Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: militarymuscle69 on February 12, 2007, 09:44:51 AM
-
Some democrat quotes leading into the war. How come everyone says it was Bush that lied about WMD?
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm
"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002
http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=375
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H7777&dbname=2002_record
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record
It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030331&s=lizza033103
WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction.
MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?
WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.
MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings. Where are all these weapons?
WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.
Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate
During an interview on CNN
January 18, 2003
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/smn.05.html
And that is just a start
-
Simple.
These dems all based their decision on information they received from organizations led by men selected by George Bush.
That intel from the Pentagon they admit was very exaggerated now? Came from Feith, Rummy and Bush's neocon buddy in there.
CIA findings? Selected from both points of view and delivered by a Bush appointee.
You see, history is starting to show that the White House would have 100 pieces of info and would select the only 2 that showed there might be WMD because it fit their agenda. Dems and repubs based their decisions on this info.
You should be more concerned about a fearmongering regime which could give a shit what AMericans want and uses lies to obtain votes. But, you want to dig up quotes all day, you have fun there, soldier!
-
Good luck. I tried this already. :)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=116187.0
-
Simple.
These dems all based their decision on information they received from organizations led by men selected by George Bush.
That intel from the Pentagon they admit was very exaggerated now? Came from Feith, Rummy and Bush's neocon buddy in there.
CIA findings? Selected from both points of view and delivered by a Bush appointee.
You see, history is starting to show that the White House would have 100 pieces of info and would select the only 2 that showed there might be WMD because it fit their agenda. Dems and repubs based their decisions on this info.
You should be more concerned about a fearmongering regime which could give a shit what AMericans want and uses lies to obtain votes. But, you want to dig up quotes all day, you have fun there, soldier!
So bush is accountable for believeing that inof, but the Dmes get a pass? Shouldn't they have checked more for themselves?
-
So bush is accountable for believeing that inof, but the Dmes get a pass? Shouldn't they have checked more for themselves?
Gee Whiz, I'm sure the CIA would have let every senator wander in and rummage thru things.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no sir.
They deliver reports, derived from their info, and that is what the senators get. These reports were exaggerated and skewed. The pentagon admitted it this week. They were lies from Feith's office that we used. The whole scooter libby thing comes becuase cheney tried to discredit the person giving info which didn't fit what he wanted.
The repub, and dems, could only make decisions based upon the info the Bush-led organizations gave them.
-
Simple.
These dems all based their decision on information they received from organizations led by men selected by George Bush.
get your head out of the sand.
clinton was well known to have thought saddam had WMD.
this didn't start with bush
-
the issue really is not the WMD's
The WMD was just the "justification"
The issue is and was: "Was Saddam a danger to the USA"
The answer is was: NO
-
Also didn't 240 or Berserker posts transcripts of interview with COndolisa and Powell where they stated Saddam "wasn't a threat" in 2001 and 2002?
-
I think I was first to post the YouTube clip, ...but my boobie cloaking device was in effect. >:(
-
the issue really is not the WMD's
The WMD was just the "justification"
The issue is and was: "Was Saddam a danger to the USA"
The answer is was: NO
Except everyone believed he was. Republicans. Democrats. Liberals. Conservatives. The UN. . . .
-
Except everyone believed he was. Republicans. Democrats. Liberals. Conservatives. The UN. . . .
They believe it for different reasons all of which stemmed from "fear based" hysteria resulting from 9/11
Also what they said was political what they believed was in most cases was probably different then what they said.
No one ever used common sense:
- What could have Saddam gain by attacking the USA?
- What could have Saddam lost by attacking the USA?
Which made more sense to Saddam?
-
They believe it for different reasons all of which stemmed from "fear based" hysteria resulting from 9/11
Also what they said was political what they believed was in most cases was probably different then what they said.
No one ever used common sense:
- What could have Saddam gain by attacking the USA?
- What could have Saddam lost by attacking the USA?
Which made more sense to Saddam?
Ozmo what we have now is the benefit of hindsight. Going into the war, we all believed the same thing: Saddam had or was trying to acquire WMDs and he was a threat. That's why Congress passed multiple resolutions supporting the war after it started. It is very easy to use hindsight and poke holes in our fear (which I actually think was rational after 911), but back in 2002 the world basically believed the man was a threat.
-
Ozmo what we have now is the benefit of hindsight. Going into the war, we all believed the same thing: Saddam had or was trying to acquire WMDs and he was a threat. That's why Congress passed multiple resolutions supporting the war after it started. It is very easy to use hindsight and poke holes in our fear (which I actually think was rational after 911), but back in 2002 the world basically believed the man was a threat.
Well the world was wrong. Whether they were manipulatied into believing Saddam was a threat (which was the case) or not, common sense should have dictated that he was not a threat.
I was very much against the war before it happened becuase of this.
-
Well the world was wrong. Whether they were manipulatied into believing Saddam was a threat (which was the case) or not, common sense should have dictated that he was not a threat.
I was very much against the war before it happened becuase of this.
I'm not convinced we were wrong. Man there was too much smoke. I suspect he moved whatever he had to someplace like Syria. He had a ton of cash. Remember the billion in American cash we found in one of his palaces? I think he may have used that kind of money that he pilfered from the Iraqi people to develop his programs (or at least try) and move whatever he had out of the country. I doubt that kind of cash is used for legitimate reasons by an evil man. I guess we may never know for sure.
And you know, even if we would found a WMD stash, I wouldn't feel any differently about the loss of our men and women in combat. It wouldn't take the sting away. I'm sure the family members who have lost loved ones wouldn't feel any better. We would still have the morass we have today, because we didn't effectively plan for the aftermath of Saddam's removal. That's partly why I see the whole "the war is illegal" and the "lie" claims as non issues.
-
What wouild make the war illegal?
The only way i can see is if it's ever proved that the reports of WMD's were a lie and since there are soo many differnt reports out there from different agencies it will be impossible to make it stick.
So agree with you about it being a moot point but for a different reason.
But to me it's not the issue, the issue is: was saddam a danger?
REgardless fo how much smoke there was, in principle, him attacking the USA makes about as much sense as Mexico invading Arizona.
By the very nature of the situation Saddam was NOt a threat.
-
Well the world was wrong. Whether they were manipulatied into believing Saddam was a threat (which was the case) or not, common sense should have dictated that he was not a threat.
I was very much against the war before it happened becuase of this.
OzmO, I don't see it so as the world was wrong. The world was right!
The problem was, those who were against the war was bullied into silence.
I don't knnow the full extent of the coverage you received in the run up to war, ...but from where I sat, the opponents to war was absolutely overwhelming. There was no mistaking how 'the world' felt.
In addition, all the same things dragging this thing down were laid on the table... the objections regarding the lack of a clear strategy, ...the quest for global hegemony, ...the lack of an exit strategy... the creation of new terrorists... the fallout to the rest of the middle east... All things that have come back to bite the US in the butt were all hashed out, and the global concensus was NO WAR.
-
OzmO, I don't see it so as the world was wrong. The world was right!
The problem was, those who were against the war was bullied into silence.
I don't knnow the full extent of the coverage you received in the run up to war, ...but from where I sat, the opponents to war was absolutely overwhelming. There was no mistaking how 'the world' felt.
In addition, all the same things dragging this thing down were laid on the table... the objections regarding the lack of a clear strategy, ...the quest for global hegemony, ...the lack of an exit strategy... the creation of new terrorists... the fallout to the rest of the middle east... All things that have come back to bite the US in the butt were all hashed out, and the global concensus was NO WAR.
It seemed to me there was plenty of pro-war int he US, but i wasn;t really paying much attention or had access to what people outside ethe US felt. As i look back i think you are right.
When i was reffering to the "world" i was using BB's use of the word world.
-
It seemed to me there was plenty of pro-war int he US, but i wasn;t really paying much attention or had access to what people outside ethe US felt. As i look back i think you are right.
When i was reffering to the "world" i was using BB's use of the word world.
ie: ...as in nothing outside the US borders counts? ;)
there was actually plenty of protest within the borders as well.
-
It seemed to me there was plenty of pro-war int he US, but i wasn;t really paying much attention or had access to what people outside ethe US felt. As i look back i think you are right.
When i was reffering to the "world" i was using BB's use of the word world.
And I used the word "world" in a general sense, but in this case the "world" means the UN, which believed Saddam was a threat; hence the UN resolution(s). I haven't looked at what the Canadian government believed during that time, but I would be surprised if it was out of line with what the rest of the world believed. But I could be wrong.
-
And I used the word "world" in a general sense, but in this case the "world" means the UN, which believed Saddam was a threat; hence the UN resolution(s). I haven't looked at what the Canadian government believed during that time, but I would be surprised if it was out of line with what the rest of the world believed. But I could be wrong.
Canada would only join the US if there was a UN mandate. At the time the polling about invading Iraq was 30/70.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/128 (http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/128)
http://www.queensu.ca/cora/polls/2003/April9-War_in_Iraq.pdf (http://www.queensu.ca/cora/polls/2003/April9-War_in_Iraq.pdf)
-
They believe it for different reasons all of which stemmed from "fear based" hysteria resulting from 9/11
- What could have Saddam gain by attacking the USA?
- What could have Saddam lost by attacking the USA?
Which made more sense to Saddam?
it's not that saddam was going to attack us personally, it was the threat of him giving and selling his weapons to al-quada and other terroists. that is the very essence of saddam being a threat to the US.
after 9/11, if you don't think that's possible then you learned nothing from that day.
of course he wasn't going to send jet fighters and ground troops over here, he's a tyrant, not stupid.
What wouild make the war illegal?
The only way i can see is if it's ever proved that the reports of WMD's were a lie and since there are soo many differnt reports out there from different agencies it will be impossible to make it stick.
nothing about this war is illegal. NOTHING.
after the first resolution saddam broke, the US and Britain had FULL authority to remove him.
plain and simple
-
Canada would only join the US if there was a UN mandate. At the time the polling about invading Iraq was 30/70.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/128 (http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/128)
http://www.queensu.ca/cora/polls/2003/April9-War_in_Iraq.pdf (http://www.queensu.ca/cora/polls/2003/April9-War_in_Iraq.pdf)
Thanks. What these articles say is according to the polls most Canadians opposed the war at that, but that the Canadian government participated anyway. I guess that means Canada is included in my "world" comment? :)
-
CIA, FBI, and White House info all went thru Bush/Cheney.
Their intel was parsed and cleansed by the WH then distributed.
You can blame clinton, blame FDR, blame it on the rain, whatever.
But info FROM the Bush CIA, Bush FBI, and Bush Admin was given to congress, and they made their decisions based upon it.
Problem is, we're now seeing (and it's underniable - pentagon ADMITS it now) that Feith exaggerated a majority of the info. We also see Libby/Cheney went to great lengeths to remove any TRUE intel which countered their belief.
Simply put, they lied. They put their lies in word docs, and asked people to make decisions based on these word docs.
-
CIA, FBI, and White House info all went thru Bush/Cheney.
Their intel was parsed and cleansed by the WH then distributed.
You can blame clinton, blame FDR, blame it on the rain, whatever.
But info FROM the Bush CIA, Bush FBI, and Bush Admin was given to congress, and they made their decisions based upon it.
Problem is, we're now seeing (and it's underniable - pentagon ADMITS it now) that Feith exaggerated a majority of the info. We also see Libby/Cheney went to great lengeths to remove any TRUE intel which countered their belief.
Simply put, they lied. They put their lies in word docs, and asked people to make decisions based on these word docs.
explain the other countries intell. russia, australia, japan, pakistan, etc. did Bush have them in his hip pocket too??
and if i may say, i don't care what any intell says, if you honestly think that saddam didn't have any major weapons or wasn't trying to obtain any to sell to a group of terrorist then you are as simple minded as you were on September 10, 2001.
saddam loathe the US and would have anything to destroy us.
can't believe you're defending him.
-
and if i may say, i don't care what any intell says
wow.
-
wow.
easy on the font, bro.
mr. "taking it out of context" strikes again!
-
you said i was defending saddam by calling out the bullshit wmd claims\
that'd be like saying you were helping the terrorists by not supporting a real investigation into 9/11 to catch the moles in FAA and NORAD who made it happen.
not nice, is it?
-
it's not that saddam was going to attack us personally, it was the threat of him giving and selling his weapons to al-quada and other terroists. that is the very essence of saddam being a threat to the US.
after 9/11, if you don't think that's possible then you learned nothing from that day.
of course he wasn't going to send jet fighters and ground troops over here, he's a tyrant, not stupid.
nothing about this war is illegal. NOTHING.
after the first resolution saddam broke, the US and Britain had FULL authority to remove him.
plain and simple
Then why haven't we invaded N. Korea?
And what about the poor ex-soviet states?
Fact is, that was a poor excuse to go and do what we did. they can get these weapons a number of other ways anyway. They didn't need Saddam to get them.
And here's a something for you to think about:
I can in short order with very little funds needed, commit a terrorist act that can kill hundreds of people and virtually stop airline travel for at least 3 days and cripple the airline industry just like in 9/11 and i'd probably get away with it!
Why hasn't someone done what i know and they know i can do?
Perhaps because the threat isn't what the government is making it out to be?
-
And here's a something for you to think about:
I can in short order with very little funds needed, commit a terrorist act that can kill hundreds of people and virtually stop airline travel for at least 3 days and cripple the airline industry just like in 9/11 and i'd probably get away with it!
Why hasn't someone done what i know and they know i can do?
Perhaps because the threat isn't what the government is making it out to be?
You really believe that? And if so, what kind of threat do you think we face (from terrorism)?
-
I can't understand why we don't take out N Korea immediately. I would support the hell out of that.
Think about it. They fired ICBMs on July 4th, at Japan and Hawaii. They set off a nuclear bomb. They have said the US is their only enemy and have vowed to destory us.
Shit, I would put $5 in the little bucket that said "Bomb North Korea" if they wanted donations. NK is a real threat. Wouldn't be hard for them to smuggle something in thru the wide open border and blow something up.
Why the heck aren't we trying to stop them?
-
You really believe that? And if so, what kind of threat do you think we face (from terrorism)?
beach,
the fact that we make such a big deal about what Iran *might* do in a few years - and ignore what North korea DID this year...
well, it makes it look like we're only worried about terror attacks by oil-rich nations.
-
beach,
the fact that we make such a big deal about what Iran *might* do in a few years - and ignore what North korea DID this year...
well, it makes it look like we're only worried about terror attacks by oil-rich nations.
I was referring to domestic terrorism. Iran is a different issue.
-
You really believe that? And if so, what kind of threat do you think we face (from terrorism)?
We face a threat ,defiantly.
The question is, how much of a threat is it?
I think we dealt them a pretty firm blow in Afghanistan. and the reality is the people that support them (*the terrorists) are afraid that if they do anything similar to what they did in 9/11 America will come after them the same way. Hence, i believe they are holding the terrorist back.
And because our nation is still soo dam easy to attack as i've outlined combined with the fact nothing has happened, I think the threat of a terrorist attack is trumped up by the government to gain public support for defense spending and foreign policy decisions.
-
I was referring to domestic terrorism. Iran is a different issue.
No, it's really not.
I cna't believe you consider iran a big threat, but not domestically. For the last year, we've heard all about how they want to sell a bomb to terrorists. Suddenly iran isn't a threat that way?
Your arugments smell bad lately. I think with the unraveling intel from the Pentagon you're starting to doubt yourself. With more ppl coming fwd about WTC7, more and more people are saying "well I'll be, that WAS a controlled demo".
-
::)
why do you always go back to this?
-
We face a threat ,defiantly.
The question is, how much of a threat is it?
I think we dealt them a pretty firm blow in Afghanistan. and the reality is the people that support them (*the terrorists) are afraid that if they do anything similar to what they did in 9/11 America will come after them the same way. Hence, i believe they are holding the terrorist back.
And because our nation is still soo dam easy to attack as i've outlined combined with the fact nothing has happened, I think the threat of a terrorist attack is trumped up by the government to gain public support for defense spending and foreign policy decisions.
I agree we dealt a firm blow by taking out the Taliban and Al Qaeda. And we are very vulnerable. My fear is attacks are being planned right now. That's why I don't think we can let our guard down.
-
Then why haven't we invaded N. Korea?
And what about the poor ex-soviet states?
Fact is, that was a poor excuse to go and do what we did. they can get these weapons a number of other ways anyway. They didn't need Saddam to get them.
And here's a something for you to think about:
I can in short order with very little funds needed, commit a terrorist act that can kill hundreds of people and virtually stop airline travel for at least 3 days and cripple the airline industry just like in 9/11 and i'd probably get away with it!
Why hasn't someone done what i know and they know i can do?
Perhaps because the threat isn't what the government is making it out to be?
i don't know why we haven't invaded NK. maybe, and this is only me talking, our admin knew saddam was not going to negotiate, my god he broke 17 war resolutions. they wanted to give NK a chance at the table, at it seems to be working.
and, it IS NOT a poor excuse to go to war. what, are we supposed to wait for something to happen again?? nut-bags want to KILL us and destroy this country. can't you get that??
no they didn't NEED saddam to get weapons, but we eliminated one way they can by getting rid of him. and these dumb ass, passifists liberals want to leave iraq so the terrorists can take over.
I can in short order with very little funds needed, commit a terrorist act that can kill hundreds of people and virtually stop airline travel for at least 3 days and cripple the airline industry just like in 9/11 and i'd probably get away with it!
Why hasn't someone done what i know and they know i can do?
Perhaps because the threat isn't what the government is making it out to be?
you are right, it would be easy to do something so i don't know it hasn't been done.
Perhaps because the threat isn't what the government is making it out to be?
are you serious??
you keep believing that, maybe another 9/11 will wake you up ::)
-
::)
why do you always go back to this?
Tell me about it. ::)
-
HOW can one lie if they're mislead to begin with? Bush and his admin are the liars and there's no debating it.
-
Here's the thing.
North Korea has nukes, has missiles, hates us, vows to kill us.
They're a serious threat.
Iran just started a nuke program, has no intercontinental missiles, hates us, and wants to kill us.
They're a less serious threat.
WHY THE HELL AREN'T WE TAKING OUT THE MORE SERIOUS THREATS FIRST?
-
HOW can one lie if they're mislead to begin with? Bush and his admin are the liars and there's no debating it.
camel, some people here do not believe Bush has lever lied or exaggerated things.
When you realize that in every argument, they're starting from the mindset that what the white house says is gospel, it makes for terrible debate.
-
i don't know why we haven't invaded NK. maybe, and this is only me talking, our admin knew saddam was not going to negotiate, my god he broke 17 war resolutions. they wanted to give NK a chance at the table, at it seems to be working.
This is not high school! you don;t go to war and invade a sovereign nation just because it broke some dam rules. the resolutions are a political control tool that were used to justify sanctions. Not to go to war over, AND the proof of that is the UN's refusal to back the USA. Remember that? ehhh?
and, it IS NOT a poor excuse to go to war. what, are we supposed to wait for something to happen again?? nut-bags want to KILL us and destroy this country. can't you get that??
Bu that very same mentality we would have been in a nuclear wasteland because we would have attacked Russia during the cold war. And that threat was far greater than these terrorist. That is not a intelligent way to solve problems. thank god, Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Carter, and Bush Sr. didn't "GET THAT"
no they didn't NEED saddam to get weapons, but we eliminated one way they can by getting rid of him. and these dumb ass, passifists liberals want to leave iraq so the terrorists can take over.
It may happen they take over either way, perhaps they are suggesting we just cut our loses. personally i think it's a bad idea to leave now. but thanks to BUSH (jackass) we are in this mess.
Perhaps because the threat isn't what the government is making it out to be?
are you serious??
you keep believing that, maybe another 9/11 will wake you up ::)
I'm not the only one who believes it buddy. Many people in the military do also.
But don;t just take my word for it.
re-read my post about what i can do anytime i want with very little funds and very little chance of getting caught.
If there was the threat you have been lead to believe why hasn't a major attack happend int he US? it would be tooooooo easy
-
camel, some people here do not believe Bush has lever lied or exaggerated things.
When you realize that in every argument, they're starting from the mindset that what the white house says is gospel, it makes for terrible debate.
I can see that, Rob. But the good in me keeps me want to keep on trying, even when the chances of them seeing the light are slim.
-
Here's the thing.
North Korea has nukes, has missiles, hates us, vows to kill us.
They're a serious threat.
NK has s**t.
their missles travel, what, 20 ft. and their a major threat??
NK is a bluff and you know it. that SOB leader wants money.
you say you want to bomb them, yet we are negotiating and it's beginning to work.
make up your mind, you want to bomb someone we are talking to and not bomb some one who is killing our soliders, and won't talk to us?? i.e. iran
???
-
NK has s**t.
their missles travel, what, 20 ft. and their a major threat??
NK is a bluff and you know it. that SOB leader wants money.
you say you want to bomb them, yet we are negotiating and it's beginning to work.
make up your mind, you want to bomb someone we are talking to and not bomb some one who is killing our soliders, and won't talk to us?? i.e. iran
???
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Iran is begging for a discussion - BUSH DECLINED!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iran+asks+for+negotiations
North Korea SET OFF A NUCLEAR FUCKING BOMB AND YOU SAY:
"NK is a bluff and you know it. "
Are you kidding? You know this, how? HOW MANY COUNTRIES SET OFF NUCLEAR BOMBS TO BLUFF?
-
you don;t go to war and invade a sovereign nation just because it broke some dam rules.
i weep for the future.
:'(
-
i weep for the future.
:'(
Those with those same beliefs should have been weeping like crazy then for 40 or so years of cold war...........
based on your idea would it have been better to go to war when thousands of nukes were aimed at us?
com on, MM, use some common sense.
rules lol?
OMG
-
mightymouse,
i have to wonder why you're downplaying the dangerousness of a nation who has fired missiles at the US and set off a nuke.
I have to wonder why.
Are you korean, by chance?
-
there's some serious tunnel vision going on here.
-
"NK has s**t.
their missles travel, what, 20 ft. and their a major threat??
NK is a bluff and you know it. that SOB leader wants money."
This man is either completely blind to the threat, or he's a sympathizer.
-
"NK has s**t.
their missles travel, what, 20 ft. and their a major threat??
NK is a bluff and you know it. that SOB leader wants money."
This man is either completely blind to the threat, or he's a sympathizer.
What he is a sheep who's bent on attacking Iran just cuz Bush said so. ::)
-
What he is a sheep who's bent on attacking Iran just cuz Bush said so. ::)
If iran needs attacked, N korea needs DESTROYED!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also, very weird that we negotiate with N Korea, after they fired missiles at us and set off a nuke. but we won't talk with iran, who hasn't done either. (both nations threatened to destory us, that's common rhetoric from pricks out there).
Why did we negotiate with these N korean animals?
-
no nasty skeletons in the closet with NK perhaps?
If iran starts talking about the admission of wrong doing, ...as well as the reparations the US agreed to pay, as well as the blocked lawsuits from hostages, ...things might become a little uncomfortable for the Bushs. No way that scandal dies a quick death. Too many worms in that can to open up.
-
I can't understand why we don't take out N Korea immediately. I would support the hell out of that.
Think about it. They fired ICBMs on July 4th, at Japan and Hawaii. They set off a nuclear bomb. They have said the US is their only enemy and have vowed to destory us.
Shit, I would put $5 in the little bucket that said "Bomb North Korea" if they wanted donations. NK is a real threat. Wouldn't be hard for them to smuggle something in thru the wide open border and blow something up.
Why the heck aren't we trying to stop them?
Because North Korea is not a REAL threat. Kim Jong Il is a clown, just like the character in Team America. If you have ever been to the DMZ and seen what kind of fools the North Koreans are you would understand. All he wants is attention and he needs to feed his people so that they don't overthrow him. Haven't you noticed all we have to do is throw a few bags of rice at him everytime he fronts and he goes away? Saddam wasn't like that.
-
Because North Korea is not a REAL threat. Kim Jong Il is a clown, just like the character in Team America. If you have ever been to the DMZ and seen what kind of fools the North Koreans are you would understand. All he wants is attention and he needs to feed his people so that they don't overthrow him. Haven't you noticed all we have to do is throw a few bags of rice at him everytime he fronts and he goes away? Saddam wasn't like that.
A country which sets off a nuclear weapon in violation of world law isn't a threat?
A country which has ICBMs that are close to reaching American soil isn't a threat?
I know you're a military guy, so I feel bad having to explain this, but...
I know you might *know* Kim Jung Il's intentions. But what if he slips in the shower tomorrow am and cracks his head? Will his predecessor have the same mindset and intentions? Or will he look at the dismal situation and start selling suitcases for $100m as fast as he can to save the ship? Or will he just hate us and start firing rockets?
it shocks me that you would just assume to know what Kim, and those who follow him, will do with such a powerful collection of weapons. IMO, for any military leader to make such assumptions is highly irresponsible.
-
A country which sets off a nuclear weapon in violation of world law isn't a threat?
A country which has ICBMs that are close to reaching American soil isn't a threat?
I know you're a military guy, so I feel bad having to explain this, but...
I know you might *know* Kim Jung Il's intentions. But what if he slips in the shower tomorrow am and cracks his head? Will his predecessor have the same mindset and intentions? Or will he look at the dismal situation and start selling suitcases for $100m as fast as he can to save the ship? Or will he just hate us and start firing rockets?
it shocks me that you would just assume to know what Kim, and those who follow him, will do with such a powerful collection of weapons. IMO, for any military leader to make such assumptions is highly irresponsible.
Being on the "inside" I know his weapons aren't advanced enough to worry about. He isn't near the psycho that saddam was or that Iran is
-
Being on the "inside" I know his weapons aren't advanced enough to worry about. He isn't near the psycho that saddam was or that Iran is
you have to remember, 240 wants to destroy NK who we are talking too. my daisy BB gun is more of a threat than their pop gun missles.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251618,00.html
and he wants to "talk" to a islamic radical who wants to destroy us and israel.
brainless
-
Being on the "inside" I know his weapons aren't advanced enough to worry about. He isn't near the psycho that saddam was or that Iran is
HE SET OFF A FUCKING NUCLEAR BOMB.
Now, on the "outside", we consider nuclear bombs a threat to our wellbeing. Maybe it was just a *small* nuclear bomb. Or a friendly one. But me? I consider all nuclear bombs dangerous. I also consider REAL ones by NK to be way more dangerous than POTENTIAL bombs from Iran.
But hey, you're on the "inside", go play cowboy in iran. You want it, sounds like we're going to invade and you can have your wish. I'm sure Tehran will be a cakewalk!
-
Because North Korea is not a REAL threat. Kim Jong Il is a clown, just like the character in Team America. If you have ever been to the DMZ and seen what kind of fools the North Koreans are you would understand. All he wants is attention and he needs to feed his people so that they don't overthrow him. Haven't you noticed all we have to do is throw a few bags of rice at him everytime he fronts and he goes away? Saddam wasn't like that.
Have you ever been to the DMZ? do you have any understanding of how well trained that millitary is? If we go to war with NK you'd better be ready for serious body counts, becase those guys are not at all like fighting the arabs.
You are talking out you butt here.
-
MM72,
no disrespect, but you are ignorant regarding NK. You think arabs are more of a threat? OMG. At least do some research beforeyou talk out your ass. THose NK soldiers and there millitary is 20 times better than any arabs terrorist.
Stop being such a easily manipulated sheep and open your eyes.
-
You are talking out you butt here.
Careful, OzmO,
militarymuscle69 is on the "inside". He can tell the diff between real nukes that aren't a threat, and potential nukes that are. He's Miss Cleo in camo.
-
Being on the "inside" I know his weapons aren't advanced enough to worry about. He isn't near the psycho that saddam was or that Iran is
you don't know shit............OMG
-
no disrespect, but you are ignorant regarding NK. You think arabs are more of a threat? OMG. At least do some research beforeyou talk out your ass. THose NK soldiers and there millitary is 20 times better than any arabs terrorist.
OzmO, you be right again. N Korea would be a fking nightmare to invade.
According to the US State Department,[15] North Korea has the fourth-largest military in the world, with the largest percentage of citizens enlisted (49.03 active troops per thousand citizens). The North has an estimated 1.08 million armed personnel,
-
So wait ----
north Korea has the 4th largest military IN THE WORLD.
THey have nukes. They have ICBMs.
They have a crazy leader who wants to kill us.
They're blackmailing the US for oil as we speak.
And they're NOT A THREAT?
HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAA
-
Have you ever been to the DMZ? do you have any understanding of how well trained that millitary is? If we go to war with NK you'd better be ready for serious body counts, becase those guys are not at all like fighting the arabs.
You are talking out you butt here.
Actually yeah I have been to the DMZ. The north koreans are a valid army...but they have no notable navy or Air Force. So sure they could push across the DMZ and work there way through South Korea (where I spent a year) but by the time they reached Camp Casey our fighters from Osan and Kunsan would have a handle on it.
-
Careful, OzmO,
militarymuscle69 is on the "inside". He can tell the diff between real nukes that aren't a threat, and potential nukes that are. He's Miss Cleo in camo.
This guy is stupid., very uninformed, OMG. Even run of the mill military enthusiast know the difference between NK and arabs soldiers.
I now have finally met some worse than the run of the mill brainwashed drones i've beehn talking to on this forum.
-
Actually yeah I have been to the DMZ. The north koreans are a valid army...but they have no notable navy or Air Force. So sure they could push across the DMZ and work there way through South Korea (where I spent a year) but by the time they reached Camp Casey our fighters from Osan and Kunsan would have a handle on it.
That's if the 40,000 or so estimated commandos raid Osan and other bases and kill the pilots. If you've been there a year you should know that's a real threat that they are worried about, not to mention the vast arroy of sleeper cells they have living there ready act. It will be fucking mess and thousand sof US soldiers will die.
FAR FUCKING worse than those arab morons who can't shoot straight
-
Sounds like they turned 18, enlisted, and shout Hoo-Rah at anything their neocon CO shouts at them.
"Uh gee, sarge. how come we don't invade korea? they just set off a bomb, I heard on de CNN."
"Ah mighty, settle youy self down. Them Koreans can't shoot a lick and their bombs can't go 20 foot. All that tv noise is just crazy talk, like them 9/11 nutjobs. you don't give them another thought. Iran might have a bomb in another ten years, they're the ones we're worried about. Now finish cleaning my taint and get to my cornhole already!"
-
Careful, OzmO,
militarymuscle69 is on the "inside". He can tell the diff between real nukes that aren't a threat, and potential nukes that are. He's Miss Cleo in camo.
laugh if you want but north korea is a sham of a country. At the DMZ the South and the US built a peace house. So the north built a peace house of their own on the other side and made it like 5 feet taller. The catch? it looks bigger from the front but in reality it is only like 15 feet thick. It is basically a brick wall with windows. The soldiers they have working at the DMZ will come to the window and try to look all bad ass but truth be told they are the tallest of the tallest of the north korean army (and even at that they are like 5'8") Point I am trying to make is NK is only a front. They really have nothing to threaten us with. There Nukes wouldn't find their way to America. We have a tighter hold on NK than we do our own borders. We have been there 50+ years and noone moves in NK without a U2 spotting it. We don't have that same hold on Iran
-
and if that jack ass has nukes the only way we will be able to anything is nuke them.
YEah, we might as well not worry about htem but instead worry about Iran who doesn;t have nukes yet? OMG
-
That's if the 40,000 or so estimated commandos raid Osan and other bases and kill the pilots. If you've been there a year you should know that's a real threat that they are worried about, not to mention the vast arroy of sleeper cells they have living there ready act. It will be fucking mess and thousand sof US soldiers will die.
FAR FUCKING worse than those arab morons who can't shoot straight
When was the last time you were there oh wise one? I was safer in SK than I am walking through the bronx
-
laugh if you want but north korea is a sham of a country. At the DMZ the South and the US built a peace house. So the north built a peace house of their own on the other side and made it like 5 feet taller. The catch? it looks bigger from the front but in reality it is only like 15 feet thick. It is basically a brick wall with windows. The soldiers they have working at the DMZ will come to the window and try to look all bad ass but truth be told they are the tallest of the tallest of the north korean army (and even at that they are like 5'8") Point I am trying to make is NK is only a front. They really have nothing to threaten us with. There Nukes wouldn't find their way to America. We have a tighter hold on NK than we do our own borders. We have been there 50+ years and noone moves in NK without a U2 spotting it. We don't have that same hold on Iran
Were you a grunt in south Korea MM72? Becuase you sound like one. Read up on the NK millitary and what would happen if they struck south korea, you'll find what you know from your DMZ experience is very misguided.
-
laugh if you want but north korea is a sham of a country. At the DMZ the South and the US built a peace house. So the north built a peace house of their own on the other side and made it like 5 feet taller. The catch? it looks bigger from the front but in reality it is only like 15 feet thick. It is basically a brick wall with windows. The soldiers they have working at the DMZ will come to the window and try to look all bad ass but truth be told they are the tallest of the tallest of the north korean army (and even at that they are like 5'8") Point I am trying to make is NK is only a front. They really have nothing to threaten us with. There Nukes wouldn't find their way to America. We have a tighter hold on NK than we do our own borders. We have been there 50+ years and noone moves in NK without a U2 spotting it. We don't have that same hold on Iran
Well, if you can judge the fighting ability of one million starving, desperate and dug-in koreans fighting in their own turf BY ONE LITTLE SHACK, I applaud you.
Me? I look at the fact they have a defensive position requiring a 10-to-1 invader ratio in order to ensure victory. So unless you have ten million Americans to walk into N Korea, or Clausewitz is wrong...
-
MM72,
no disrespect, but you are ignorant regarding NK. You think arabs are more of a threat? OMG. At least do some research beforeyou talk out your ass. THose NK soldiers and there millitary is 20 times better than any arabs terrorist.
Stop being such a easily manipulated sheep and open your eyes.
no disrespect taken, we obviously have different views.
and yes, i think arabs, radical muslims and islamic nuts are more of a threat because we have been attacked by them. have you forgotten? i think you have. unless you don't even live in U.S.A. which, if you didn't, would make me ignorant for debating someone about this countries security.
you honestly think NK has a strong military. oh my god who's the ignorant sheep now? and you say i don't do research. my god your stupid.
those people are forced to be in military there. they have about as much will to fight as these passifists liberals in this country. besides, we have more fire power on one carrier than they have in the whole country, they would surrender in 2 days, max.
with the news today, can you not see that all KIM wants is aid and attention?
open your eyes. get your info from other places than comedy central. and 240
-
When was the last time you were there oh wise one? I was safer in SK than I am walking through the bronx
My father is a full colonel who has traveled to SK many many times, did a extented tour there for a year......
Of you are safer there, SK isn't war, the bronx is...lol
ANY MORE QUESTIONS?
-
no disrespect taken, we obviously have different views.
and yes, i think arabs, radical muslims and islamic nuts are more of a threat because we have been attacked by them. have you forgotten? i think you have. unless you don't even live in U.S.A. which, if you didn't, would make me ignorant for debating someone about this countries security.
you honestly think NK has a strong military. oh my god who's the ignorant sheep now? and you say i don't do research. my god your stupid.
those people are forced to be in military there. they have about as much will to fight as these passifists liberals in this country. besides, we have more fire power on one carrier than they have in the whole country, they would surrender in 2 days, max.
with the news today, can you not see that all KIM wants is aid and attention?
open your eyes. get your info from other places than comedy central. and 240
My point is that a war with NK would result in far more casualties than what happen in Iraq. by about 10 times. Becuase there NK is no push over and terrain in Korea isn't a flat dessert that gives us a major advantage with our technology.
Don;t get me woring we would win. But it would cost us.
-
and if that jack ass has nukes the only way we will be able to anything is nuke them.
this comment coming from someone who doesn't want to face the ones who are actually attacking us and currently killing our soliders.
Redd Foxx said it best...."you big dummy."
-
Well, if you can judge the fighting ability of one million starving, desperate and dug-in koreans fighting in their own turf BY ONE LITTLE SHACK, I applaud you.
Me? I look at the fact they have a defensive position requiring a 10-to-1 invader ratio in order to ensure victory. So unless you have ten million Americans to walk into N Korea, or Clausewitz is wrong...
I seem to remember all the talk about Iraq's army back in 1991. What you forget (and easy for a non-proud american to do) is that we don't need to fight mano a mano. We are the best, numbers have no effect on our military because of the sheer power we posses. Remember the Iraqui's surrendering at the meer sight of a B-52? I do, it would take all of a few nights of continous bombing to halt the NK attack. And the other asinine argument of them killing all the pilots at Osan/Kunsan. Maybe they dont' realize that we have several PACAF bases (japan x3, Hawaii, Guam) where the jets can launch from and arrive in mere hours.
-
you honestly think NK has a strong military. oh my god who's the ignorant sheep now?
Uhhh, the US State Department?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea#Military
According to the US State Department,[15] North Korea has the fourth-largest military in the world, with the largest percentage of citizens enlisted (49.03 active troops per thousand citizens). The North has an estimated 1.08 million armed personnel, compared with about 686,000 South Korean troops (and 3.5 million paramilitary forces). Annual military spending is about $5 billion USD.[16] There is a fairly efficient, albeit technologically obsolete, weapons and munitions industry[citation needed]. North Korea has perhaps the world's second-largest special operations force (roughly 110,000), designed for insertion and sabotage behind enemy lines in wartime
PS... I am embarassed for you.
-
I seem to remember all the talk about Iraq's army back in 1991. What you forget (and easy for a non-proud american to do) is that we don't need to fight mano a mano. We are the best, numbers have no effect on our military because of the sheer power we posses. Remember the Iraqui's surrendering at the meer sight of a B-52? I do, it would take all of a few nights of continous bombing to halt the NK attack. And the other asinine argument of them killing all the pilots at Osan/Kunsan. Maybe they dont' realize that we have several PACAF bases (japan x3, Hawaii, Guam) where the jets can launch from and arrive in mere hours.
Yeah, we're the best. Which is why 5,000 jihadists in Baghdad and 2,000 in sadr city are crippling our 130,000 man force.
continuous bombing? Shit, we've bombed anything we've wanted for 4 years and they're gettings stronger.
-
My father is a full colonel who has traveled to SK many many times, did a extented tour there for a year......
Of you are safer there, SK isn't war, the bronx is...lol
ANY MORE QUESTIONS?
Good for Daddy, WHEN WERE YOU THERE??
-
Yeah, we're the best. Which is why 5,000 jihadists in Baghdad and 2,000 in sadr city are crippling our 130,000 man force.
continuous bombing? Shit, we've bombed anything we've wanted for 4 years and they're gettings stronger.
Crippling? what the hell are you talking about? Remove the PC restirctions and we won't have any problems. You libs place so many restrictions on the military
-
Crippling? what the hell are you talking about? Remove the PC restirctions and we won't have any problems. You libs place so many restrictions on the military
Oh, so you killed 150k to 600k while playing nice? HAHAHA good thing you weren't trigger happy!
Also that bullshit line is getting old. if you can't carpet bomb cities, you can't win.
Sounds like you're pissy that the generals have you in a holding pattern - stall don't win - and you have yet to accept it.
-
Good for Daddy, WHEN WERE YOU THERE??
Yeah, and my DAD and i never talk, and his opinion about NK based actual experience and information doesn't count?
Because all you can do is ask when i was there?
Common dude. You can do better than that.
-
Yeah, and my DAD and i never talk, and his opinion about NK based actual experience and information doesn't count?
Because all you can do is ask when i was there?
Common dude. You can do better than that.
No I'm glad your dad was there, my dad was too. But what makes his "NK based actual experience" any more relevabt than mine? I'm betting he didn't step foot into NK, neither did I. But I bet he doesn't actually think NK is that formidable
-
No I'm glad your dad was there, my dad was too. But what makes his "NK based actual experience" any more relevabt than mine? I'm betting he didn't step foot into NK, neither did I. But I bet he doesn't actually think NK is that formidable
I had your opinion for a while. Mainly becuase of what we did to Saddam in 1991 and in 2003. But he explained to me why a war with NK would result in thousands of deaths and would be far more difficult to fight due tot he terrain, and the NK soldiers and the nature of the war that would be fought there.
Point is: They CAN shoot back. The arabs can't.
-
I had your opinion for a while. Mainly becuase of what we did to Saddam in 1991 and in 2003. But he explained to me why a war with NK would result in thousands of deaths and would be far more difficult to fight due tot he terrain, and the NK soldiers and the nature of the war that would be fought there.
Point is: They CAN shoot back. The arabs can't.
I never said it would be a cake walk but the "will" of the people is often overestimated. They could get a good push but like I said in the face of constant bombing it wouldn't take long to put a halt to the charge
-
I never said it would be a cake walk but the "will" of the people is often overestimated. They could get a good push but like I said in the face of constant bombing it wouldn't take long to put a halt to the charge
We would gain air supremecy quickly, but in the mean time thousands would die. That's a much different situtation then iraq. For us to dislodge them from NK would be nightmare in comparison to iraq. That's what i'm talking about here. No f-ing way we would lose on a few hundred, we would lose thousands in the process. Those guys would be dug in well in those mountains, which contain a maze of fortified bunkers, bases, tunnells, etc... Our technology would only get us so far, at that point it will be man vs man, and yes we would win eventually.
-
We would gain air supremecy quickly, but in the mean time thousands would die. That's a much different situtation then iraq. For us to dislodge them from NK would be nightmare in comparison to iraq. That's what i'm talking about here. No f-ing way we would lose on a few hundred, we would lose thousands in the process. Those guys would be dug in well in those mountains, which contain a maze of fortified bunkers, bases, tunnells, etc... Our technology would only get us so far, at that point it will be man vs man, and yes we would win eventually.
The only problem with your scenario is you have us fighting in NK, Unless they come to SK this wouldn't be an issue. There are mountains in SK but not the tunnels and what not
-
The only problem with your scenario is you have us fighting in NK, Unless they come to SK this wouldn't be an issue. There are mountains in SK but not the tunnels and what not
Ok, here's what i'm suggesting: NK becomes a threat, frankly i believe NK is far more a threat than Saddam ever was, but in their failing economy, NK startsd selling their chem weapons and god forbid, their nukes....
Now what?
Same reasoning some say we went to war with iraq...right?
-
The only problem with your scenario is you have us fighting in NK, Unless they come to SK this wouldn't be an issue. There are mountains in SK but not the tunnels and what not
oh, we're going to win without putting boots on the ground?
You should talk to the guys who plan iraq and afghanistan. they didn't get that memo ;)
-
Ok, here's what i'm suggesting: NK becomes a threat, frankly i believe NK is far more a threat than Saddam ever was, but in their failing economy, NK startsd selling their chem weapons and god forbid, their nukes....
YES!! Saddam was rich and had a lot to lose. iran is rich and has a lot to lose.
The scariest SOB in the room is the guy with nothing to lose. People can't see that. The poor nation with the option of selling nukes or see a milion starve is going to be a lot more motivated than the nation who could move their bank account from 500 bil to 501 bil, you know?
-
North Korea isn't considered a threat, as they have no resources we want. In on the other hand Iran does.
mightymouse, what give us the right to have aircraft carriers off their coast? what gives us the right to invade their neighbor on lies? Of course they're gonna beef up their army, but what they've done is nothing compared to what we've done to them. Of course you're going to ignore US actions of meddling in their affairs, as it would render your arguements invalid.
Why such passion for starting a war with iran and not saudia arabia or pakistan? Countries that trained terrorists and financed the murder of americans. I'll answer for you, just because Bush told you so. ::)
-
Oh, so you killed 150k to 600k while playing nice? HAHAHA good thing you weren't trigger happy!
Also that bullshit line is getting old. if you can't carpet bomb cities, you can't win.
Sounds like you're pissy that the generals have you in a holding pattern - stall don't win - and you have yet to accept it.
240, you are not an american with these comments.
you defend these terrorists that kill innocent people time after time and talk s**t about our american military and govt.
you are complete disgrace, sir.
people like you are the s**t on the bottom of america's shoe. your views are not that of true americans, you do not stand for anything that our soliders have died for.
isn't it time you made another 9/11 CT thread anyway, that seems to be all your good for.
-
240, you are not an american with these comments.
you defend these terrorists that kill innocent people time after time and talk s**t about our american military and govt.
you are complete disgrace, sir.
people like you are the s**t on the bottom of america's shoe. your views are not that of true americans, you do not stand for anything that our soliders have died for.
isn't it time you made another 9/11 CT thread anyway, that seems to be all your good for.
metldown! Who the hell are you judge who's American or not? Just because he speaks out against the government and its policies doesn't mean he's a defender of terrorists or that he hates the the armed forces.
Actually, the view of true american = right to free speech. 240 is honoring the fallen by speaking out and voicing his opinion, whether you like it or not.
-
oh, we're going to win without putting boots on the ground?
You should talk to the guys who plan iraq and afghanistan. they didn't get that memo ;)
240 you know me, I would support removing Kim Jong Il. If you have ever been to the area and looked across the river to see how desolate the NKs have it you can't help but feel bad for those people. The SKs I worked with love americans and are so thankful 50 yrs later that we released them from the hold of the NKs. Out of compassion I would love to see a unified Korea. I would support boots on the ground but don't think it would be as bad as some think. I think we could EASILY win the pshycological war with the NK army. Yes there would be the Kim Jong Il loyalists but I bet not as many as thought. Right now everyone seems to be a loyalist because what do you think would happen if they spoke against him. Once they saw we would show compassion for the ones that surrender but bomb the hell out of the others it wouldn't take long.
-
metldown! Who the hell are you judge who's American or not? Just because he speaks out against the government and its policies doesn't mean he's a defender of terrorists or that he hates the the armed forces.
Actually, the view of true american = right to free speech. 240 is honoring the fallen by speaking out and voicing his opinion, whether you like it or not.
I'll make it simple. America is the biggest kid in the playground, and until someone bigger comes along the world will have to deal with us. That is why we have ships off of their coast, because who is going to stop us? Don't pull that free speach bullshit. If you don't like America leave, I heard the canadians are looking for more.
-
240, you are not an american with these comments.
You're an American soldier speaking to a civilian in this manner - yeah, I think anyone looking in realizes which one of us is embarassing the country.
you defend these terrorists that kill innocent people time after time and talk s**t about our american military and govt.
you are complete disgrace, sir.
people like you are the s**t on the bottom of america's shoe. your views are not that of true americans, you do not stand for anything that our soliders have died for.
I don't defend terrorists - I would gun them down as fast as you would.
I do, however, believe you are a damn pawn in a global game of "spend lots of money on a dragged out war while we grab their resources.
And you know what? that meltdown you just demonstrated shows you're starting to believe it too. Now, go do your job.
-
If I was "anti"-troop, I wouldn't continually be saying we should move out of baghdad and let the iraqis do the dirty work while we protect the bases/oil.
ANti-troop people, IMO, are the ones who want them to risk their lives when they don't have to. Heck, a 15% increase of men each year for 5 years? That's a holding pattern with adjustment for inflationary rise in insurgents, anyone can see that. Cept you.
-
240, you are not an american with these comments.
you defend these terrorists that kill innocent people time after time and talk s**t about our american military and govt.
you are complete disgrace, sir.
people like you are the s**t on the bottom of america's shoe. your views are not that of true americans, you do not stand for anything that our soliders have died for.
isn't it time you made another 9/11 CT thread anyway, that seems to be all your good for.
I gotta agree with you man. Sad. :-\
-
240, you are not an american with these comments.
you defend these terrorists that kill innocent people time after time and talk s**t about our american military and govt.
you are complete disgrace, sir.
people like you are the s**t on the bottom of america's shoe. your views are not that of true americans, you do not stand for anything that our soliders have died for.
isn't it time you made another 9/11 CT thread anyway, that seems to be all your good for.
EXACTLY when does he defend terrorists? Can you provide an example?
-
A NK nuke or ICBM doesn't have to reach America in order to cripple America.
All NK has to do is take out Japan. What do you think would happen to the US economy if Japan fell?
-
A NK nuke or ICBM doesn't have to reach America in order to cripple America.
All NK has to do is take out Japan. What do you think would happen to the US economy if Japan fell?
Umm, PS3 games would be hard to find?
-
I'll make it simple. America is the biggest kid in the playground, and until someone bigger comes along the world will have to deal with us. That is why we have ships off of their coast, because who is going to stop us? Don't pull that free speach bullshit. If you don't like America leave, I heard the canadians are looking for more.
You can open your mouth, but like I said you don't determine who's american and who's not. If you don't want to listen to 240, then you have the right to leave as well.
And you are openly support imperialism and injustice, and if anyone dare question you then they hate the military and are unamerican.. And do you think just because we're a super power we have the right to invade their country for resources?
Don't pull that free speach bullshit.
You really showed how much of an idiot you are with that comment.
-
You can open your mouth, but like I said you don't determine who's american and who's not. If you don't want to listen to 240, then you have the right to leave as well.
And you are openly support imperialism and injustice, and if anyone dare question you then they hate the military and are unamerican.. And do you think just because we're a super power we have the right to invade their country for resources?
Don't pull that free speach bullshit.
You really showed how much of an idiot you are with that comment.
You dont' need to stick up for 240, he knows we agree on smoe things. The free speach comment refers to crack heads like you that stretch and abuse it. You are the same type that shouts "seperation of church and state!" which is never mentioned in the constitution
-
You dont' need to stick up for 240, he knows we agree on smoe things. The free speach comment refers to crack heads like you that stretch and abuse it. You are the same type that shouts "seperation of church and state!" which is never mentioned in the constitution
How do you stretch and abuse free speach then yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?
-
You dont' need to stick up for 240, he knows we agree on smoe things. The free speach comment refers to crack heads like you that stretch and abuse it. You are the same type that shouts "seperation of church and state!" which is never mentioned in the constitution
Whether chruch and state are or are not mentioned in the consititution of the Declaratioin of Independence, that concept is important in the nature of our govenrment. It's important to keep the two seperated. (certinaly of course not the extend that we need to change the pledge of alligence or "in god we trust" etc.... that's just plain stupid)
-
LOL! "Stretch and abuse free speech".
He sure can't quantify that one, other than to say "talk bad about bush!"
-
LOL! "Stretch and abuse free speech".
He sure can't quantify that one, other than to say "talk bad about bush!"
You silly silly man, you can't think of times when people abuse free speach beyond the context of what the founding fathers had in mind
-
You silly silly man, you can't think of times when people abuse free speach beyond the context of what the founding fathers had in mind
Of course there are in teh context of yelling fire in a crowded theater or causing a riot. Other then that can you please give a specific example?
-
You silly silly man, you can't think of times when people abuse free speach beyond the context of what the founding fathers had in mind
List them.
We're waiting.
Also "silly silly man"? No offense, but you're getting treated with kid gloves here and you know why.
-
I'm still waiting for just one example........... but do far
CRICKETS
-
I'm still waiting for just one example........... but do far
CRICKETS
He has no example. He doesn't believe in statistics, believes you can "stretch" the bill of rights but can't describe specifics. He gets the kid gloves.
-
I'm still waiting for just one example........... but do far
CRICKETS
your request for examples are beneath me and wasting my time. But there are plenty of times that people spew venom (daily on this board) without backing it with facts then say it is their right to do so
-
I'm still waiting for just one example........... but do far
CRICKETS
What are you asking for?
-
EXACTLY when does he defend terrorists? Can you provide an example?
you defend terrorists when you say things like:
-bush started this war
-bush has killed innocent iraqis
-bush lied
-9/11 was planned
-when you degrade our soldiers in anyway
all complete and down right BS.
when someone completely ignores that the actual terrorists are the one's killing innocent people and blames the president.
they are defending them.
i think it's because if some left-wing nut actually stands up and says, "hey, let's do something to stop the terrorists" they might be labeled as a bush supporter. how stupid is that? ::)
hate the man if you want, i don't care.
try laying your hatred aside for one moment, or channel it in the right direction so we can defeat these SOB's and stop pissing and moaning like little school girls.
despite what anyone thinks, i believe this country is at war for it's very survival.
que the liberal insults.....now.
-
No one has degraded soliders and Bush DID LIE. There you have it, I guess I'm a raving terror supporter now. ::)
-
No one has degraded soliders and Bush DID LIE. There you have it, I guess I'm a raving terror supporter now. ::)
right on que....thanks
-
You're an American soldier speaking to a civilian in this manner - yeah, I think anyone looking in realizes which one of us is embarassing the country.
???
no where have i ever said i was an american soldier.
-
"you defend terrorists when you say things like:
-bush has killed innocent iraqis"
mightymouse, are you serious?
Bush ordered an invasion in which the UN says 150,000 innocent iraqis have died. What is wrong in this sentence?
-
you defend terrorists when you say things like:
-9/11 was planned
Man, you are stupid.
Even if you believe the official story, it says that 911 WAS PLANNED by 19 arabs.
-
"you defend terrorists when you say things like:
-bush has killed innocent iraqis"
mightymouse, are you serious?
Bush ordered an invasion in which the UN says 150,000 innocent iraqis have died. What is wrong in this sentence?
First thing wrong with that sentence is that the UN is a sham, and secondly those Iraqis would have died either way in that country
-
First thing wrong with that sentence is that the UN is a sham, and secondly those Iraqis would have died either way in that country
HAHAHAHA so now you're saying the UN numbers are wrong?
Oh, and it's okay to kill tens of thousands because "they would have died anyway"?
Your arguments are kinda irrational and pathetic at this point.
Can you tell us 1) How many people really have died and 2) How many would have died without a US invasion - more or less?
-
HAHAHAHA so now you're saying the UN numbers are wrong?
Oh, and it's okay to kill tens of thousands because "they would have died anyway"?
Your arguments are kinda irrational and pathetic at this point.
Can you tell us 1) How many people really have died and 2) How many would have died without a US invasion - more or less?
I didn't say the #s were wrong. But WE haven't killed 150,000 "innocent" iraqis.
and from the death that was happening under Saddam, probably more would have died in the last few years
-
Thanks for responding. I appreiciate that. I'm also waiting fro someone to tell me about "the freedom fo speech thing" but i guess if you can't show examples of how 240 abused it then i'll assume it was just a irresponsible comment.
Now to your response.
you defend terrorists when you say things like:
-bush started this war
BUSh did start the war in Iran. WE invaded that country. Are you confusing this with Al Queda starting the war on terrorism? That would stupid mistake to confuse the two comments right? I'm sure you are not doing that are you?
So can we agree: AMERICA INVADED IRAQ? thus starting the Iraq war?
So how is telling the truth about how the Iraq war started defending terrorist?
Are you afraid fo the TRUTH? (insert Jack Nicholson clip here: You can't handle the truth!)
you defend terrorists when you say things like:
-bush has killed innocent iraqis
Has BUSH killed innocnent Iraqis? Not him personally. But the war HE STARTED resulted in the death of ionnocnet Iraqis and the result instability of iraq becuase BUSH FUCKED UP has cuased the death fo Iraqis.
So in a way saying BUSH killed Iraqi is litterally not true.....but you can say his decisions about how to conduct the war has caused the death of innocent iraqis
So how is this defending terrorist by talking about FACTS? (insert Jack Nicholson clip here: You can't handle the facts!)
you defend terrorists when you say things like:
-bush lied
Should no one questioin BUSH about hte WMD's? Geez MM, we haven;t found crap in there! And that was a BIG reason we went! So calling a liar, (whether he isor not) is a predictable response from his opposition........
But how is that defending terrorist?
Did we find significant WMD? NO that the truth! (insert Jack Nicholson clip here: You can't handle the truth!)
you defend terrorists when you say things like:
-9/11 was planned
Saying it was planned defends teroorists? Whether the US govenrment was in it or not Teorrirst still took part in it!
So how is that denfing teorrists? Geez dude...........
you need to open your eyes...(insert Jack Nicholson clip here: You can't handle what you see!)
you defend terrorists when you say things like:
-when you degrade our soldiers in anyway
all complete and down right BS.
que the liberal insults.....now.
I haven;t seen 240 degrade the troops and maybe RIB could be accused of that but even then so what?
That's what america is about: FREE SPEECH, not free speech as long i agree with it.
So who's degrading the troops then and how does that defend what the terrorist did or are doing?
Geez dude: (insert Jack Nicholson clip here: You can't handle someone's speech!)
you defend terrorists when you say things like:
when someone completely ignores that the actual terrorists are the one's killing innocent people and blames the president.
they are defending them.
i think it's because if some left-wing nut actually stands up and says, "hey, let's do something to stop the terrorists" they might be labeled as a bush supporter. how stupid is that? ::)
.
Actually the question is about "how" to deal with the terrorist NOT whether to deal with them or not. And frankly, BUSH FUCKED UP in iraq and cuased us more problems in the future.
And how stupid is that you ask??????????????????????????????????????????????
Just as stupid of as Critisizing BUSH and getting accused of defending terorists!
Right back at you MM.
you defend terrorists when you say things like:
hate the man if you want, i don't care.
try laying your hatred aside for one moment, or channel it in the right direction so we can defeat these SOB's and stop pissing and moaning like little school girls.
despite what anyone thinks, i believe this country is at war for it's very survival.
que the liberal insults.....now.
We could defeat the SOB's if IDIOTS like BUSH didn't run the country.
Period.
-
great analysis, OzmO. You have disassembled him and exposed him as not really basing his opinions in fact.
-
Thanks for responding. I appreiciate that. I'm also waiting fro someone to tell me about "the freedom fo speech thing" but i guess if you can't show examples of how 240 abused it then i'll assume it was just a irresponsible comment.
Now to your response.
BUSh did start the war in Iran. WE invaded that country. Are you confusing this with Al Queda starting the war on terrorism? That would stupid mistake to confuse the two comments right? I'm sure you are not doing that are you?
So can we agree: AMERICA INVADED IRAQ? thus starting the Iraq war?
So how is telling the truth about how the Iraq war started defending terrorist?
Are you afraid fo the TRUTH? (insert Jack Nicholson clip here: You can't handle the truth!)
Has BUSH killed innocnent Iraqis? Not him personally. But the war HE STARTED resulted in the death of ionnocnet Iraqis and the result instability of iraq becuase BUSH FUCKED UP has cuased the death fo Iraqis.
So in a way saying BUSH killed Iraqi is litterally not true.....but you can say his decisions about how to conduct the war has caused the death of innocent iraqis
So how is this defending terrorist by talking about FACTS? (insert Jack Nicholson clip here: You can't handle the facts!)
Should no one questioin BUSH about hte WMD's? Geez MM, we haven;t found crap in there! And that was a BIG reason we went! So calling a liar, (whether he isor not) is a predictable response from his opposition........
But how is that defending terrorist?
Did we find significant WMD? NO that the truth! (insert Jack Nicholson clip here: You can't handle the truth!)
Saying it was planned defends teroorists? Whether the US govenrment was in it or not Teorrirst still took part in it!
So how is that denfing teorrists? Geez dude...........
you need to open your eyes...(insert Jack Nicholson clip here: You can't handle what you see!)
I haven;t seen 240 degrade the troops and maybe RIB could be accused of that but even then so what?
That's what america is about: FREE SPEECH, not free speech as long i agree with it.
So who's degrading the troops then and how does that defend what the terrorist did or are doing?
Geez dude: (insert Jack Nicholson clip here: You can't handle someone's speech!)
Actually the question is about "how" to deal with the terrorist NOT whether to deal with them or not. And frankly, BUSH FUCKED UP in iraq and cuased us more problems in the future.
And how stupid is that you ask??????????????????????????????????????????????
Just as stupid of as Critisizing BUSH and getting accused of defending terorists!
Right back at you MM.
We could defeat the SOB's if IDIOTS like BUSH didn't run the country.
Period.
Show me where I said 240 abused it, won't find it so I guess that is an irresponsible comment on your part. Par for the course for you
-
You dont' need to stick up for 240, he knows we agree on smoe things. The free speach comment refers to crack heads like you that stretch and abuse it. You are the same type that shouts "seperation of church and state!" which is never mentioned in the constitution
Show me where I said 240 abused it, won't find it so I guess that is an irresponsible comment on your part. Par for the course for you
MM, you are right i stand corrected.
But is that all you got to say? All you do is focus on that and ignore the rest?
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Talk about grasping.
Status quo for most brainwashed unenlightened folk
-
Talk about grasping.
Status quo for most brainwashed unenlightened folk
Yep. He's doing what he was trained to do. Parrot the party line, make up accusations he can't back up, and well, you know what his job is...
-
I wonder if i post: "crickets" will get the old:
Get a life ............ I don;t have time to explain stuff to idiots..... I don't talk to traitors? lol
-
I wonder if i post: "crickets" will get the old:
Get a life ............ I don;t have time to explain stuff to idiots..... I don't talk to traitors? lol
You will notice I usually answer when 240 asks something, despites his views on CTs his other points aren't far from mne. It didn't take me long however to realize what a douche you are.
-
military muscle, what's funny, is that on many topics, most people here agree with me. I'm all about common sense without abuses.
Everything except 9/11.
Give it time though. Already most people here admit they think WTC7 was a controlled demo, but won't admit anything beyond that (despite the obvious implications).
another year or two yall will get caught up.
-
Thanks for responding. I appreiciate that. I'm also waiting fro someone to tell me about "the freedom fo speech thing" but i guess if you can't show examples of how 240 abused it then i'll assume it was just a irresponsible comment.
busy life bro, i post when i can.
never said 240 abused free speech.
BUSh did start the war in Iran. WE invaded that country. Are you confusing this with Al Queda starting the war on terrorism? That would stupid mistake to confuse the two comments right? I'm sure you are not doing that are you?
So can we agree: AMERICA INVADED IRAQ? thus starting the Iraq war?
So how is telling the truth about how the Iraq war started defending terrorist?
you say iran but i'm assuming you mean iraq.
yes we invaded iraq. you spew crap like "we invaded a sovereign nation" but choose to forget that their leader was not sovereign. he was a brutal dictator who killed his own people with massive weapons. saddam WAS a threat to the sovereignty of this nation. maybe not directly. i posted this the other day:
it's not that saddam was going to attack us personally, it was the threat of him giving and selling his weapons to al-quada and other terroists. that is the very essence of saddam being a threat to the US.
after 9/11, if you don't think that's possible then you learned nothing from that day.
of course he wasn't going to send jet fighters and ground troops over here, he's a tyrant, not stupid.
this may be where our differences start. i believe saddam would have done anything to cause bloodshed in this country. you don't. you think he was just living his life, minding his own buisness and not bothering anyone. after 9/11 the US cannot afford to be that naive. sit around, wait for something to happen and THEN get world approval to retaliate. is that how you think the US should operate? put your bush hatred aside and realize what my previous statement implies.
Has BUSH killed innocnent Iraqis? Not him personally. But the war HE STARTED resulted in the death of ionnocnet Iraqis and the result instability of iraq becuase BUSH FUCKED UP has cuased the death fo Iraqis.
So in a way saying BUSH killed Iraqi is litterally not true.....but you can say his decisions about how to conduct the war has caused the death of innocent iraqis
Should no one questioin BUSH about hte WMD's? Geez MM, we haven;t found crap in there! And that was a BIG reason we went! So calling a liar, (whether he isor not) is a predictable response from his opposition........
before 9/11 happened, prove to me BUSH STARTED this war.
dude we were at war before 9/11 or iraq EVER happened. see below. and open you eyes!!!!
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=126702.0
what makes you think a war with fanatical terrorists is supposed to be error free? why must you say bush f**ked up? all that statement is your ignorance mixed with bias hatred. god forbid you hold any position of authority in life and have to make tough decisions! let alone make decisions about a war.
i never said we should question why there wasn't WMD's. i want to know where they are too. he had them, he used them. and enough of this crap about we sold them to him. we did but not to kill his own people. we sold them to saddam during the iran/iraq war. iran was being run by radical islamics and we helped saddam. i covered this on another thread.
bush DID NOT LIE ABOUT WMD'S. when clinton was in office, he thought he had them. before we invaded a lot of other countries intell said saddam had them. i posted this question to 240, but of course he never replied:
explain the other countries intell. russia, australia, japan, pakistan, etc. did Bush have them in his hip pocket too??
I haven;t seen 240 degrade the troops and maybe RIB could be accused of that but even then so what?
That's what america is about: FREE SPEECH, not free speech as long i agree with it.
So who's degrading the troops then and how does that defend what the terrorist did or are doing?
see below
Yeah, we're the best. Which is why 5,000 jihadists in Baghdad and 2,000 in sadr city are crippling our 130,000 man force.
continuous bombing? Shit, we've bombed anything we've wanted for 4 years and they're gettings stronger.
Oh, so you killed 150k to 600k while playing nice? HAHAHA good thing you weren't trigger happy!
Also that bullshit line is getting old. if you can't carpet bomb cities, you can't win.
Sounds like you're pissy that the generals have you in a holding pattern - stall don't win - and you have yet to accept it.
you talk about his free speech??
well i have free speech too, to say he's an a** hole.
you don't make smart-a** comments like that to someone who is risking his life everyday so ingrates like 240 can sleep at night.
and as long as i have a breath in my body i will NOT let someone get away with that. it is my duty as an american to hold people accountable for degrading comments about our soldiers, past and present.
We could defeat the SOB's if IDIOTS like BUSH didn't run the country.
Period.
explain how. h
-
you talk about his free speech??
well i have free speech too, to say he's an a** hole.
you don't make smart-a** comments like that to someone who is risking his life everyday so ingrates like 240 can sleep at night.
and as long as i have a breath in my body i will NOT let someone get away with that. it is my duty as an american to hold people accountable for degrading comments about our soldiers, past and present.
I agree mightymouse. Lots of doubletalk around here. Claim to support our troops in one breath, spit on them the next breath.
Man just keep speaking the truth. (insert Jack Nicholson clip here: You can't handle the truth!) :D
-
I agree mightymouse. Lots of doubletalk around here. Claim to support our troops in one breath, spit on them the next breath.
Man just keep speaking the truth. (insert Jack Nicholson clip here: You can't handle the truth!) :D
Am i double talking? if so, please explain or show.
-
nobody said anything about 'spitting on them', beach bum.
i'm the one trying to get them out of the cities. Just guard the borders, bases and pipeline. I want them to stay alive. YOU want them to reamin in the cities, where they are being killed.
Why do you support putting the troops in harm's way, beach Bum? I thought you supported them?
-
you say iran but i'm assuming you mean iraq.
yes we invaded iraq. you spew crap like "we invaded a sovereign nation" but choose to forget that their leader was not sovereign. he was a brutal dictator who killed his own people with massive weapons. saddam WAS a threat to the sovereignty of this nation. maybe not directly. i posted this the other day:
I think you need see the "non-brain washed" Dictionary.
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
sov·er·eign /ˈsɒvrɪn, ˈsɒvərɪn, ˈsʌv-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sov-rin, sov-er-in, suhv-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.
2. a person who has sovereign power or authority.
3. a group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority.
4. a gold coin of the United Kingdom, equal to one pound sterling: went out of circulation after 1914.
–adjective
5. belonging to or characteristic of a sovereign or sovereignty; royal.
6. having supreme rank, power, or authority.
7. supreme; preeminent; indisputable: a sovereign right.
8. greatest in degree; utmost or extreme.
9. being above all others in character, importance, excellence, etc.
10. efficacious; potent: a sovereign remedy.
Yes we invaded a sovereign nation. Stop trying to spin it Mr. Gobbles.
this may be where our differences start. i believe saddam would have done anything to cause bloodshed in this country. you don't. you think he was just living his life, minding his own buisness and not bothering anyone.
You believe saddam would have done anything because you lack the intelligence to see outside the "Fear Based Propaganda Machine." Saddam wated to stay in power, he's no fool, he knew anything he did to harm the USA woud have resulted in his removal. Only an idiot would think Saddam was aiming to "harm" the US.
after 9/11 the US cannot afford to be that naive. sit around, wait for something to happen and THEN get world approval to retaliate. is that how you think the US should operate? put your bush hatred aside and realize what my previous statement implies.
so shoot first, ask questions later huh? That's how innocent people die, And it can be said of waiting around for something to happen. Point is Iraq was a target for much more than the "supposed" threat. It was target for strategic reasons which made any excuse good enough to invade it. They were not a threat anymore than any other 2 bit dictator.
before 9/11 happened, prove to me BUSH STARTED this war.
dude we were at war before 9/11 or iraq EVER happened. see below. and open you eyes!!!!
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=126702.0
what makes you think a war with fanatical terrorists is supposed to be error free? why must you say bush f**ked up? all that statement is your ignorance mixed with bias hatred. god forbid you hold any position of authority in life and have to make tough decisions! let alone make decisions about a war.
Bush invaded Iraq unprovoked. Period. I never said BUSh started the war on Terrorist. But Iraq was not "terrorists" dip shit. It was a country. Now they are because of BUSH's FUCK UP.
Why must i say BUSH fucked up? BECAUSE HE DID:
1. INVADING IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE
2. INVADING IRAQ WITH TOO FEW TROOPS AND A LOUSY AFTER WAR PLAN.
any more stupid questions?
god forbid you hold any position of authority in life and have to make tough decisions! let alone make decisions about a war.
Actually i do, And have to make many tough decisions that affect lots of people.
But that's not the point. The point id IF i did chose to go to war i would have planned better and consulted guys like Powell. Did your savior do that? no. He fucked up. And he won't even cop to it.
Do i have the balls to make a tough decsion on goign to war.
I have no problem about Afghanistan, in fact I wouldn;t have been so stupid to let OBL escape at tora bora.
But i would have NEVER invaded Iraq and over extended our armed forces and stuck our selves in a potential quagmire like this IDIOT has.
And sorry but you're idiot if you don;t see that.
you talk about his free speech??
well i have free speech too, to say he's an a** hole.
you don't make smart-a** comments like that to someone who is risking his life everyday so ingrates like 240 can sleep at night.
and as long as i have a breath in my body i will NOT let someone get away with that. it is my duty as an american to hold people accountable for degrading comments about our soldiers, past and present.
He has a right just like you. But you'd like to limit that right wouldn't you?
explain how. h
Simple: Go in with enough troops (100K more) And declare Mashall Law that can actually be enforced. Consult your Cheif of Staff (Powell)
-
Am i double talking? if so, please explain or show.
Ozmo he was talking about 240 and I agreed with his comments about 240. You're pretty consistent (even though I don't always agree with you).
But I do think you've been too harsh with Mighty. He's cool. You should lighten up a bit.
-
Ozmo he was talking about 240 and I agreed with his comments about 240. You're pretty consistent (even though I don't always agree with you).
But I do think you've been too harsh with Mighty. He's cool. You should lighten up a bit.
Yes, perhaps you are right.
-
MM,
We are both Americans.
We both want what's best for this country.
We just differ in how to go about that.
I apologize for any personal attacks. I tend to go overboard sometimes.
OzmO
-
MM,
We are both Americans.
We both want what's best for this country.
We just differ in how to go about that.
I apologize for any personal attacks. I tend to go overboard sometimes.
OzmO
Take note kiddies. Very cool of you Ozmo. :)
-
Take note kiddies. Very cool of you Ozmo. :)
anytime we regress into name calling the debate is over... I'm just as guilty and i'd like to continue debating with MM on the topic.
-
MM,
We are both Americans.
We both want what's best for this country.
We just differ in how to go about that.
I apologize for any personal attacks. I tend to go overboard sometimes.
OzmO
thanks. i appreciate your apology, it's accepted.
if i stated any personal attack, then i apologize.
i'll be honest, as i read your previous reply to me, it did tick me off a little i but try not to take things too personal.
let me be clear, i am sick of this war too, probably more than you. i don't want the US to stay over there any longer than you do. it makes me sick to hear of more GI's that are killed.
there have been alot of mistakes made fighting this war, ALOT. both politically and militarily. but i can't throw stones at the ones who make those decisions because i have never been, nor will i ever be in their shoes.
there needs to be some drastic changes made in the fighting of this war so our soldiers can come home, and i don't think the govt focusing all their energy on hating and b**ching about the prez is going to get us (the country) anywhere.
-
Pull the men from the cities. You can bring 80% of them home. the rest can use technology over distance - where the US has an incredible advantage - to protect the border, bases, and oil pipeline.
Put 10k of the men in tents watching laptops, monitoring the area. 10k more to level ordinance on anyone who crosses our line of death. Another 10 or 20k on the oil *interests*.
Iran loses ALL influence instantly. We stop losing men instantly. iraqi army does their job (sink or swim!) instantly. insurgents will settle down once they see the iraqi police won't take prisoners like we do. Everyone wins.
-
Pull the men from the cities. You can bring 80% of them home. the rest can use technology over distance - where the US has an incredible advantage - to protect the border, bases, and oil pipeline.
Put 10k of the men in tents watching laptops, monitoring the area. 10k more to level ordinance on anyone who crosses our line of death. Another 10 or 20k on the oil *interests*.
Iran loses ALL influence instantly. We stop losing men instantly. iraqi army does their job (sink or swim!) instantly. insurgents will settle down once they see the iraqi police won't take prisoners like we do. Everyone wins.
ooooh... the line of death... sounds skeeery. :o
The challenge is a good majority of the iraqi police force has more loyalty to their militia (shia or sunni) than they do to the newly elected Iraqi government. If the US military personnel pulls out of the cities, ...it will be a blood bath for the inhabitants. If the Shiites look to be gaining ground, the Saudis vow to aggressively back the Sunnis, so the fighting won't stop with other countries in the region taking sides and backing whichever group they want.
-
ooooh... the line of death... sounds skeeery. :o
The challenge is a good majority of the iraqi police force has more loyalty to their militia (shia or sunni) than they do to the newly elected Iraqi government. If the US military personnel pulls out of the cities, ...it will be a blood bath for the inhabitants. If the Shiites look to be gaining ground, the Saudis vow to aggressively back the Sunnis, so the fighting won't stop with other countries in the region taking sides and backing whichever group they want.
It won't stop with us there either... Just goes to show, that Colin Powell guy knew what the fuck he was talking about.
-
I think you need see the "non-brain washed" Dictionary.
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
sov·er·eign /ˈsɒvrɪn, ˈsɒvərɪn, ˈsʌv-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sov-rin, sov-er-in, suhv-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.
2. a person who has sovereign power or authority.
3. a group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority.
4. a gold coin of the United Kingdom, equal to one pound sterling: went out of circulation after 1914.
–adjective
5. belonging to or characteristic of a sovereign or sovereignty; royal.
6. having supreme rank, power, or authority.
7. supreme; preeminent; indisputable: a sovereign right.
8. greatest in degree; utmost or extreme.
9. being above all others in character, importance, excellence, etc.
10. efficacious; potent: a sovereign remedy.
Yes we invaded a sovereign nation. Stop trying to spin it Mr. Gobbles.
You believe saddam would have done anything because you lack the intelligence to see outside the "Fear Based Propaganda Machine." Saddam wated to stay in power, he's no fool, he knew anything he did to harm the USA woud have resulted in his removal. Only an idiot would think Saddam was aiming to "harm" the US.
so shoot first, ask questions later huh? That's how innocent people die, And it can be said of waiting around for something to happen. Point is Iraq was a target for much more than the "supposed" threat. It was target for strategic reasons which made any excuse good enough to invade it. They were not a threat anymore than any other 2 bit dictator.
Bush invaded Iraq unprovoked. Period. I never said BUSh started the war on Terrorist. But Iraq was not "terrorists" dip shit. It was a country. Now they are because of BUSH's FUCK UP.
Why must i say BUSH fucked up? BECAUSE HE DID:
1. INVADING IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE
2. INVADING IRAQ WITH TOO FEW TROOPS AND A LOUSY AFTER WAR PLAN.
any more stupid questions?
Actually i do, And have to make many tough decisions that affect lots of people.
But that's not the point. The point id IF i did chose to go to war i would have planned better and consulted guys like Powell. Did your savior do that? no. He fucked up. And he won't even cop to it.
Do i have the balls to make a tough decsion on goign to war.
I have no problem about Afghanistan, in fact I wouldn;t have been so stupid to let OBL escape at tora bora.
But i would have NEVER invaded Iraq and over extended our armed forces and stuck our selves in a potential quagmire like this IDIOT has.
And sorry but you're idiot if you don;t see that.
He has a right just like you. But you'd like to limit that right wouldn't you?
Simple: Go in with enough troops (100K more) And declare Mashall Law that can actually be enforced. Consult your Cheif of Staff (Powell)
Powell was Secretary of State... he also resigned after the "W"s first term. He did not want to be associated with this insanity.
-
It won't stop with us there either... Just goes to show, that Colin Powell guy knew what the fuck he was talking about.
As did all the people around the world, both inside & outside the US who said NO to the Iraq invasion.
-
I think you need see the "non-brain washed" Dictionary.
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
sov·er·eign /ˈsɒvrɪn, ˈsɒvərɪn, ˈsʌv-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sov-rin, sov-er-in, suhv-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.
2. a person who has sovereign power or authority.
3. a group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority.
4. a gold coin of the United Kingdom, equal to one pound sterling: went out of circulation after 1914.
–adjective
5. belonging to or characteristic of a sovereign or sovereignty; royal.
6. having supreme rank, power, or authority.
7. supreme; preeminent; indisputable: a sovereign right.
8. greatest in degree; utmost or extreme.
9. being above all others in character, importance, excellence, etc.
10. efficacious; potent: a sovereign remedy.
Yes we invaded a sovereign nation. Stop trying to spin it Mr. Gobbles.
You believe saddam would have done anything because you lack the intelligence to see outside the "Fear Based Propaganda Machine." Saddam wated to stay in power, he's no fool, he knew anything he did to harm the USA woud have resulted in his removal. Only an idiot would think Saddam was aiming to "harm" the US.
so shoot first, ask questions later huh? That's how innocent people die, And it can be said of waiting around for something to happen. Point is Iraq was a target for much more than the "supposed" threat. It was target for strategic reasons which made any excuse good enough to invade it. They were not a threat anymore than any other 2 bit dictator.
Bush invaded Iraq unprovoked. Period. I never said BUSh started the war on Terrorist. But Iraq was not "terrorists" dip shit. It was a country. Now they are because of BUSH's FUCK UP.
Why must i say BUSH fucked up? BECAUSE HE DID:
1. INVADING IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE
2. INVADING IRAQ WITH TOO FEW TROOPS AND A LOUSY AFTER WAR PLAN.
any more stupid questions?
Actually i do, And have to make many tough decisions that affect lots of people.
But that's not the point. The point id IF i did chose to go to war i would have planned better and consulted guys like Powell. Did your savior do that? no. He fucked up. And he won't even cop to it.
Do i have the balls to make a tough decsion on goign to war.
I have no problem about Afghanistan, in fact I wouldn;t have been so stupid to let OBL escape at tora bora.
But i would have NEVER invaded Iraq and over extended our armed forces and stuck our selves in a potential quagmire like this IDIOT has.
And sorry but you're idiot if you don;t see that.
He has a right just like you. But you'd like to limit that right wouldn't you?
Simple: Go in with enough troops (100K more) And declare Mashall Law that can actually be enforced. Consult your Cheif of Staff (Powell)
OzmO, I wish just one day would go by that you don't prove what an idiot you are. You don't think Saddam wished harm on the us? You poor pathetic person. If you think for one minute he wouldn't supply terrorists with money or weapons to carry out their plans to destroy the US, you are so crazy it is incomprehensible. Would he launch a military attack on us, no but not because he didn't want to, he didn't have the military capability. So he would have carried it out other ways. Yes we should shhot first and ask questions second. You are right that is how innocent people die hence 9-11. Oh you probably think it was an inside job right? Libs like you that just want to sit here and wait will cost more innocent Americans their life. Because of people like you, we will need to lose a minimum of 10,000 people before you feel it is right to declare war ever again. To say Iraq didn't provoke the world community into attacking again is fairly asanine. Just review all the agreements he broke in the past. You are probably the person that lets his kids have tantrums in Wal-Mart and just says he is expressing his freedom of speach. 3 strikes baby, saddam had a dozen +. Last but not least, thanks for calling the military stupid for letting OBL go in Tora Bora. Because in the end it was us there not Bush trying to get him.
-
OzmO, I wish just one day would go by that you don't prove what an idiot you are. You don't think Saddam wished harm on the us? You poor pathetic person. If you think for one minute he wouldn't supply terrorists with money or weapons to carry out their plans to destroy the US, you are so crazy it is incomprehensible. Would he launch a military attack on us, no but not because he didn't want to, he didn't have the military capability. So he would have carried it out other ways. Yes we should shhot first and ask questions second. You are right that is how innocent people die hence 9-11. Oh you probably think it was an inside job right? Libs like you that just want to sit here and wait will cost more innocent Americans their life. Because of people like you, we will need to lose a minimum of 10,000 people before you feel it is right to declare war ever again. To say Iraq didn't provoke the world community into attacking again is fairly asanine. Just review all the agreements he broke in the past. You are probably the person that lets his kids have tantrums in Wal-Mart and just says he is expressing his freedom of speach. 3 strikes baby, saddam had a dozen +. Last but not least, thanks for calling the military stupid for letting OBL go in Tora Bora. Because in the end it was us there not Bush trying to get him.
My understanding is that you guys had him surrounded and were told to leave him and let "locals" do it... Which doesn't seem all that bright... Who made that order?
No, we should not "shoot first"... That is not how this country was founded... We were founded on leave us alone, but if you fuck with us, we'll wax that ass... Saddam NEVER fucked with us... he fucked with people around his region, but not us.... but I guess since we need that oil, we'll say it's "us".
You can talk about his terrorist ties, but no one has ever found any ties between Saddam and terror.
As a matter of fact, it is quite accepted in the international community that Saddam was a hater of Al Quaeda (not that they're the only terrorist organization on the plane, but you understand) and knew that it would only bring the US marching on his doorstep, which is something he didn't want in the first place... because he knew how that would turn out.
We're all still waiting for the smoking gun with Saddam, it just hasn't been found, and what's worse, is that the US government could have lied about it and I'd never know the difference, but they didn't. (which is great, but it just makes them look bad).