.

I agree with the war because what has already been started has been started and if we pull out now the corrupt and unstable followers (terroist) will run the country and only cause more problems. I also give Bush a lot of credit for what is going on right now and he is not 100% percent of the reason we are over there - he is the one that gets to tell the world what is going on and they blame him for it. Also, for the person stating about gays and women . . I am not in the war but I am quite sure you have quite a few gay guys around you that may fight just as well as you do and as far as women if they have the guts to go into the war I believe they can learn to become what you are too. I really dislike the gay population but I do not doubt of their abilities to fight . . they are not all feminem (sp?). Some people mentioned pretty much blowing them off the map but lets think about ourselves, lets think about individuals not stereo typing the whole population to be terroist. To those fighting over in the war today - thank you. I know I never could do it.

By the way I am 16 - for all of the big guys ripping apart on people about their opinions or statements.

Prey

01-11-2007, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by dlerch
if you found out, or believed for one second that we are actually in iraq for a reason like; the oil, or for the contract saddam put on bush senior, or to make haliburton a ton of money,

if the money did not go to haliberton it would have went to another gov't contractor, that point is moot

we may have went cause saddam put a contract on bush LOL

and last but not least we went for oil .... every lib with just enough intelligence to talk spews this one (and i dont blame you, i blame the jackhole who spreads, you are at fault cause you should have the basic economic intelligence to pull the wheat from the chaff)

last time i checked before the war we were well below $50 a barrel for oil (much less than $1 per gallon), the addition cost you see at the pump is shipping and refinement...

so lets say we were paying 70 cents a gallon to iraqi companies for oil.

now think about how many billions have been spent on this war, now think about all the dead soldiers, not only what their lifes meant but also their $200,000 SGLI (or whatever it is up to these days), at the risk of sounding crude, they need a proper military burial, then you have to retrain new soldiers

now think about all the wounded, the cost to treat them, the cost to pay them disabled veterans pay for the rest of their lives, and re-train solders to replace them.

now think about what someone else said when they said this is going to be a generation long war.

lastly go check out how much in gallons all the oil wells in iraq hold..........

and finally tell me now if you really truely think that we would ever break even from it.......... ya still think we went to war for oil........

i told you why we went to war with iraq, you are just to whatever to listen

Joe400ex

01-11-2007, 07:52 PM

were all doomed im telling u bottom line!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rtm1216

01-11-2007, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by garandman
Not entirely true - same way teh media reports stories.

They do report OUR body counts. They DO NOT report enemy dead.

They DO NOT report roads rebuilt, schools rebuilt, hardly reported at all on the election. They don't report how rape rooms are closed. They hardly reported AT ALL on the Constitution - a 5,000 year old nation enacts a Constitution, and it doesn't even make the medias radar screen. They don't report ANYTHING that would show the successes of our troops....cuz that might make Bush look good. Media = paid liars.

So many misstatements. But you do show your agenda.

You hate Bush. Don't lie to us, you always have.

That's obvious.

And don't insult our intelligence by saying you support the troops. You don't. You loathe them, like Clinton.

Know how I know that? Cuz they are all there voluntarily, and they support the C in C.

You little marxists are funny - you think you hide your agenda. You don't.

Please point out my misstatements. Did Bush not claim Mission Accomplished? Did he not say 'Bring It On' in reference to the insurgency? Is the Powell Doctrine not one that preached the use of overwhelming force? Was this doctrine NOT used after Powell himself (then Secretary of State) recommended it again and again? Please enlighten me.

Where does the media not tell the truth? They do not see schools open, roads built, etc.... Why?? Because it is to dangerous for them to venture out and see them. I also remember seeing the election over there covered extensively when it happened. The reason it seems like more negative than positive news is reported is because the bad greatly out numbers the good. They can't repeat the same thing over and over again regarding the constitution and election. At some point it ceases being news and becomes history. Even the president says it is not going well at all there and that our tactics so far have failed. He said it last night. Is he also being paid to say this by the same boogie man paying the 'liberal' media?

I don't hate the military, I put in ten years on the USS Philadelphia leaving as an E-8 in 2000. I have several familiy members currently over there in the marines. I currently help pay for their children's educations and to put roofs over their head and food on their tables while they are overseas (as do the rest of my family). I want them home because I don't want them dying for nothing. What do you do to support the troops? Slap a yellow ribbon magnet (Made in China) on your car? This is turning into Vietnam Pt2 and that is a very bad situation. Please don't tell me what I do and don't believe in or who I do and don't support. But that is par for the course for the right wing supporters - attack the messenger, not the message.

fandl450r

01-11-2007, 08:21 PM

I only have one thing to say, dlerch you are a candy *** little pansy.

That is all.

Prey

01-11-2007, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by rtm1216
Please point out my misstatements. Did Bush not claim Mission Accomplished? Did he not say 'Bring It On' in reference to the insurgency? Is the Powell Doctrine not one that preached the use of overwhelming force? Was this doctrine NOT used after Powell himself (then Secretary of State) recommended it again and again? Please enlighten me.

Where does the media not tell the truth? They do not see schools open, roads built, etc.... Why?? Because it is to dangerous for them to venture out and see them. I also remember seeing the election over there covered extensively when it happened. The reason it seems like more negative than positive news is reported is because the bad greatly out numbers the good. They can't repeat the same thing over and over again regarding the constitution and election. At some point it ceases being news and becomes history. Even the president says it is not going well at all there and that our tactics so far have failed. He said it last night. Is he also being paid to say this by the same boogie man paying the 'liberal' media?

I don't hate the military, I put in ten years on the USS Philadelphia leaving as an E-8 in 2000. I have several familiy members currently over there in the marines. I currently help pay for their children's educations and to put roofs over their head and food on their tables while they are overseas (as do the rest of my family). I want them home because I don't want them dying for nothing. What do you do to support the troops? Slap a yellow ribbon magnet (Made in China) on your car? This is turning into Vietnam Pt2 and that is a very bad situation. Please don't tell me what I do and don't believe in or who I do and don't support. But that is par for the course for the right wing supporters - attack the messenger, not the message.

those words "Mission Accomplished" were hung aboard the carrier Lincoln when Bush gave his speech and were a reference to the carriers succes...

something else is fishy too, 10 years and 4 pay grade increases (provided you were a nuke/crypto, 5 maybe 6 if you were not) all at one command.... hmmmmmmmmmmm

and all on a single fast attack <---- that right there my friend makes it really fishy to me

Rastus

01-11-2007, 10:27 PM

Yea, the media always tells the truth and never skews anything...:rolleyes: It's all news that is beneficial to the Left, and that's comming from someone who hates parties/party politics.

For example, according to the media, a .50 Cal BMG round will take out a commerical airliner....:ermm: Never going to happen, but soccer moms and the uninformed sheeple believe it and think that they need to be banned. Did you see anyone with actual knowledge interviewed about it? I don't remember any.
It is quite obvious that it would never happen, it's even in Wikipedia that it is highly unlikely. That didn't stop California from banning .50 Cal Barret rifles, which is completely conflicting with the 2nd Amendment. Gun control= Left party.

Illegal Immigration. This should be a no brainer, but all you hear about is those poor poor mexican people that cannot help themselves. I can't count the number of minutemen videos on Youtube and Google that completely make me sick with the things they get away with. How many deaths have there been in this country from Illegals driving, usually drunk? Hows come I have to have Registration and Insurance, but they are allowed to have neither? But do you hear it in the media?

Iraq. I haven't heard from one person in the service that has said that the War in Iraq is like it is on the news. Matter of fact, they say it is quite opposite and doesn't get reported fairly. Ask a soldier for yourself, those that I have heard from and talked to actually get frustrated the way it is portrayed. I've never heard of any schools, hospitals, roads, or infrastructure that has been rebuilt. You can't tell me that out of 430,000 Sq km of land, there is not some rebuilding and upgrading going on. :confused:

You say it is too dangerous, bull crap. That didn't stop them from recording the opening days of the war! They knew bombs were going to be dropped, stuff was about to fly, maybe on their own building/heads. That didn't stop them then, so what's the problem now? Are they afraid of what very well may happen in the streets of America?

What about the students from Yale that were beat up in San Fransisco for singing the National Anthem?

They tell one side, but conveniently do not have time for the rest.

I suggest you sit down one evening and tally the news stories and whether it is a good thing for either the left or the right. I think your marks will show a surplus on the left side.

wicked13

01-12-2007, 03:23 AM

I didn't read all the post and I don't care about all these opinions. I am currently deployed and I volunteered to come over here again. I have my own reasons and so do all the other men and women who bravely and honorably defend this great nation.

We are the greatest military in the word and that's because our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airman all volunteered to do it. If you have never served you may not fully understand, but please be thankful for your freedoms, it's what we are fighting for.

SSgt Nichols

quads14589

01-12-2007, 04:08 AM

there is going to be a draft in prolly about two yrs when im 17.

01-12-2007, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by wicked13
I didn't read all the post and I don't care about all these opinions. I am currently deployed and I volunteered to come over here again. I have my own reasons and so do all the other men and women who bravely and honorably defend this great nation.

We are the greatest military in the word and that's because our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airman all volunteered to do it. If you have never served you may not fully understand, but please be thankful for your freedoms, it's what we are fighting for.

SSgt Nichols

Well said, and thank you.

01-12-2007, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by quads14589
there is going to be a draft in prolly about two yrs when im 17.

No there won't.

The generals don't want a draft.

A volunteer army (like we have now) is sufficient to the task, and a more effective fighting force.

The ONLY chance of a draft is if Saudi Arabia / Iran launches planes and drops a nuke on a US city. That ain't gonna happen.

infantry317

01-12-2007, 05:44 AM

As far as "mission accomplished", it was. The military mission was overthrow Saddam.

As far as setting up a government and fighting insurgency that is another military mission. We did the same thing in Panama, overthrow, set up government. After WWII there was a large pro-nazi insurgency that went on for years.

The difference here is it is religously and culturally driven in the middle-east and this war will go on for years, get used to it kids.

Outlaw 50

01-12-2007, 07:03 AM

Having just spent 30 minutes reading all of this thread I have come to the conclusion that the saying "Liberalism is a mental disorder" is the most accurate description of these people's condition I have ever heard.

I would invite anyone who doesn't believe there is a large segment of Islam who want to kill or convert all nonbelievers (infidels) to visit the following links and maybe learn a little about the people who have declared WAR on all( liberal and conservative) people in what they call the western culture.

http://www.memri.org/

http://ctstudies.com/In_Their_Own_Words_1.html

http://www.bringbackjustice.com/NewCaliphateNewEra.pdf

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

http://www.memritv.org/

Since 9-11-2001 I have spent endless hours learning about the people who attacked us on our home turf.

What I have learned is that we cannot negotiate with people who's only point of contention is the DEATH of our entire culture.

The brave men and women in our military are the ONLY hope we have of surviving this WAR! Thank GOD we have people in this country who have the ability to see the greatness of this nation and it's people and are willing to serve without asking for anything more than our support as citizens.

Arguing with people who are lacking in any type of understanding of the concept of American Exceptionalism is pretty much the same as trying to walk through a brick wall!!

THANKS TO ALL WHO HAVE AND ARE SERVING IN THIS COUNTRIES DEFENSE!

P.S. If the Commander and Chief, after consulting with the Generals, thinks sending 20,000 more of the worlds best warriors will help with what we're doing in Iraq, then let's get to it and while we're at it let's send home all the lawyers and take the gloves off and kick some butt!

01-12-2007, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Outlaw 50

P.S. If the Commander and Chief, after consulting with the Generals, thinks sending 20,000 more of the worlds best warriors will help with what we're doing in Iraq, then let's get to it and while we're at it let's send home all the lawyers and take the gloves off and kick some butt!

Lawyers have their use in a combat zone....what is commonly known as "cover."

Eviltanker

01-12-2007, 08:03 AM

dlerch,
To answer your question. You want to know how I would think if I found out this war was over oil or because of a personal vendeta? Well nobody ever actually asked me about my personal opinion, but I would keep doing the same thing.I believe in my country and it's people(even the pe@#er heads). I don't pesonnaly care if your a lib or a dem, I have my job to do.
This is my job and I love it. Nobody hates war more than a soldier, But it is something we have the guts to do and do well. So if the little punks on here think military people have attitudes they are kind of right. We the volunteer military of the USA have stared at death in the face , walked through the gates of hell, went for weeks without showers and hot food. All for our country and it's people. will I go over again? most likely. Will I cry about it NEVER. I AM A SOLDIER. Defender of freedom and democracy.

01-12-2007, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by garandman
What I think we're NOT being told is that right now, Iraq is more about having a base to attack Iran.

so when you use supposition it's ok, when anyone else uses it it's not...typical hypocrite from the right!!!

..and derekhonda like i said before...if you so truly believe in the war drop out of college, that your parents are paying for, and enlist!! simple as that, if it's such a worthy and noble cause college can wait!!

something else, just so as i understand...if you agree with the war, but never were military it's ok to mouth off, but if you never served and disagree with the war you have no right to an opinion....

another good one is if you don't agree with the war leave the country...well fools if all the people left the country that didn't agree with it the country would be no more...:rolleyes:

also i'm sick of the "if you don't believe in the war you're a liberal commie", give me a break. i don't believe in the war because i believe it to be wrong, and i didn't get all my info from cnn or the new york times or where ever the "commies" get all their info, i got it from the abilitity to reasonably process info that is provided from all sides!!

so my position is not anti-bush(even though i believe he is a moron), and my position is not anti-republican, or pro-democrat for that matter.....my position is this; i'm anti-bad idea and attacking iraq(a defenseless country) was a bad idea!!

now being, of what i feel, a decent amount of intellect, i agree pulling out now would be a horrible idea, and would have dire consequences for the region and probaly for the whole world...but i also understand this, which makes evreything so frustrating, there is no way to win this war!! none, it is not winnable, because what is a win in this case? there is not an attainable "asset" to which would end fighting(american military dying)which takes me back to what i've always been saying, "that we should not be there in the first place"...and i apologize, but i can't get past that fact, and i agree it probaly is a "mute point" but i still believe someone/people have to atone for the horrible and probaly neverending wrong put upon the american people...

lastly...i believe the difference in parties is as simple as this; repubs have an ideology, dems have a set of beliefs..the difference is....if a repub says 2+2=5 than that's what it is there is no other answer, and no changing their mind, NO MATTER what!! like somehow they have this info from a divine source...if a dem believes that 2+2=5 but you show them 1+1=2 and 1+1=2 then 1+1+1+1=4 then they're like oh right ok, i was wrong my mistake...they are reasonable. they don't think that it makes you less of a man to be wrong sometimes and actually have humility, which is exactly what the republican right lacks! HUMILITY!!

....and by the way contrary to popular belief i am not a tree hugging liberal. i am a registered independant, not because i like ralph nader and the likes, but because i don't like being harassed by either party at the time of elections period!! which i have participated in every possible one that i could....so that alone gives me any opinion i want, that and maybe the fact that i pay probaly more taxes then most people...:D

*note my disagreement with the war should in no way be mis-construde as disrespect or lack of caring for either our great men and women of the military, or our great country. in fact i have a cousin who i'm very close to who saw a lot of combat(marine) near fallujhuh...in fact hey maybe i'm wrong, but i would think one of the things our military fights for is the ability to have an opinion....ALL OF US!!

01-12-2007, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Eviltanker
dlerch,
To answer your question. You want to know how I would think if I found out this war was over oil or because of a personal vendeta? Well nobody ever actually asked me about my personal opinion, but I would keep doing the same thing.I believe in my country and it's people(even the pe@#er heads). I don't pesonnaly care if your a lib or a dem, I have my job to do.
This is my job and I love it. Everybody hates war most of all soldiers,But it is something we have the guts to do and do well. So if the little punks on here think military people have attitudes they are kind of right. We the volunteer military of the USA have stared at death in the face , walked through the gates of hell, went for weeks without showers and hot food. All for our country and it's people. will I go over again? most likely. Will I cry about it NEVER. I AM A SOLDIER. Defender of freedom and democracy.

thanks, and please don't take my disagreement with the war personal, because i assure you i do have great respect for people "willing to give up all of their tomorrows" for all of us...you have to understand that people who hate this war really do have you/the military as the foremost reason of wanting it done...we persoannly have no fear for our own safety, something of which you provide, at least i don't...and if i were in the military i would have the exact same attitude, get the job done, and let someone else worry about the other crap!! how else can you survive hell?

..oh and by the way the part about the "weeks w/o showers" part, i bet that smelled real nice...:blah:

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by dlerch
thanks, and please don't take my disagreement with the war personal, because i assure you i do have great respect for people "willing to give up all of their tomorrows" for all of us...you have to understand that people who hate this war really do have you/the military as the foremost reason of wanting it done...we persoannly have no fear for our own safety, something of which you provide, at least i don't...and if i were in the military i would have the exact same attitude, get the job done, and let someone else worry about the other crap!! how else can you survive hell?

..oh and by the way the part about the "weeks w/o showers" part, i bet that smelled real nice...:blah:

You're still a sally.

01-12-2007, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by dlerch
thanks, and please don't take my disagreement with the war personal, because i assure you i do have great respect for people "willing to give up all of their tomorrows" for all of us...you have to understand that people who hate this war really do have you/the military as the foremost reason of wanting it done...:

NO YOU DO NOT.

If you REALLY think this war is wrong / immoral, then you beleive these VOLUNTEER soldiers are carrying out a wrong / immoral war, and therefore you think they are wrong / immoral.

You can't have it both ways.

Don't lie to yourself, AND insult our intelligence.

Eviltanker

01-12-2007, 09:18 AM

The shower thing sucked. My first 2 weeks we got 1 shower and it was cold. Our camp had no running water at first, Our first sargeant is a plumber by trade here in the world so he ran pipes into our building and hooked up the old showers in the building. well that was great and all but we only got water delivered every other day.(we had a big 1000 gallon tank out back that was a water supply.) so for 140 soldiers the water went fast. To top it off when we had water in the tank we had no hot water. Try shaving and showering with COLD water. Being we had no running water we had no toilets, we had to use kind of like outhouses and then once a day the lower enlisted had to pull the cans out from under the outhouses and burn the crap. It was pretty nasty till Jan of 06 we finally hired some locals (not haliburton) to to put in porto potties and clean them for us. that was awsome to have a portopotty. It's amazing how much you take for granted in life till you have to live like that for a year. during that time over seas I had exactly 3 hot showers. When I finally got home the first thing I did was take a crap in a flushing toilet and took about a 1/2 hour shower!

01-12-2007, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by dlerch
[B]so when you use supposition it's ok, when anyone else uses it it's not...typical hypocrite from the right!!!

I got no problem with l;ogical supposition.

I got a problem with stupidity.

I got a problem with people with the inability to put together a coherent, logical thought AND having the right to vote.

NorCalRacer

01-12-2007, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by garandman
I got no problem with l;ogical supposition.

I got a problem with stupidity.

I got a problem with people with the inability to put together a coherent, logical thought AND having the right to vote.

And who decides who gets to vote?

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by NorCalRacer
And who decides who gets to vote?

The government? :confused:

NorCalRacer

01-12-2007, 09:39 AM

The "elected" government?

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by NorCalRacer
The "elected" government?

Yea and what's your point?

01-12-2007, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by NorCalRacer
And who decides who gets to vote?

Oh, that's easy.

There should be a basic citizenship test.

It should contain questions of simple Constitutional law, the Bill of Rights, US history, current events and a few math questions (just to test sanity)

Its a pass / fail thing, administered right in the voting booth.

The people interviewed on Jay Leno's "Jay Walking" segment should NEVER EVER be allowed to vote.

NorCalRacer

01-12-2007, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by garandman
Oh, that's easy.

There should be a basic citizenship test.

It should contain questions of simple Constitutional law, the Bill of Rights, US history, current events and a few math questions (just to test sanity)

Its a pass / fail thing.

That is a great idea. I'll sign a petition for that:macho

NorCalRacer

01-12-2007, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by fandl450r
Yea and what's your point?

Think real hard.....

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 09:55 AM

I know I know it's a catch 22. But what can you do? We elect officials, in turn they choose who is allowed to vote for them to be elected.

AbnMP13

01-12-2007, 09:57 AM

my position is this; i'm anti-bad idea and attacking iraq(a defenseless country) was a bad idea!!

Defenseless country? Wasn't it Iraq that invaded Kuwait back in 1990? :confused:

Prey

01-12-2007, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by AbnMP13
Defenseless country? Wasn't it Iraq that invaded Kuwait back in 1990? :confused:

no i dont think so, they are defensless, must have been a consiracy by the american gov't to get free iraqi oil :rolleyes:

NorCalRacer

01-12-2007, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by fandl450r
I know I know it's a catch 22. But what can you do? We elect officials, in turn they choose who is allowed to vote for them to be elected.

Dictatorship? No, but getting closer:blah: I'll stick to American principles. The right to vote should be EARNED, but be able to be earned no matter what your OPINION, if you know the facts. The government choosing voters would simply be un-American and undermine our country's principles.

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by NorCalRacer
Dictatorship?

Yes, that would solve all of our problems 10 fold, while we're at it we can hire someone like Kim Jong Il.

01-12-2007, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by NorCalRacer
That is a great idea. I'll sign a petition for that:macho

It gets better.

We should also weight the vote to be proportional to the taxes you pay.

Example: If I pay $5,000 in annual income tax, and you pay $10,000, your vote counts for twice what my vote counts for.

And why shouldn't it?

You are paying twice the cost of running the society as I am.

Why should my vote be equal to your vote, when the amount I pay is so much less? Why should I get to have an equal voice as you, to be able to spend YOUR money?

NorCalRacer

01-12-2007, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by garandman
It gets better.

We should also weight the vote to be proportional to the taxes you pay.

Example: If I pay $5,000 in annual income tax, and you pay $10,000, your vote counts for twice what my vote counts for.

And why shouldn't it?

You are paying twice the cost of running the society as I am.

Why should my vote be equal to your vote, when the amount I pay is so much less? Why should I get to have an equal voice as you, to be able to spend YOUR money?

Sorry, can't agree there. Jobs that are (to me a joke) like selling cars make a lot more money at times than the guy who fixes the car, yet the guy who fixes the car is usually smarter and more of a service to society than the guy who sold you the car. Marylin Manson is a millionaire, should he get 1000 votes? No. If the rich had more say, every jackass in hollywood would have more power than a whole farming community. Also, a grape picker in CA might make more than an electrician in Wyoming, doesn't make them more of anything except richer. People in LA make a god-awful amount of money because it costs that much to live there. If the people there had more votes this state would be doomed. Money is not a measure of a man's intelligence.

Just a few examples...

01-12-2007, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by fandl450r
You're still a sally.

"sticks and stones" kid...

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by NorCalRacer
Money is not a measure of a mans intelligence.

Yes and no. In every case probably not, but for example Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos...etc. Intelligence certainly played a part in their wealth. Intelligence can be seen from a lot of ways not just a intellectual level. Example actors have an acting relating intelligence that helps them convince us their part is real. There are many types of intelligences. A certain amount of intelligence is required to make money. Unless you're just lucky, well then you win the lotto.

Money of all things is not easy to come by. But if you are intelligent, 9/10 times I'm guessing the more intelligent people will make more of it.

01-12-2007, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by garandman
NO YOU DO NOT.

If you REALLY think this war is wrong / immoral, then you beleive these VOLUNTEER soldiers are carrying out a wrong / immoral war, and therefore you think they are wrong / immoral.

You can't have it both ways.

Don't lie to yourself, AND insult our intelligence.

got it...thanks for reminding me that the "right" get to make all the rules...my mistake...stupid me...:ermm: ..so did god tell you this?:rolleyes:

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by dlerch
"sticks and stones" kid...

Obviously it affects you in some way otherwise you wouldn't reply. Pansy. By the way you can call me sir.

01-12-2007, 11:06 AM

01-12-2007, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by fandl450r
Obviously it affects you in some way otherwise you wouldn't reply. Pansy. By the way you can call me sir.

when you stop suckin' at your momma's teet, maybe then you'll get some respect from me...and the rest of the world...hey my offer goes out to you also...drop out of college and enlist, you could even go ocs....

NorCalRacer

01-12-2007, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by fandl450r
Yes and no. In every case probably not, but for example Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos...etc. Intelligence certainly played a part in their wealth. Intelligence can be seen from a lot of ways not just a intellectual level. Example actors have an acting relating intelligence that helps them convince us their part is real. There are many types of intelligences. A certain amount of intelligence is required to make money. Unless you're just lucky, well then you win the lotto.

Money of all things is not easy to come by. But if you are intelligent, 9/10 times I'm guessing the more intelligent people will make more of it.

Really, come to CA. Around here the rich can't even wipe their own arses. They pay $100 plus an hour for people to do simple jobs around their house because they are too lazy to do it themselves. Oh wait, that's old money:blah: And that is where 9 out of ten people around here get their money. So if your mommy and daddy are rich and you get all the breaks in life then you are more of a person and smarter than the rest of us?
I take this personally. I am a competent worker in several fields. I wire shops/ houses up. I put in automated pump systems. I can build a car from the ground up (69 chevelle, in progress as we speak, frame up resto.) yet some lazy worthless rich person (who's heads are so far up there they have no grasp on reality) should get more votes. I earned every SINGLE posession of mine with my own two hands but could make more money selling houses (yes I passed the licensing exam), but I would do nothing but push paper all day and get paid for it. While I continue to work with my own two hands, live month to month, I will never respect a person who was born with everything. And yes, I have worked for several millionaires over the course of the years and have found select few who actually earned their keep (weren't given a huge chunk to start with).

So no, money is in no way, shape or form, a measure of a man's intelligence. Like I said, visit LA.

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by dlerch
when you stop suckin' at your momma's teet, maybe then you'll get some respect from me...and the rest of the world...hey my offer goes out to you also...drop out of college and enlist, you could even go ocs....

Hmm I'm pretty that was your mother. Sounds like lerch is getting angry...watch out. Haha like I could care either way about respect from you, of all people. No thanks, I'm doing my part and staying in school and getting a good education.

Not my cup of tea. I support everyone who is willing enough to go over there and fight, since you're so tough, and old, I'm assuming you've done your tod??

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by NorCalRacer
Really, come to CA. Around here the rich can't even wipe their own arses. They pay $100 plus an hour for people to do simple jobs around their house because they are too lazy to do it themselves. Oh wait, that's old money:blah: And that is where 9 out of ten people around here get their money. So if your mommy and daddy are rich and you get all the breaks in life then you are more of a person and smarter than the rest of us?
I take this personally. I am a competent worker in several fields. I wire shops/ houses up. I put in automated pump systems. I can build a car from the ground up (69 chevelle, in progress as we speak, frame up resto.) yet some lazy worthless rich person (who's heads are so far up there they have no grasp on reality) should get more votes. I earned every SINGLE posession of mine with my own two hands but could make more money selling houses (yes I passed the licensing exam), but I would do nothing but push paper all day and get paid for it. While I continue to work with my own two hands, live month to month, I will never respect a person who was born with everything. And yes, I have worked for several millionaires over the course of the years and have found select few who actually earned their keep (weren't given a huge chunk to start with).

So no, money is in no way, shape or form, a measure of a man's intelligence. Like I said, visit LA.

I didnt agree with the whole money = vote weight. But were not talking about LA, or California specifically. There are people out there who have old money and can do that, and if they can more power to them. But I did not mention old money = intelligence. Money/Success sure as hell can be some judge of it. Not solely, but it can have a profound effect.

Thats your choice. If you like the life you've made for yourself then awesome. No one is here to knock that. Oh and btw, like LA is any way to judge the rest of the US :D

rtm1216

01-12-2007, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Prey
those words "Mission Accomplished" were hung aboard the carrier Lincoln when Bush gave his speech and were a reference to the carriers succes...

something else is fishy too, 10 years and 4 pay grade increases (provided you were a nuke/crypto, 5 maybe 6 if you were not) all at one command.... hmmmmmmmmmmm

and all on a single fast attack <---- that right there my friend makes it really fishy to me

You are wrong. The banner was above his head while he was giving a speech about our military victory in Iraq.

Yes I was a nuke. I spent the first two years in school split between Orlando and Saratoga, NY. After that I went straight to the Philadelphia for 4yrs. After my initial 6yr enlistment was up and the Navy wanted me to re-up I made me staying in Groton, Ct for the next 4yrs a condition of my re-enlistment (I had bought several rental properties and started a family in the area). They agreed to it and I by chance ended back up on the Philadelphia for the remainder of my time except for my last 4 months where I was re-assigned to the USS Nautilus museum to do admin work (my boat was at sea when my discharge would have gone through). They had no choice because if they didn't accept my terms I was walking and the time and expense of my training would be lost to them. I already had multiple job offers lined up that they new about so they had no standing in the negotiations.

I could have pursued higher pay grades but did not want to as I was more concerned with my post-Navy career and taking college courses when I could that the Navy paid for. It was a means to an end.

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by NorCalRacer
So if your mommy and daddy are rich and you get all the breaks in life then you are more of a person and smarter than the rest of us?
.

Will you get breaks, hell yea. But no it doesnt make them more of a person or smarter. Again I didn't say "Every case money = intelligence." But agree to disagree.

rtm1216

01-12-2007, 11:36 AM

NorCalRacer

01-12-2007, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by fandl450r
I didnt agree with the whole money = vote weight. But were not talking about LA, or California specifically. There are people out there who have old money and can do that, and if they can more power to them. But I did not mention old money = intelligence. Money/Success sure as hell can be some judge of it. Not solely, but it can have a profound effect.

Thats your choice. If you like the life you've made for yourself then awesome. No one is here to knock that. Oh and btw, like LA is any way to judge the rest of the US :D

If you gave rich people more votes then southern California would run the US.

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by rtm1216
What do you do to support the troops? Do you put your money and time where your mouth is? Or do you just proclaim that you support the troops? Maybe you have a yellow ribbon magnet on your car? I'm just curious what exactly everyone does to 'support' our boys overseas.

Verbal Support. I stand behind the ideology that they stand for and the sacrifices they make to ensure our freedom, and the little things that people take for granted. I have friends in the military. I know its not monetary support or anything spectacular but I do what I can.

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by NorCalRacer
If you gave rich people more votes then southern California would run the US.

What? Did you not read my post? It had nothing to do with the weighted system of voting. I didnt agree with the whole money = vote weight.

Quad18star

01-12-2007, 11:44 AM

NorCalRacer

01-12-2007, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by fandl450r
What? Did you not read my post? It had nothing to do with the weighted system of voting. I didnt agree with the whole money = vote weight.

Yeah, I read it but you kept arguing the money/success issue so I assumed you had a point. Other than success, you were in a discussion that was started as a voting topic and I see no reason to even care about a person's success unless it influences my vote. As a basic point, however, southern California may be the biggest collection of rich people on the face of the planet so, yes, it is an excellent way to guage the wealthy.

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by NorCalRacer
Yeah, I read it but you kept arguing the money/success issue so I assumed you had a point. Other than success, you were in a discussion that was started as a voting topic and I see no reason to even care about a person's success unless it influences my vote. As a basic point, however, southern California may be the biggest collection of rich people on the face of the planet so, yes, it is an excellent way to guage the wealthy.

Nope no point, I just enjoy rambling. That's like saying since there is a large concentration of african americans in NY (Compton, Bronx) that we should gauge the rest of the society off of this fact.

01-12-2007, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Quad18star
^^^^

LMAO .

Now that is officially the DUMBEST thing I've read on this website in the 5 or so years that I've been visiting this site .

For that comment alone , YOU SHOULDN'T be allowed to vote .

You being a Canadian, you don't get to vote in my country anyway.

But its always intersting to note the folks who DO NOT make an argument against what I say, they just say "That's dumb."

I guess "that's dumb" is the most intelligent thing they can muster.

NorCalRacer

01-12-2007, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by fandl450r
Nope no point, I just enjoy rambling. That's like saying since there is a large concentration of african americans in NY (Compton, Bronx) that we should gauge the rest of the society off of this fact.

Yep... I like stereoypes, they make things simpler.

01-12-2007, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by dlerch
got it...thanks for reminding me that the "right" get to make all the rules...my mistake...stupid me...:ermm: ..so did god tell you this?:rolleyes:

I'm not making any rules.

The rules of logic dictate that you CANNOT claim to support the tropps, when you think the work they are doing is immoral / wrong. Unless you are telling us you are an immoral person. But if you were, you would support their "immorality."

A point you don't address AT ALL.

You just spue some inane drivel about "making rules."

No God didn't tell me this. I had a fourth grader explain it to me. Which explains why you haven't figgered it out yet.

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by NorCalRacer
Yep... I like stereoypes, they make things simpler.

Very true. But stereotypes don't solve a whole lot.

01-12-2007, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by NorCalRacer
If you gave rich people more votes then southern California would run the US.

There's PLENTY of rich people in the rest of fre America to MORE THAN make up for the Marxists in Commiefornia.

01-12-2007, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by NorCalRacer
Sorry, can't agree there. Jobs that are (to me a joke) like selling cars make a lot more money at times than the guy who fixes the car, yet the guy who fixes the car is usually smarter and more of a service to society than the guy who sold you the car.

When you pay for 100% of a car, you get to decide what happens with that car 100%

Those who pay for gov't should get a proportional right to decide what happens with the MONEY THEY PAID IN.

How you value a car salesman vs. a mechanic is IRRELEVENT.

Marylin Manson is a millionaire, should he get 1000 votes? No. If the rich had more say, every jackass in hollywood would have more power than a whole farming community. Also, a grape picker in CA might make more than an electrician in Wyoming, doesn't make them more of anything except richer. People in LA make a god-awful amount of money because it costs that much to live there. If the people there had more votes this state would be doomed. Money is not a measure of a man's intelligence.

Just a few examples... [/B]

If a rich person is willing to vote for higher taxes (doubtful they would - good old self-interest would dictate they vote for lower taxes) then what's the problem?

We're not talking about intelligence.

Rich people would by and large vote to keep more of their money.

They earned it, its THEIR money.

NOT the gov'ts. NOT the mechanics.

And if the mechanic is unhappy with his annual salary, he can always BECOME a car salesman. Or a lawyer, doctor, whatever.

Then he gets more votes.

NorCalRacer

01-12-2007, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by garandman
When you pay for 100% of a car, you get to decide what happens with that car 100%

Those who pay for gov't should get a proportional right to decide what happens with the MONEY THEY PAID IN.

How you value a car salesman vs. a mechanic is IRRELEVENT.

If a rich person is willing to vote for higher taxes (doubtful they would - good old self-interest would dictate they vote for lower taxes) then what's the problem?

We're not talking about intelligence.

Rich people would by and large vote to keep more of their money.

They earned it, its THEIR money.

NOT the gov'ts. NOT the mechanics.

And if the mechanic is unhappy with his annual salary, he can always BECOME a car salesman. Or a lawyer, doctor, whatever.

Then he gets more votes.

By that theory society would cease to function if everyone wanted equality. The rich can't live without the service industry, and if you take away their right to vote by being in that industry then there will be nobody to do those jobs except for retards. I believe in equality of citizens, not some BS caste system left over from the middle ages. You are describing what we declared independence from. I am very happy that everyone in America, no matter how fanatical their opinion, gets ONE vote. I like the test idea, but I think your money/vote idea is un-American at best.

01-12-2007, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by garandman
I'm not making any rules.

The rules of logic dictate that you CANNOT claim to support the tropps, when you think the work they are doing is immoral / wrong. Unless you are telling us you are an immoral person. But if you were, you would support their "immorality."

A point you don't address AT ALL.

You just spue some inane drivel about "making rules."

No God didn't tell me this. I had a fourth grader explain it to me. Which explains why you haven't figgered it out yet.

ok try this for "logic" my support for them is in the fact that i do not judge what they do or how they do it, it's the simple fact that they are putting their life on the line to do it, and not worried about the argument of whether it's right or wrong. they have enough to worry about, and surviving and protecting comrades is tops...when they are getting shot at by some twelve year old with an ak-47 do you really believe for a second that they are sitting around talking about whether being in iraq is right or wrong? like i said they are asked to do a job and they are doing it, the rest is for people like you and me to argue over....and i don't believe for one second that because you agree with the war and them dying shows any more support then me thinking that the war is wrong and wanting them home with their moms or friends or kids....etc..

...and you're right it's been i believe about 25 years since i listened to the logic of a fourth grader so it's "below" my comprehension...and by the way what are you doin' hangin' with 4th graders? i know you're somewhat of a religious zealot, you're not a catholic priest by chance?:huh

Quad18star

01-12-2007, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by garandman
You being a Canadian, you don't get to vote in my country anyway.

But its always intersting to note the folks who DO NOT make an argument against what I say, they just say "That's dumb."

I guess "that's dumb" is the most intelligent thing they can muster.

You're right , I have absolutly no say in what goes on in the USA ... for all I care you guys can do what you want with your money and send as many or as little extra troops that you want .

My comments are directed at your dumb remarks that if you make more money , your vote should count for more .

Like it was mentioned , some occupations need less education and less use of a brain than other jobs , but pay more . So allowing some rich dummy's vote to count more than an educated , lesser paid person is OK in your books ??

If 1 multi-millionaire agrees with something proposed by the government and 10 people with less money disagree ... but the multi-millionaires vote weighs more than the 10 others people ...what kind of society would you have when the richer person is happy and 10 others are pissed off ?? The end result is most likely a Civil War when the 10 others revolt !!!

sandmanblue

01-12-2007, 12:37 PM

Garandman - a while before you posted about a basic intelligence test prior to voting... Did you steal my idea from a few months ago???? :)

Remember, libs (who think they are so smart) would never back this test, because they would lose the majority of their support base, therfore backing up the assertion I have made all along... that liberals - in general, as a whole, including all dems registered to vote - are lesser intelligent than conservatives.

Until they have the balls to back up their running of the mouth, "we are smarter" attitude by saying "okay, let's test for citizenship, understand who is on the ballot, what they stand for, and what the basic party philosophies are", then there is no choice but to dismiss their ramblings as that of mind-numbed simpletons that think they know better but are unwilling to prove it...

That's why they don't get this whole war, that's why they waffle at every turn. That's why complete idiots like Pelosi are elected by them and have no other function in life than to attack Ms. Rice as she did yesterday, as well as every move made by this administration.

BLAME, COMPLAIN, BLAME, COMPLAIN... YELL RACE, YELL DISENFRANCHISED, YELL DISCRIMINATION, SHOUT BUSH LIED.....

Dems/libs have no plans. I've asked this over and over again, and they produce NOTHING! It is their complete lack of intelligence that prevents them from thinking for themselves and providing solutions.

That's who the American people elected to congress after falling for the dems election marketing scheme. Now we are seeing the true colors - lying, cheating, slandering, don't have a clue nor a plan other than hate America and destroy Bush. Run away from Iraq. Leave it in ruins. Blame Bush for it.....

Before any of you libs attempt to retaliate - keep in mind that until you actually answer my question about HOW TO WIN THIS WAR (if it's not by increasing troops and getting Iraqi's to take more responsibility and control of their own country - which is what we are doing now), none of your replies will be taken seriously.

You simply prove me correct in calling you all mindless, whiney, intellectual wannabees by NOT answering this simple question...

And a lesson to all that think dems are intelligent and reasonable - WATCH HOW THEY RESPOND TO THIS REQUEST FOR A SOLUTION!!!!!!!!!

01-12-2007, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by dlerch
ok try this for "logic" my support for them is in the fact that i do not judge what they do or how they do it

OF COURSE YOU ARE JUDGING THEM.

You are saying they are obeying the orders of a commander in chief that is engaging in an immoral war. In EVERY logical mind, to VOLUTARILY do the bidding of a C in C engaged in (what you regard as a) an immoral war makes them immoral.

You are only deceiving yourself here. And defying simple logic.

i know you're somewhat of a religious zealot, you're not a catholic priest by chance?:huh [/B]

What does religion have to do with this? Why do you KEEP trying to insert it into this discussion? This is a rhetorical question - I know EXACTLY what you are trying to do. (I'm about as far away from being a Catholic as possible)

01-12-2007, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by fandl450r
Hmm I'm pretty that was your mother. Sounds like lerch is getting angry...watch out. Haha like I could care either way about respect from you, of all people. No thanks, I'm doing my part and staying in school and getting a good education.

Not my cup of tea. I support everyone who is willing enough to go over there and fight, since you're so tough, and old, I'm assuming you've done your tod??

sorry i'm around children all the time, and yes they can be frustrating, but rarely do i get angry....

and by the way i assure you if i believed in the war the way you say you do, and was your age(i'm 37, what are you 19, 20, 21?) i would've already enlisted and be there...why not go, you have no responsibilities? i own a business and have a wife with an unborn child on the way, i have many responsibilities to others, something of which you have no comprehension...you need to realize a couple of things; one there is no respect for someone that doesn't put their(or in your case your parents) money where their mouth is...and two regardless of how smart you THINK you are...there is only so much you can learn in school boy, the rest you learn from life..deal with it!! it's a time thing..period!!

01-12-2007, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by sandmanblue
[B]Garandman - a while before you posted about a basic intelligence test prior to voting... Did you steal my idea from a few months ago???? :)

Nope. its original to me from long ago, but I'll gladly share teh credit / blame with ya.

I'd more call it a citizenship test. One need not have stellar intelligence to be able to be a good citizen (which includes having AT LEAST a BASIC understanding of the founding of the country, and its laws, and the issues currently facing the nation) '

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by dlerch
sorry i'm around children all the time, and yes they can be frustrating, but rarely do i get angry....

and by the way i assure you if i believed in the war the way you say you do, and was your age(i'm 37, what are you 19, 20, 21?) i would've already enlisted and be there...why not go, you have no responsibilities? i own a business and have a wife with an unborn child on the way, i have many responsibilities to others, something of which you have no comprehension...you need to realize a couple of things; one there is no respect for someone that doesn't put their(or in your case your parents) money where their mouth is...and two regardless of how smart you THINK you are...there is only so much you can learn in school boy, the rest you learn from life..deal with it!! it's a time thing..period!!

Neither do I. We've had our scuffles before. I'm 20, soon to be 21. I have a responsibility to myself, to achieve goals I've set forth for myself, to stay in school, finish school and see where life takes me. You act like you know my life story? Who are you to say what responsibilities I do and do not have?

Starting a little late aren't we? I agree with the "there's only so much you can learn in school." I know life is rough, I've had my fair share of hiccups. Yea a time thing, something you must know a lot about, starting a family when by the time they turn 18 you'll be legally a senior citizen. Thats fine, I've never asked for your respect, would ever want your respect, or even think about your respect for me. You're still just another sally to me.

01-12-2007, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Quad18star

My comments are directed at your dumb remarks that if you make more money , your vote should count for more .

Like it was mentioned , some occupations need less education and less use of a brain than other jobs , but pay more . So allowing some rich dummy's vote to count more than an educated , lesser paid person is OK in your books ??

Try reading with comprehension.

I did not say your vote should be based on your income, oir intelligence.

I said it should be based on your taxes.

Try to read with comprehenstion as I illustrate:

You and I go into business. You provide $100,000 in capital. I provide $100.

Shoudl we both have equalk voting right as to how that capital is spent?

OF COURSE NOT. NEVER.

If 1 multi-millionaire agrees with something proposed by the government and 10 people with less money disagree ... but the multi-millionaires vote weighs more than the 10 others people ...what kind of society would you have when the richer person is happy and 10 others are pissed off ?? The end result is most likely a Civil War when the 10 others revolt !!! [/B]

No, you'd have a society where poor people are working hard to become rich people, rather than sucking off the gov't teet.

You' have the country the our Founding Fathers gave us. Not that a Canuck necessarily understand any of the founding of our nation.

And being a Canadian, why do you care what America does? I could care less what Canada does, and NEVER speak of Canadian politics.

Talk about arrogance - that you think you can speak of American matters. I'm not arrogant enuf to think I can speak of Canadian matters.

Prey

01-12-2007, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by rtm1216
You are wrong. The banner was above his head while he was giving a speech about our military victory in Iraq.

I am right and should research before you open your mouth

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/

01-12-2007, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by garandman
OF COURSE YOU ARE JUDGING THEM.

You are saying they are obeying the orders of a commander in chief that is engaging in an immoral war. In EVERY logical mind, to VOLUTARILY do the bidding of a C in C engaged in (what you regard as a) an immoral war makes them immoral.

You are only deceiving yourself here. And defying simple logic.

What does religion have to do with this? Why do you KEEP trying to insert it into this discussion? This is a rhetorical question - I know EXACTLY what you are trying to do. (I'm about as far away from being a Catholic as possible)

because it's your religous ideology that motivates you in every way!! it is blaringly obvious!!

as far as "them and immoral" you said that not me..no where did i say what they are doing is immoral...i look at it like this, they are being ask to do something by their boss and they are doing it...understand..hey they have to survive, and worried about moral or immoral is not something that helps with that outcome(them surviving)...when are you going to understand that every soldier in iraq doesn't agree with the war, but they are there and need to justify it in some way to get through it, and that's ok with me what ever it takes...like i said "I SUPPORT THEM"

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by dlerch
because it's your religous ideology that motivates you in every way!! it is blaringly obvious!!

What exactly does that word mean? Do you mean blatantly?

01-12-2007, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by fandl450r
What exactly does that word mean? Do you blatantly?

just looked it up for the exact def.. blare-to proclaim noisily...one of the several listed...

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 01:03 PM

Sorry wasn't trying to be a dick, just couldn't find the definition. Increasing my vocab. Heard of blaring, but not blaringly. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blaringly

01-12-2007, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by dlerch
because it's your religous ideology that motivates you in every way!! it is blaringly obvious!!

:confused: How is it "blaringly" obvious?

You need not be religious to be logical.

as far as "them and immoral" you said that not me..no where did i say what they are doing is immoral...i look at it like this, they are being ask to do something by their boss and they are doing it...understand..hey they have to survive, and worried about moral or immoral is not something that helps with that outcome(them surviving)

You beleive the war is wrong. (I don't)

The soldiers are WILLINGLY RE-ENLISTING EN MASSE to go back and fight .

No one is making them re-enlist.

To GO BACK and fight in a wrong war MUST make them wrong.

This is the MOST SIMPLE logic.

Your position is "blaringly" illogical.

01-12-2007, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by fandl450r
What exactly does that word mean? Do you blatantly?

"Blatantly" or "glaringly" would have been a much better choice of words for him.

I guess he split the difference and went with "blaringly"

No surprise someone not in line with the facts, and incapable of thinking logically also wouldn't have a strong command of the English language.

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by garandman
"Blatantly" or "glaringly" would have been a much better choice of words for him.

I guess he split the difference and went with "blaringly"

LOL thats what I said.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blaringly

01-12-2007, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by garandman
"Blatantly" or "glaringly" would have been a much better choice of words for him.

I guess he split the difference and went with "blaringly"

oh ya, and some are, for lack of better terminology, being made to go back...

and no i used the word i wanted to, and the way i wanted to use it...i think that if i know of a more obscure word like blare and the ability to use it correctly, that i would obviously already know of blatant and glare...again save your "divine intervention" for someone else...i again know of what i speak...;)

01-12-2007, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by garandman
:confused: How is it "blaringly" obvious?

You need not be religious to be logical.

You beleive the war is wrong. (I don't)

The soldiers are WILLINGLY RE-ENLISTING EN MASSE to go back and fight .

No one is making them re-enlist.

To GO BACK and fight in a wrong war MUST make them wrong.

This is the MOST SIMPLE logic.

Your position is "blaringly" illogical.

look i'll put it in a way that you and your "4th grade friends" can understand it...i believe in the troops and not the war...got it...

just like i don't believe in whaling, but the people on those boats got mouths to feed etc.., understand?? so if a whaling boat is caught whaling illegally, i would not hold the people upon the boat responsible, i would hold the people that sent/put them there responsible....there tell that to the 10 yr. olds you hang with...maybe they'll help you with that...:devil:

Quad18star

01-12-2007, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by garandman
Try reading with comprehension.

I did not say your vote should be based on your income, oir intelligence.

I said it should be based on your taxes.

You' have the country the our Founding Fathers gave us. Not that a Canuck necessarily understand any of the founding of our nation.

And being a Canadian, why do you care what America does? I could care less what Canada does, and NEVER speak of Canadian politics.

Talk about arrogance - that you think you can speak of American matters. I'm not arrogant enuf to think I can speak of Canadian matters.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you say that you never said that a vote should be based on income or intelligence .... yet you said that there should be a test ... isn't a test something that is given to test intelligence ?? :confused: Your taxes that you pay ... isn't that based on your income ( ie Income Tax ... ie How much $$ you make??) :confused:

You're right ... I don't know everything there is to know about American history , your founding fathers , etc ... but do you know everything about it ?

Why do I speak on this matter of 21 500 extra troops going to Iraq ... because if you're not aware , you President and your Government made a big fuss when other countries weren't providing troops after 9-11 . Other countries stepped up and provided troops and money to help fight against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan .

US Generals handed over missions to other nations and said " Here , you keep fighting this while we take some of our men and throw them in Iraq . You fight these known terrorists that attacked our country , were going to go settle another issue we have" That's my problem with this whole ordeal . If you're going to send extra troops , send them to where other countries have most of their troops and give them aid before these countries decide that they're going to pull their troops out and you'll be in an even bigger jam .

That's how this Canadian has in interest in American matters .

01-12-2007, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Quad18star
Correct me if I'm wrong but you say that you never said that a vote should be based on income or intelligence .... yet you said that there should be a test ... isn't a test something that is given to test intelligence ?? :confused: Your taxes that you pay ... isn't that based on your income ( ie Income Tax ... ie How much $$ you make??) :confused:

No, a test is NOT a measure of intelligence. Its a measurement of being able to regurgitate facts.

You're right ... I don't know everything there is to know about American history , your founding fathers , etc ... but do you know everything about it ?

Again, try reading with comprehension, and quit using these illegitimate tactics.

I NEVER said "everything." STOP changing my words

As an American, I'm fashioned myself an AMerican historian.

Why do I speak on this matter of 21 500 extra troops going to Iraq ... because if you're not aware , you President and your Government made a big fuss when other countries weren't providing troops after 9-11 . Other countries stepped up and provided troops and money to help fight against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan .

No, our President said we don't need anyones permission to defend our nation and has been attacked NON STOP by just about EVERYONE for going it alone.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

You don't read what I post with comprehension.

You debate illegitimately, changing my words.

You don't understand our country, or its history (by your own admission)

You misstate the facts, and show ignorance of recent history.

For these reasons, I see no benefit in discussing these AMERICAN matters with you.

G'day.

01-12-2007, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by fandl450r
LOL thats what I said.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blaringly

look fellas...go to google( if it's not to communistic for ya) and punch in the word blaringly, and look at the second example "blaringly loud" ok..:confused:

Prey

01-12-2007, 01:34 PM

that just means people spell equally as bad as you do.

use "define: 'word'" for dictionary definitions in google

and this is the result

Did you mean: define: glaringly

No definitions were found for blaringly.

Suggestions:

- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Search the Web for documents that contain " blaringly"

01-12-2007, 01:35 PM

01-12-2007, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by dlerch
look i'll put it in a way that you and your "4th grade friends" can understand it...i believe in the troops and not the war...got it...

That's like the German people saying they beleive in Hitler but not the death camps.

You CANNOT support the troops, and NOT support what they are VOLUNTEERING and RE-ENLISTING to do.

You are deceiving yourself. But don't expect me to participate in your self-deception.

just like i don't believe in whaling, but the people on those boats got mouths to feed etc.., understand?? so if a whaling boat is caught whaling illegally, i would not hold the people upon the boat responsible, i would hold the people that sent/put them there responsible....: [/B]

That is TRULY messed up.

SO if Capone sent out a contract hit, they guy who pulls the trigger isn't responsible, only Capone is.

Got it.

Dude....:ermm:

fandl450r

01-12-2007, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Prey
that just means people spell equally as bad as you do.

use "define: 'word'" for dictionary definitions in google

and this is the result

Did you mean: define: glaringly

No definitions were found for blaringly.

Suggestions:

- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Search the Web for documents that contain " blaringly"

LOL Ken I was like I can't be the only one who thinks that a forum counts as a credible souce for it being a real word.

01-12-2007, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by dlerch
...and god said "let there be light"....again with "divine" knowledge....come down off of your pedastal...please...i've never seen such BLATANT condescention....

What is this "condescention" you speak of?

Well, at least you correctly used the word "blatant."

Offset by misspelling "pedestal."

01-12-2007, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by garandman
That's like the German people saying they support Hitler but not his actions.

You CANNOT support the troops, and NOT support what they are VOLUNTEERING and RE-ENLISTING to do.

You are deceiving yourself. But don't expect me to participate in your self-deception.

That is TRULY messed up.

SO if Capone sent out a contract hit, they guy who pulls the trigger isn't responsible, only Capone is.

Got it.

Dude....:ermm:

let's try this...murder is immoral..so capone orders a murder, immoral, a man murders for him, immoral...ok?

man/men lie about a reason to wage a war, immoral, the men fighting the war have neither the inclination or the resources to find out whether or not they are there because of lies, so they do what they are told, there is nothing immoral about that, and by the simple fact that a war itself is not persay immoral....and i'm glad that you brought up hitler, thank you for helping me with my point, if i remember correctly, and you being the historian and all maybe you can help me, only hitler(well he was dead) and his cronies were held responsible for war crimes not the common soldier, or were they at noremburg trials also? no they were not, only those who committed "immoral" acts, like the concentration camp's leaders etc...checkmate!!

01-12-2007, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by garandman
What is this "condescention" you speak of?

Well, at least you correctly used the word "blatant."

Offset by misspelling "pedestal."

ok mr. spellcheck do you want me to go back and check on your spelling errors..."figgered" come on..your grasping for straws here...:rolleyes:

Prey

01-12-2007, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by fandl450r
LOL Ken I was like I can't be the only one who thinks that a forum counts as a credible souce for it being a real word.

LOL i gave up on lerch... just didnt want people thinking it was a real word

I dont have a problem with people having differing opinions, I just wish poeple would privide proof rather than talking out of their brown hole

Everyone in this country owes GWB at least a little sympathy and respect. He took over presidnecy followed by 9/11, 9/11 bieng the culmination of events and actions GWB had nothing to do with and had been churning for decades before he took office. We all owe him a little respect, in his term the administration was able to stabalize and even improve the economy post devastating terrorist attack and admidst a multi-front war. He as also kept americans safe for the past 5 years with radicals chomping at the bits to knock us down.

has he been perfect, no, but i am sure we would be in a lot more peril should Gore or Kerry have been elected into office

01-12-2007, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by fandl450r
LOL Ken I was like I can't be the only one who thinks that a forum counts as a credible souce for it being a real word.

like i said go to google and punch in the word...

Prey

01-12-2007, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by dlerch
like i said go to google and punch in the word...

like i said, it just proves you are not the only one making up their own words. it still does not make it anymore of a word

01-12-2007, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by dlerch
let's try this...blah blah blah

Simple logic -

If a soldier VOLUNTEERS and RE-ENLISTS to fight in (what you regards as ) a wrong war, then you must also assert that soldier is CHOOSING to do what is wrong.

It's that simple. The soldier CHOSE to do what he did.

Quit deceiving yourself.

01-12-2007, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Prey
LOL i gave up on lerch...

You, sir, are a wise man.

Lurch has an agenda that he knows is cross rutted to reason, logic and the facts.

He just can't let go of his agenda.

01-12-2007, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by garandman
Simple logic -

If a soldier VOLUTEERS and RE-ENLISTS to fight in (what you regards as ) a wrong war, then you must also assert that soldier is CHOOSING to do what is wrong.

It's that simple. The soldier CHOSE to do what he did.

Quit deceiving yourself.

you brought up hitler i didn't..answer the question!! was the common soldier held responsible?

sandmanblue

01-12-2007, 02:00 PM

I'm still wating for these bozos to show us dumb conservatives how to win the war on terror...

They will never do it.

They don't have the mental capacity....

01-12-2007, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by dlerch
you brought up hitler i didn't..answer the question!! was the common soldier held responsible?

It was an analogy, and analogies only go so far.

Simple logic regarding what we are ACTUALLY discussing-

If a soldier VOLUTEERS and RE-ENLISTS to fight in (what you regards as ) a wrong war, then you must also assert that soldier is CHOOSING to do what is wrong.

It's that simple. The soldier CHOSE to do what he did.

Quit deceiving yourself.

01-12-2007, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by garandman
You, sir, are a wise man.

Lurch has an agenda that he knows is cross rutted to reason, logic and the facts.

He just can't let go of his agenda.

i assure you grandmaman i have no agenda...and i am not a self-righteous know it all either....this is where you try to get of point with the "blah blah" crap and the "mispelling" because you have benn proven wrong!! the common soldier is not held responsible for a war...the people who started it are...got it?:eek2:

01-12-2007, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by dlerch
you brought up hitler i didn't..answer the question!! was the common soldier held responsible?

Whether or not the soldier was HELD responsible DOES NOT have any bearing as to him BEING responsible.

ANY soldier that pushed a Jew into an oven WAS responsible, regardless of whether he was prosecuted for it.

Yer hopeless. You can't even reason out simple things like this.

01-12-2007, 02:05 PM

I'm done with you, Lurch.

You are illogical in the extreme.

And by choice, so there's no point in bothering with you.

01-12-2007, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by garandman
It was an analogy, and analogies only go so far.

Simple logic regarding what we are ACTUALLY discussing-

If a soldier VOLUTEERS and RE-ENLISTS to fight in (what you regards as ) a wrong war, then you must also assert that soldier is CHOOSING to do what is wrong.

It's that simple. The soldier CHOSE to do what he did.

Quit deceiving yourself.

first check your spelling on voluNteer..;) and you just "asserted" your foot in your mouth...and the only "deception" that is being attempted here is the one you're attempting at making it look like i'm saying something i'm not...

01-12-2007, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by garandman
I'm done with you, Lurch.

You are illogical in the extreme.

And by choice, so there's no point in bothering with you.

illogical...ok spock, your vulcan mind trick is not working.

...and the rest are just the words of a beaten man!! like i said checkmate!!:blah:

Pappy

01-12-2007, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by dlerch
and you being the historian and all maybe you can help me, only hitler(well he was dead) and his cronies were held responsible for war crimes not the common soldier, or were they at noremburg trials also? no they were not, only those who committed "immoral" acts, like the concentration camp's leaders etc...checkmate!!

im staying out of the other bs, but to correct you, in regards to both German and Japanese issues pertaining to war crimes at the end of the war, both sides had command level trials that saw hangings, firing squads and imprisonments down to levels reaching private (respective to thier code of rank) The soldiers were held responsible for thier actions based both on the orders from thier superiors and from those taken on thier own behalf.

ANY enemy soldier that was pointed out was handled, sometimes by the very men that witnessed thier criminal and immoral acts. I will have to say that WW2 was a diiferent era, but I just figured I would clear this up.

Good Day:)

01-12-2007, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Pappy
im staying out of the other bs, but to correct you, in regards to both German and Japanese issues pertaining to war crimes at the end of the war, both sides had command level trials that saw hangings, firing squads and imprisonments down to levels reaching private (respect to thier code of rank) The soldiers were held responsible for thier actions based both on the orders from thier superiors and from those taken on thier own behalf.

ANY enemy soldier that was pointed out was handled, sometimes by the very men that witnessed thier criminal and immoral acts. I will have to say that WW2 was a diiferent era, but I just figured I would clear this up.

Good Day:)

understood...but the word in there i key on is the "immoral" one..a soldier that conducts battle in a "normal" way i don't believ to be ever held liable for any actions...now things like say the mai lai incident in 'nam etc... would be considered above and beyond "moral" combat...agree? disagree?

01-12-2007, 02:15 PM

Lurch has been Pappwned.

:D

idro

01-12-2007, 02:17 PM

hmmm IMO if you start correcting e-spelling you have lost the e-battle...

01-12-2007, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by idro
hmmm IMO if you start correcting e-spelling you have lost the e-battle...

I only go after the e-spelling when actual logic is wholly unrecognized and ineffective with a person.

Lurch is a perfect example of that.

Pappy

01-12-2007, 02:24 PM

The attack on the villagers of My Lai(My Son if you want to be technical) is still argued to this day, and yes, soldiers were charged but no real punishments doled out if I remeber correctly. Lt. Calley was court marshalled.

I would argue that using the term "Immoral" in the sense of the My Lai incident and using it in the context to say the war in Iraq is immoral are two seperate issues and should be applied differently.

To further answer you, I havent ever felt "Moral" about shooting anyone no matter how just the cause. I can tell you the job gets done:)

NPelletier

01-12-2007, 02:24 PM

did he say this b4 or after we killed sadam:confused:

01-12-2007, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Pappy

I would argue that using the term "Immoral" in the sense of the My Lai incident and using it in the context to say the war in Iraq is immoral are two seperate issues and should be applied differently.

Which is why I switched from "immoral" to "wrong" as being the manner in which he characterizes Iraq.

Not that Lurch is either paying attention, or willing to let it go.

Pappy

01-12-2007, 02:28 PM

Lets keep Lurch out of this, its dlerch

Lurch builds ssome wicked mojaves, dlerch loves to argue:blah:

01-12-2007, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by NPelletier
did he say this b4 or after we killed sadam:confused:

That whole hullabellew had to be the most screwed up news story in a while.

Saddam murders hundreds of thousands, and the media says Iraq would be better off with Saddam still in power.

A few people say mean words at Saddams executiuon, and the media cites THAT as proof Iraq is out of control.

I guess the media doesn't consider the genocide of hundreds of thousands of people as being "out of control."

01-12-2007, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Pappy
Lets keep Lurch out of this, its dlerch

Lurch builds ssome wicked mojaves, dlerch loves to argue:blah:

The Lurch I'm talking about is currently serving in the US Senate. (Thankfully, Dubya kept him outta the White House)

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/images/headlines/jk-emerson.jpg http://www.addamsfamily.com/addams/lurch1.jpg

Can't tell any difference betwen dlerch and Lurch.

So I likes to call him Lurch. I'd think he'd consider it a compliment.

:cool:

Pappy

01-12-2007, 02:36 PM

Actually, the region felt it would be better if Saddam remained in power. Iraq was keeping Iran at bay. Now, Iraq is fragile, in real danger of an all out civil war and when the United States finally decides they really cant help these people, Iran can wreak real havoc and IT WILL affect every person on this planet.

Like it or not, the people over there for the most part need extreme discipline. Thats all they have known. We in the western world can not fathom how they live, even after being there and seeing it, living it is a far cry from knowing you are a plane ride away from it at your choice. Handing them freedom was not the best option IMO

As far as the "Mission Accomplished", I must be the only person who felt it was meant for reasons other then an outright victory. No matter what side of the issues you stand on, the media hit that one around so much that folks believe it stands for outright final victory and have used it to wax bush's *** ever since.

Why is no one asking thier leaders why Iranian soldiers are killing American soldiers in Iraq and then running back across the border and we arent doing squat:ermm: The issues of why we are there are over, let us figure out what we can do now and into the future to stabilize the region and bring our sons and daughters in from harms way.

Pappy

01-12-2007, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by garandman
The Lurch I'm talking about is currently serving in the US Senate. (Thankfully, Dubya kept him outta the White House)

Can't tell any difference betwen dlerch and Lurch.

So I likes to call him Lurch. I'd think he'd consider it a compliment.

:cool:

sorry, i paid little attention to the actual over all content in the thread and saw Lurch( great member of the site) and didnt want his name drug in here :p

01-12-2007, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Pappy
Actually, the region felt it would be better if Saddam remained in power. Iraq was keeping Iran at bay. Now, Iraq is fragile, in real danger of an all out civil war and when the United States finally decides they really cant help these people, Iran can wreak real havoc and IT WILL affect every person on this planet.

.

I still wouldn't characterize Saddams reign as "better" than anything else.

Iran is next. Its inevitable. Iraq is the base of ops to be able to either monitor / attack Iran.

If you'll think back, ever since the Shah was murdered, Iran has NEVER been stable. Remember the Iran hostage crisis? Even before that, Iran was a hotbed of problems.

And we're ALL better off with Saddam fertilizing the sand.

Prey

01-12-2007, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Pappy

Like it or not, the people over there for the most part need extreme discipline. Thats all they have known. Handing them freedom was not the best option IMO

boy isnt that strikingly similiar to the train of thought that drove the crusades.... and essentially established the good ole US of A

Pappy

01-12-2007, 02:49 PM

it may be, however by turning freedom loose on those that have never tasted it, they have created fear and this has allowed the insurgency to grow.

the fight right now is over internal secular power, it has very little to do with us at this point.

funny the crusades are used, seems this fight has been ongoing eh...lol

Prey

01-12-2007, 02:52 PM

we have been in conversation before and i respect your opinion pappy,

however, that is no reason to curse follow on generations with the rule of an insane dictator, generations that will adapt and come to appreciate the freedoms we currently enjoy.

01-12-2007, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Pappy
[

Like it or not, the people over there for the most part need extreme discipline. Thats all they have known. We in the western world can not fathom how they live, even after being there and seeing it, living it is a far cry from knowing you are a plane ride away from it at your choice. Handing them freedom was not the best option IMO

I disagree.

All peoples yearn for freedom.

But in typical American fashion, we think everything should be complete in the same time a TV mini-series is finished.

We are battling a 5,000 year old culture. But teh Iraqi people have taken QUITE well to freedom.

More of them vote than Americans vote.

They enacted a Constitution, and elected a president and a legislature.

Don't you remember all the news stories of suicide bombers attacking the Iraqis standing in line for jobs on the Iraqi police force?

How many Americans would stand in line to get a job? Especially a line you might get killed in?

I think MANY people are selling the Iraqis short, and expecting WAY too much.

01-12-2007, 02:54 PM

Prey

01-12-2007, 02:56 PM

ps, you maybe right, it may make things tougher on us today and tomorrow, but in the end, for our children and grandchildren, having the middle east know what freedom of choice and religion and voice is all about, will make things much easier for them.

we often forget that our fore-fathers had it much worse than we do, and they did it gladly in quest of the idea that their sacrifice would bring a better world for their relatives down the road

01-12-2007, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Prey
ps, you maybe right, it may make things tougher on us today and tomorrow, but in the end, for our children and grandchildren, having the middle east know what freedom of choice and religion and voice is all about, will make things much easier for them.

we often forget that our fore-fathers had it much worse than we do, and they did it gladly in quest of the idea that their sacrifice would bring a better world for their relatives down the road

Good point.

In US history, we first formed our gov't in 1776. Not a hundred years later, we had a REAL civil war - hundreds of thousands killed.

We made it OK.

Let's not give up on the Iraqis in four years.

Pappy

01-12-2007, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Prey
we have been in conversation before and i respect your opinion pappy,

however, that is no reason to curse follow on generations with the rule of an insane dictator, generations that will adapt and come to appreciate the freedoms we currently enjoy.

you will have to point out where i stated they should never have freedom. my statement was directed at the immediate end of the initial take over of the country and to this date.

in the first gulf war, Iraqi troops kneeled before our soldiers begging for thier lives, the civilians greeted us with open arms in the southern region (ofcourse thats about as far as we were allowed to advance) and our enemy trembled at the mere thought of our approach.

now, you have the likes of Al Sadr openly calling for his factions to kill his rivals and our soldiers. You have citizens so confused that they will not stand on thier own and frankly i dont blame them at this time. A leader is needed, to stand up and destroy the enemy and show the countries citizens that order is at hand. Bush isnt doing it, and noone in Iraq is capable of it at this time because they have never been allowed to govern themselves. Absolute control is what they know, it is whats needed and once things level out, freedom will flourish.

cowering in fear from all sides is not freedom.

and to add, why should my and your children be cursed to live with the fear that at any moment a terrorist from one of these countries blows up the mall they are shopping in? seems to me like i have lost freedoms and securities i enjoyed as a child and can not garuntee to my children. do i care if they level teh entire region? not one damn bit.

01-12-2007, 03:05 PM

Quad18star

01-12-2007, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by garandman
No, a test is NOT a measure of intelligence. Its a measurement of being able to regurgitate facts.

Again, try reading with comprehension, and quit using these illegitimate tactics.

I NEVER said "everything." STOP changing my words

As an American, I'm fashioned myself an AMerican historian.

No, our President said we don't need anyones permission to defend our nation and has been attacked NON STOP by just about EVERYONE for going it alone.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

You don't read what I post with comprehension.

You debate illegitimately, changing my words.

You don't understand our country, or its history (by your own admission)

You misstate the facts, and show ignorance of recent history.

For these reasons, I see no benefit in discussing these AMERICAN matters with you.

G'day.

A test is a measure of intelligence . Straight out of the dictionary .. pick one up and take a look .

test
n.
A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something.
A series of questions, problems, or physical responses designed to determine intelligence or ability.

What are these illigitimate tactics that you speak of ?

I didn't say you knew everything about American History?? I asked if you knew everything ... there's a difference .

You're right , Bush said " Screw the UN , we're going in and doing what we want " I don't totally disagree with what he did . What was done on US soil was a direct act of war on Al-Qaeda's part . It wasn't long afterwards though that Mr. Bush started pleading to members of the UN to give them some help . Some nations stepped up and provided help to fight against Al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan , my country being one of them. Now if our Country decides to pull it's soldiers out of the war zone , it affects the USA because there are "X" number of troops less fighting .

The plea to other nations was to fight terrorists in Afghanistan ... do you think that many nations aren't pissed that these 21 500 aren't all going to Afghanistan to fight the war that the US government pleaded to nations to help fight ?

So in reality I know what I'm talking about .

I read and understand your replies , even though some of the times it's hard to try and figure out WTF you're saying , but I don't agree with your views .

I don't change your words .

I probably understand your country better than some Americans understand their own country ... do you understand my country ? Do you know any Canadian history ?

I show ignorance to recent history ??

And lastly , this war is not solely an American issue , but chances are you didn't know that other countries were fighting along side the US of A .... which would demonstrate your ignorance to recent history .

Prey

01-12-2007, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Pappy
you will have to point out where i stated they should never have freedom. my statement was directed at the immediate end of the initial take over of the country and to this date.

in the first gulf war, Iraqi troops kneeled before our soldiers begging for thier lives, the civilians greeted us with open arms in the southern region (ofcourse thats about as far as we were allowed to advance) and our enemy trembled at the mere thought of our approach.

now, you have the likes of Al Sadr openly calling for his factions to kill his rivals and our soldiers. You have citizens so confused that they will not stand on thier own and frankly i dont blame them at this time. A leader is needed, to stand up and destroy the enemy and show the countries citizens that order is at hand. Bush isnt doing it, and noone in Iraq is capable of it at this time because they have never been allowed to govern themselves. Absolute control is what they know, it is whats needed and once things level out, freedom will flourish.

cowering in fear from all sides is not freedom.

the only reason we did not see these issues in the 1st gulf war is we never invaded so far into the country, had we, we would have seen the rebelions.

if we chose to do nothing, nothing would ever change and we would have 1 full rich country to provide financing and a home to al qaeda, if we assumed an "all-authoratative" control of the country, we then prove the propaganda correct and much more of the middle east assumes our role is middle eastern domination and the eradication of muslim religoin.

rtm1216

01-12-2007, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Pappy
you will have to point out where i stated they should never have freedom. my statement was directed at the immediate end of the initial take over of the country and to this date.

in the first gulf war, Iraqi troops kneeled before our soldiers begging for thier lives, the civilians greeted us with open arms in the southern region (ofcourse thats about as far as we were allowed to advance) and our enemy trembled at the mere thought of our approach.

now, you have the likes of Al Sadr openly calling for his factions to kill his rivals and our soldiers. You have citizens so confused that they will not stand on thier own and frankly i dont blame them at this time. A leader is needed, to stand up and destroy the enemy and show the countries citizens that order is at hand. Bush isnt doing it, and noone in Iraq is capable of it at this time because they have never been allowed to govern themselves. Absolute control is what they know, it is whats needed and once things level out, freedom will flourish.

cowering in fear from all sides is not freedom.

Good post. My original post here stated that the 21k troops suggested is not enough to get the job done. We need to either go in there w/ 100k+ troops and lock that place down or leave and let them figure it out themselves. Doing it half-*****ed is akin to stay the course rhetoric we've been fed the last 3yrs that has not worked.

In my opinion those are the two best options at this point. If we were to lock the entire country down we could then begin to allow the Iraqi's to take control in an orderly fashion. 21k troops in Baghdad does absolutely nothing for the rest of the country where chaos is prevaliant.

All the fighting about who is on what side, libs, media, etc... is all a waste of time and does nothing to address the reality of the situation. That reality is that Iraq is a mess, it has devolved into civil war and there is really nothing we can do without taking sides in the issue (shiite or sunni) which is the last thing we need to do. And yes, this is Bush's fault. He is the commander in chief and the one who put us there in first place. As the old saying goes - 'The buck stops here.' meaning his desk.

Pappy

01-12-2007, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Prey
the only reason we did not see these issues in the 1st gulf war is we never invaded so far into the country, had we, we would have seen the rebelions.

This could be argued. At that time, the world politics in general were far different and 9/11 had yet to happen to help fuel the fevor of the radical muslim extremist to its current state. We even had a working coalition fully supporting our actions, something we have lacked in this mission. Bin Laden and his cronies spurred 9/11 from hatred developed from Saudi Arabia's lack of interest in allowing him to assemble the Muhadajeen like he did in Afghanistan. 9/11 has far reaching implacations then just a day in history. We had a military force in place that could have taken over the entire middle east if we had willed to do so. Infact, the tone of the entire operation was different. Dont be so quick to apply todays events to a decade ago.

Originally posted by Prey
if we chose to do nothing, nothing would ever change and we would have 1 full rich country to provide financing and a home to al qaeda, if we assumed an "all-authoratative" control of the country, we then prove the propaganda correct and much more of the middle east assumes our role is middle eastern domination and the eradication of muslim religoin.

where did i state that we should have done nothing? I stated that the region has since declared that having Hussein in power was helping stabilize the region, and that is fact in regards to the region itself, i made no mention of how he affected the rest of the world.

as faras propeganda, it doesnt really matter what we do, they will spin it, after all its propeganda..lol and we sat around since Beruit and it did nothing so I am all for going on the offense and staying on the offensive until its done.

01-12-2007, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by rtm1216
Good post. My original post here stated that the 21k troops suggested is not enough to get the job done. We need to either go in there w/ 100k+ troops and lock that place down or leave and let them figure it out themselves. Doing it half-*****ed is akin to stay the course rhetoric we've been fed the last 3yrs that has not worked.

In my opinion those are the two best options at this point. If we were to lock the entire country down we could then begin to allow the Iraqi's to take control in an orderly fashion. 21k troops in Baghdad does absolutely nothing for the rest of the country where chaos is prevaliant.

.

I can see your point, and in theory I agree.

However, the field generals are saying all they need is 21K more.

What do you make of that?

In my estimation, what we REALLY need to lock down is the border with Syria and Iran.

Pappy

01-12-2007, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by garandman
I can see your point, and in theory I agree.

However, the field generals are saying all they need is 21K more.

What do you make of that?

In my estimation, what we REALLY need to lock down is the border with Syria and Iran.

adding the 21k still has troop levels lower in theatre then a year ago

01-12-2007, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Pappy
adding the 21k still has troop levels lower in theatre then a year ago

I've often heard the generals saying too many soldiers is a bad thing - it provides a "target rich environment" for the IED makers and militias.

At some point, too much is too much.

I just wonder if we're being told the truth about what the generals are saying they need. 21K doesn't seem like whole lot.

Prey

01-12-2007, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Pappy
This could be argued. At that time, the world politics in general were far different and 9/11 had yet to happen to help fuel the fevor of the radical muslim extremist to its current state. We even had a working coalition fully supporting our actions, something we have lacked in this mission. 9/11 has far reaching implacations then just a day in history. We had a military force in place that could have taken over the entire middle east if we had willed to do so. Infact, the tone of the entire operation was different. Dont be so quick to aplly todays events to a decade ago.

it can be argued both ways, Bush Sr. and his administration were well aware that trying to invade major cities in iraq would equal nothing more than gorilla warfare, they feared this, the casualty rate and the length.

Originally posted by Pappy where did i state that we should have done nothing? I stated that the region has since declared that having Hussein in power was helping stabilize the region, and that is fact in regards to the region itself, i made no mention of how he affected the rest of the world.

I never said you said any such thing, but the fact is the options were, do nothing, invade and turn over control and invade and assume absolute control.

I am sure the region really enjoyed Saddam in power along with Russia and France. Everyone was profiting from his violation of UN sanctions, now that the governments are not profiting from his defiance, it makes sense for them to be more that a little disappointed, how about the people in the region, what are their opinions, and not the controversial opinions that make an interview worth watching, the actual tone of the individuals in the region

Pappy

01-12-2007, 03:37 PM

Imagine how easy it would be for you to take a bomb, place it in the trunk of your car, park it infront of dunkin donuts (sorry officers its the best place ) and detonate it when there are 4 or 5 cops standing there?

When it explodes, you walk away and go get yourself a mc rib a block away. This is Iraq.

Now, imagine trying to do that with 3 platoons of mechanized armor on that same corner. you may set it off, you may kill a few of them, but you wont be walking to far. War is War and it should be treated as such.

IMO, we are doing nothing right now but providing choas and without blame or taking a side, we need to control it. Those that claim to hate the war or the idealogy behind it, your best action is to fully support it! It is the middle of the road attitude and mentality that is driving policy and that my friends is sending our soldiers home in body bags.

Eviltanker

01-12-2007, 03:39 PM

It's hard to find a balance in troop levels. I would not want the commanders jobs.
On the immorality of this war. I've was a designated marksman when we did tac ops and raids, I've done some stuff that would make your hiar turn grey or white( did mine) does this mean I should stand trial? I was investigated every time I squeezed the trigger because of politics and they were all considered justified.
I'm not ticked off or anything I just don't understand were this immorality thing was/ is going.

Pappy

01-12-2007, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Prey

I am sure the region really enjoyed Saddam in power along with Russia and France. Everyone was profiting from his violation of UN sanctions, now that the governments are not profiting from his defiance, it makes sense for them to be more that a little disappointed, how about the people in the region, what are their opinions, and not the controversial opinions that make an interview worth watching, the actual tone of the individuals in the region

I couldnt agree more, but the fact still remains Saddams methods are what were keeping the 3 religious groups in Iraq under control. He is gone, and without the same type of firmness ( I dont condone massacre or torture etc) you have what? I give you current day Iraq.

Prey

01-12-2007, 03:52 PM

I guess my opinion is this pappy, the Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni muslims are not the issue, the issue is a finite group of radicals from all sects.

Regarding adding 100,000s of troops to Iraq. This issue is not one that is cured by the insertion of mass troops, it is one that is cured by a highly specialized relatively small group that is somewhat stationary. Many soldiers = many targets, we have already tried over-powering by numbers in a gorilla warfare environment known as Vietnam, it resulted in the death and maiming of many American soliers with very little to show.

Pappy

01-12-2007, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Prey
I guess my opinion is this pappy, the Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni muslims are not the issue, the issue is a finite group of radicals from all sects.

Regarding adding 100,000s of troops to Iraq. This issue is not one that is cured by the insertion of mass troops, it is one that is cured by a highly specialized relatively small group that is somewhat stationary. Many soldiers = many targets, we have already tried over-powering by numbers in a gorilla warfare environment known as Vietnam, it resulted in the death and maiming of many American soliers with very little to show.

So we agree then that Al Sadr can be labeled a radical and he should be killed or captured?

And yes, small spec-ops will work well, IF you can get the intel from the people! They arent giving much up from what I am hearing, because they dont know who will be there in the end! (go see above post about controlling the situation and defining a leader)

From a combat perspective, the jungles of Vietnam and the desert of Iraq are two differnt animals. Closing or patrolling the borders is doable in Iraq, it wasnt in Vietnam. Winning the hearts and mind is not needed in Iraq, they just need to be shown we will not run! In Vietnam the average paddy daddy did not really care who was in control of the government, he cared about his small village, which was destroyed by NVA, VC or the Americans so all he wanted was no war:p

And the comparison to Vietnam and Iraq also shows that we are once again crippling our soldiers by bowing to the media, worrying about what the world percieves as our agenda and our own ignorance!

Overwhelming force is but one tool in the box. Something needs to be done and I dont see many answers being proposed, I do however see alot of political BS

And we are seeing the soldiers come home crippled and dead now, so limited urban engagements are having the same effect, but you can not compare the numbers in 4 years to what occured in Vietnam over a span of 10 years. 3000 Iraq/58,2309 Vietnam dead, 47,657 Iraq/153,303 wounded Vietnam. (Todays wounded data includes non combat injuries including medical conditions not computed into the Vietnam statistics)