PDA

View Full Version : Leaked footage of 2007 USAF engaging ''hostiles'' NSFW


Pages : [1] 2

WH
04-06-2010, 11:32 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack

A secret video showing US air crew falsely claiming to have encountered a firefight in Baghdad and then laughing at the dead after launching an air strike that killed a dozen people, including two Iraqis working for Reuters news agency, was revealed by Wikileaks today.

The footage of the July 2007 attack was made public in a move that will further anger the Pentagon, which has drawn up a report identifying the whistleblower website as a threat to national security. The US defence department was embarrassed when that confidential report appeared on the Wikileaks site last month alongside a slew of military documents.

The release of the video from Baghdad also comes shortly after the US military admitted that its special forces attempted to cover up the killings of three Afghan women in a raid in February by digging the bullets out of their bodies.

The newly released video of the Baghdad attacks was recorded on one of two Apache helicopters hunting for insurgents on 12 July 2007. Among the dead were a 22-year-old Reuters photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40. The Pentagon blocked an attempt by Reuters to obtain the video through a freedom of information request. Wikileaks director Julian Assange said his organisation had to break through encryption by the military to view it.

In the recording, the helicopter crews can be heard discussing the scene on the street below. One American claims to have spotted six people with AK-47s and one with a rocket-propelled grenade. It is unclear if some of the men are armed but Noor-Eldeen can be seen with a camera. Chmagh is talking on his mobile phone.

One of the helicopter crew is then heard saying that one of the group is shooting. But the video shows there is no shooting or even pointing of weapons. The men are standing around, apparently unperturbed.

The lead helicopter, using the moniker Crazyhorse, opens fire. "Hahaha. I hit 'em," shouts one of the American crew. Another responds a little later: "Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards."

One of the men on the ground, believed to be Chmagh, is seen wounded and trying to crawl to safety. One of the helicopter crew is heard wishing for the man to reach for a gun, even though there is none visible nearby, so he has the pretext for opening fire: "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon." A van draws up next to the wounded man and Iraqis climb out. They are unarmed and start to carry the victim to the vehicle in what would appear to be an attempt to get him to hospital. One of the helicopters opens fire with armour-piercing shells. "Look at that. Right through the windshield," says one of the crew. Another responds with a laugh.

Sitting behind the windscreen were two children who were wounded.

After ground forces arrive and the children are discovered, the American air crew blame the Iraqis. "Well it's their fault for bringing kids in to a battle," says one. "That's right," says another.

Initially the US military said that all the dead were insurgents. Then it claimed the helicopters reacted to an active firefight. Assange said that the video demonstrated that neither claim was true.

"Why would anyone be so relaxed with two Apaches if someone was carrying an RPG and that person was an enemy of the United States?" he said. "The behaviour of the pilots is like a computer game. When Saeed is crawling, clearly unable to do anything, their response is: come on buddy, we want to kill you, just pick up a weapon ... It appears to be a desire to get a higher score, or a higher number of kills."

Wikileaks says it will shortly release a second secret US military video showing the deaths of civilians in an attack in Afghanistan. The Pentagon has been seeking ways to prevent classified material appearing on Wikileaks, including through "criminal sanctions". Wikileaks has made public classified US army reports on weapons, military units and battle strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon report, reflecting the depth of paranoia about where Wikileaks is obtaining its material, speculates that the CIA may be responsible. But perhaps most embarrassing leak for the US defence department was that of the 2008 report itself which appeared on the Wikileaks site last month.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-06-2010, 12:52 PM
As an ex soldier with some degree of training in urban warfare....A couple of things are very obvious about the footage.

1) It assumes that the entire context of the battle through the viewpoint of one camera. If the firefight was several blocks from this engagement and the helicopters in question were seeking out enemy reinforcments or compatants who have just left the area of conflict... then the context of shooting at armed insurgents is greatly changed.

2) It hints at the "possibility" that there was noone armed at the time of engagement...even a cursory viewing of the tape shows that at 3:20 you can see one person leaning on his weapon in the upper right hand corner of the screen. At 3:38 you can see another person walking with a weapon. These are NOT the two that are identified as carrying cameras and there is no way that either of those two men in the tape could be confused as such. This is purposefully misleading because it presents at least the doubt that those who were shot at were armed insurgents...and even seems to suggest that noone involved was an insurgent at all.

3) It uses the language and attitudes of soldiers throughout the world..as "proof" that the Americans were "looking for a pretext" to shoot "civilians". If that proved guilt...then lock me away. I can't tell you how many times I told my team..."Oh yea, let that bastard make a bad move...PLEASE give me an excuse to gift wrap his ass on a one way trip to his 40 virgins"!!!

Its the way that soldiers talk...you get jaded and hard, to compensate for emotions that are very unpleasant. It doesnt make tou WANT to kill people, it is just a way of dealing with the fact that you HAVE to kill people. To equate a soldier saying "please pick up a weapon" as a pretext for an unjustifiable shooting, shows a lack of experience on behalf of the writer.


If I was presented this tape as an Officer of the United States Armed Forces... I would say that it presents enough to warrant an investigation. However, without the correct context, it does warrant the immediate condemnation that the writer of the article would have the reader think.

'nuff said

stlrtruck
04-06-2010, 01:49 PM
My question is over the last 10-15 years why does it seem that the US Media is trying to find ways to paint American Soldiers as bad people?

WH
04-06-2010, 01:58 PM
My question is over the last 10-15 years why does it seem that the US Media is trying to find ways to paint American Soldiers as bad people?

Looks like that's the UK.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-06-2010, 02:11 PM
Looks like that's the UK.

Specifically, The Guardian....notorious hypoctrically left wing paper that was against the first Persian Gulf war...before it was for it....before it was against it again.:doh:

Vincent
04-06-2010, 02:49 PM
My question is over the last 10-15 years why does it seem that the US Media is trying to find ways to paint American Soldiers as bad people?

Because they want the other team to win? :noidea:

"last 10-15 years"? That @#$% has been the drumbeat since the 60s. The "media" are leftist shills that have abandoned all pretext of "objectivity".

Steel_12
04-06-2010, 03:23 PM
Samuel L. Jackson would love this thread.

ricardisimo
04-06-2010, 03:29 PM
Looks like that's the UK.

They missed that part entirely... not that it matters, of course, since Britain is just another US state, really. It's like New Jersey, but with nuclear weapons and less Italians.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-06-2010, 03:32 PM
They missed that part entirely...

"They" actually, didnt.....try looking back and using some reading comprehension. Half-a-truth is called a lie.

smokin3000gt
04-06-2010, 03:44 PM
I don't care much for the way they paint our soldiers as GTA gamers that target and kill innocent people when they bored to rack up points. Unless the writer of that article has ever been to war, ever been shot at, been attacked by the enemy, or watched people/friends/fellow soldiers die in front of him then he should keep his opinions and articles to himself! If it was be out there witnessing those things then I would be saying the same if not worse.

LLT, Thank you for injecting a little logic to this thread!

fansince'76
04-06-2010, 03:49 PM
If our armed forces really did make a practice of killing civilians indiscriminately the way this "exposé" paints it, Afghanistan and Iraq would have ended YEARS ago....

ricardisimo
04-06-2010, 04:33 PM
I don't care much for the way they paint our soldiers as GTA gamers that target and kill innocent people when they bored to rack up points. Unless the writer of that article has ever been to war, ever been shot at, been attacked by the enemy, or watched people/friends/fellow soldiers die in front of him then he should keep his opinions and articles to himself! If it was be out there witnessing those things then I would be saying the same if not worse.

LLT, Thank you for injecting a little logic to this thread!

You seem to be saying that journalists must not be journalists, but rather whatever profession they are covering. So, for example, they must be (or have been) politicians if they are to write about politics. Otherwise they simply won't understand.

It's an interesting theory, but it strikes me that you don't have an actual answer to the claims being made in the article, if your main criticism is that people shouldn't judge other people... especially when they are committing war crimes.

ricardisimo
04-06-2010, 04:36 PM
If our armed forces really did make a practice of killing civilians indiscriminately the way this "exposé" paints it, Afghanistan and Iraq would have ended YEARS ago....

Do you mean because then we'd have "killed them all", as Vinny was suggesting in the other thread?

MACH1
04-06-2010, 04:50 PM
especially when they are committing war crimes.

There are no such thing as war crimes anymore, just federal law suits. Besides you would actually have to be in a war, not a overseas contingency plan. No war, no war crimes.

ricardisimo
04-06-2010, 05:00 PM
There are no such thing as war crimes anymore, just federal law suits. Besides you would actually have to be in a war, not a overseas contingency plan. No war, no war crimes.

How convenient for us. If we don't have to worry about being tried for war crimes, then we should just go ahead and sign on to the ICC. It looks good on our resume.

smokin3000gt
04-06-2010, 05:08 PM
You seem to be saying that journalists must not be journalists, but rather whatever profession they are covering. So, for example, they must be (or have been) politicians if they are to write about politics. Otherwise they simply won't understand.

It's an interesting theory, but it strikes me that you don't have an actual answer to the claims being made in the article, if your main criticism is that people shouldn't judge other people... especially when they are committing war crimes.

It's one thing to be a journalist and report what you see + facts. Not your (anti-war/American troops) feelings. That makes him more of a blogger.

It seems that you don't have an actual answer if your criticism is about my criticisms about someone else's criticisms.

My argument was this 'journalist' makes it sound like our troops kill innocent people purposely to 'rack up points'. If you don't think that's a stretch then I don't know what to tell you.

ricardisimo
04-06-2010, 05:18 PM
It's one thing to be a journalist and report what you see + facts. Not your (anti-war/American troops) feelings. That makes him more of a blogger.

It seems that you don't have an actual answer if your criticism is about my criticisms about someone else's criticisms.

My argument was this 'journalist' makes it sound like our troops kill innocent people purposely to 'rack up points'. If you don't think that's a stretch then I don't know what to tell you.

You seem to be missing the point that s/he did not direct the video in question, but rather just posted it. Seems factual enough for me. Is it the whole story? Of course not, so you investigate, like they did in this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8606235.stm):

Nato investigates new Afghan civilian deaths

Nato is investigating whether its forces killed four civilians in an air strike on a compound in the southern Afghan province of Helmand.

It said it carried out the attack in Gereshk district after its troops came under fire from insurgents inside.

The bodies of four militants and two women, a child and an elderly man were later found in the compound, Nato says.

Civilian deaths at the hands of foreign forces have been a source of increasing friction between Afghans and Nato.

In a separate incident, Nato said it was also investigating reports that two children had been killed and two others wounded in a clash in the east of the country.

It said all four children were initially wounded in fighting between insurgents and troops of the Nato-led Isaf force in Kapisa province.

"The children were medically evacuated to an Isaf medical facility. Two of the children reportedly died of their wounds," a statement said.

"It is unclear who caused the children's injuries. The incident is under investigation."

Nato admits that its killing of civilians has undermined support for its mission in Afghanistan. But it points out that far more people are killed in attacks by the Taliban and other militants.

The allliance has ordered its forces to reduce the number of air strikes and night raids in order to cut the risks to civilians.

fansince'76
04-06-2010, 05:27 PM
Do you mean because then we'd have "killed them all", as Vinny was suggesting in the other thread?

No, I mean our troops wouldn't be bothered to follow some bullshit convoluted "protocol" to engage an enemy when they're being shot at first, among other things. Fighting is exponentially harder when doing so with one hand tied behind one's back.

smokin3000gt
04-06-2010, 05:36 PM
You seem to be missing the point that s/he did not direct the video in question, but rather just posted it. Seems factual enough for me. Is it the whole story? Of course not, so you investigate, like they did in this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8606235.stm):

I am not arguing the validity of the video, whether or not it happened, who made it, or if the people who died were innocent. Any time a claim like that is made will be investigated. It should be. It's only right that they do.

What I am talking about is how they took what was said under stress/adrenaline/fatigue of combat and twisted all around to make it seem as if they purposely targeting innocent people and killed them like they were hunting civilians. Obviously this person is against the war and/or our troops and wrote his story accordingly IMO.

I've haven't been in that situation but I certainly wouldn't have nice things to say about people who I believed to be the enemy. Every enemy that dies is one that won't be car bombing a check point, killing you, or a fellow soldier. I'd be excited to put one on their ass too.

NJarhead
04-06-2010, 06:03 PM
They missed that part entirely... not that it matters, of course, since Britain is just another US state, really. It's like New Jersey, but with nuclear weapons and less Italians.

Whatever that means.

NJarhead
04-06-2010, 06:05 PM
Do you mean because then we'd have "killed them all", as Vinny was suggesting in the other thread?

Quit trying to start another fight in here.

ricardisimo
04-06-2010, 06:12 PM
No, I mean our troops wouldn't be bothered to follow some bullshit convoluted "protocol" to engage an enemy when they're being shot at first, among other things. Fighting is exponentially harder when doing so with one hand tied behind one's back.

You mean like in Vietnam? Carpet bombing, annihilating villages, raping and pillaging. It certainly worked wonders there... why shouldn't we try it here? Unless, perhaps there's a funny thing about people, that maybe some part of them wants desperately to believe they they are fighting the good fight (even when they're not.) Maybe atrocities in some way demoralize the aggressor as much as the victim.

Nah... forget I said that. Nuke 'em.

"Shot at first?" Is this war taking place in Pittsburgh? Did I miss something? When did the Iraqis "shoot first"? [This is your cue, just so you know, where you get on the soapbox and rant about 9/11]

GoSlash27
04-06-2010, 06:13 PM
This is the unfortunate reality of war. From what I see here, the aircrew were justified in engaging these people even though it was a mistake. I'm sure Al Jazeera will get a lot of mileage out of this, and that's just what happens when you engage in a war of occupation.

SCSTILLER
04-06-2010, 06:18 PM
You mean like in Vietnam? Carpet bombing, annihilating villages, raping and pillaging. It certainly worked there... why shouldn't we try it here? Unless, perhaps there's a funny thing about people, that maybe some part of them wants desperately to believe they they are fighting the good fight (even when they're not.) Maybe atrocities in some way demoralize the aggressor as much as the victim.

Nah... forget I said that. Nuke 'em.

"Shot at first?" Is this war taking place in Pittsburgh? Did I miss something? When did the Iraqis "shoot first"? [This is your cue, just so you know, where you get on the soapbox and rant about 9/11]

Yep, you did miss something and you are trying to twist what he said. ROE, that is Rules of Engagement to help you out a bit, state that our soldiers cannot fire until fired upon, even if they know the subject is a combatant. Also, in Afghanistan, they are not allowed to engage unless they actually see the enemy shooting at them. This makes it difficult when you are taking fire from a building then out walks a guy, drops a weapon, and walks away. Yes, it is happening. It is impossible to fight a war with one hand tied behind your back, but then again some just want us to wave a white flag like the French and run and hide.

I have one thing to say and not trying to be a prick or call out any single person here, but until you have walked side by side with the military and laced up your boots along side them, don't try to act like you know what goes on in combat.

tony hipchest
04-06-2010, 06:32 PM
while unfortunate that some innocent civilians died, the footage is pretty cool. i can see where some reporter or whatever who doesnt have a clue (or who has an agenda) sees it as some sort of military "grand theft auto" video game.

i chalk this incident up to "shit happens..." :noidea:

NJarhead
04-06-2010, 06:34 PM
You mean like in Vietnam? Carpet bombing, annihilating villages, raping and pillaging. It certainly worked wonders there... why shouldn't we try it here? Unless, perhaps there's a funny thing about people, that maybe some part of them wants desperately to believe they they are fighting the good fight (even when they're not.) Maybe atrocities in some way demoralize the aggressor as much as the victim.

Nah... forget I said that. Nuke 'em.

"Shot at first?" Is this war taking place in Pittsburgh? Did I miss something? When did the Iraqis "shoot first"? [This is your cue, just so you know, where you get on the soapbox and rant about 9/11]

Vietnam, Korea, WWII..., you're getting the picture. We won the battles in Vietnam. It's apparent that you have little knowledge of what actually went on there besides what you've heard from Jane Fonda.

Do you know WHY we carpet bombed? Do you know WHY we annihilated villages? I think your "raping and pillaging" statement is a bit over the top.

I suppose you think all our enemies just need a big hug right? Open your eyes man.

NJarhead
04-06-2010, 06:35 PM
while unfortunate that some innocent civilians died, the footage is pretty cool. i can see where some reporter or whatever who doesnt have a clue (or who has an agenda) sees it as some sort of military "grand theft auto" video game.

i chalk this incident up to "shit happens..." :noidea:


Exactly.

ricardisimo
04-06-2010, 06:38 PM
We invaded a country that never did squat to us, and in contravention of international laws and treaties to which we are signatories, and you're talking about "rules of engagement"?

How does the use of white phosphorus against civilian populations jibe with your "RoE"? How about targeting journalists? There is a reason why wars of aggression are considered "the supreme crime", under which all of the attendant crimes fall - like those captured on this video.

ricardisimo
04-06-2010, 06:39 PM
Vietnam, Korea, WWII..., you're getting the picture. We won the battles in Vietnam. It's apparent that you have little knowledge of what actually went on there besides what you've heard from Jane Fonda.

Do you know WHY we carpet bombed? Do you know WHY we annihilated villages? I think your "raping and pillaging" statement is a bit over the top.

I suppose you think all our enemies just need a big hug right? Open your eyes man.

Why we carpet bombed in Vietnam????? You're asking me WHY????? Have you forgotten 9/11????????

NJarhead
04-06-2010, 06:47 PM
Why we carpet bombed in Vietnam????? You're asking me WHY????? Have you forgotten 9/11????????

I was there on 9/11. I assure you I haven't forgotten. But I believe I was responding to your post about carpet bombing in Vietnam and I'm asking you if you even know WHY it was done. DO YOU????

fansince'76
04-06-2010, 07:27 PM
You mean like in Vietnam?

Yes, very much like Vietnam. Vietnam was the prototypical example of our troops being forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. "Oh, you had the enemy engaged and on the run, but they slipped back over the Cambodian border? Gotta let 'em go to regroup then...."

NJarhead
04-06-2010, 07:34 PM
Yes, very much like Vietnam. Vietnam was the prototypical example of our troops being forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. "Oh, you had the enemy engaged and on the run, but they slipped back over the Cambodian border? Gotta let 'em go to regroup then...."

Thank you! :applaudit:

revefsreleets
04-06-2010, 07:38 PM
It's called "The Fog of War".

Thank Christ I never had to maneuver through it. But Goddamn to the deepest pits of Hell the arm-chair QB's in this thread who think they are in ANY kind of position to judge these soldiers who had to make these decision in the midst of that fog of war.

Leftoverhard
04-06-2010, 07:38 PM
This video is exactly why I'm anti-war and always will be. Innocent people will always be caught in the crossfire, civilians whose country has been torn apart from all sides. Tunnel vision causes in-attentional blindness in young troops barely old enough to buy their own clothes much less make good decisions under stress. There is nothing good about it. The cost of this has already topped 1 trillion dollars (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1415708320100114)

ricardisimo
04-06-2010, 07:39 PM
I was there on 9/11. I assure you I haven't forgotten. But I believe I was responding to your post about carpet bombing in Vietnam and I'm asking you if you even know WHY it was done. DO YOU????

Again??? Again you're asking me why we carpet bombed Vietnam?????? Have you forgotten 9/11???????

ricardisimo
04-06-2010, 07:41 PM
It's called "The Fog of War".

Thank Christ I never had to maneuver through it. But Goddamn to the deepest pits of Hell the arm-chair QB's in this thread who think they are in ANY kind of position to judge these soldiers who had to make these decision in the midst of that fog of war.

I missed the part where I was judging the soldiers or playing "arm-chair QB". Could you point that part out? Thank you.

NJarhead
04-06-2010, 07:52 PM
Again??? Again you're asking me why we carpet bombed Vietnam?????? Have you forgotten 9/11???????

Avoiding the question I see. Typical trait of the ignorant.


I missed the part where I was judging the soldiers or playing "arm-chair QB". Could you point that part out? Thank you.

I think it's your underlying theme but you can start with the rape and pillage. I'm sure more quotes of yours will follow. What's with the constant painting yourself into a corner thing? :noidea:

Never mind, I'd hate to confuse you with another question. 9/11 and all.

ricardisimo
04-06-2010, 07:58 PM
Yes, very much like Vietnam. Vietnam was the prototypical example of our troops being forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. "Oh, you had the enemy engaged and on the run, but they slipped back over the Cambodian border? Gotta let 'em go to regroup then...."

It takes a particularly disciplined mind to view over 4 million civilian dead in NV, SV, Cambodia and Laos as "one hand tied behind our back." You should congratulate yourself, and take comfort... There will be no dangerous thoughts wandering into your brain any time soon.

revefsreleets
04-06-2010, 08:05 PM
It takes a particularly disciplined mind to view over 4 million civilian dead in NV, SV, Cambodia and Laos as "one hand tied behind our back." You should congratulate yourself, and take comfort... There will be no dangerous thoughts wandering into your brain any time soon.

The policy employed since WWII by the US has been successful. You needn't actually UNDERSTAND it farther than the fact that you are here, spewing you vitriolic hate, atheism, and half-assed "anarchy" (which is a ridiculous joke....all it REALLY is is pissed off misplaced anger at a system that hasn't been kind to you, most likely due to your own doing, or even more likely, lack thereof) because it worked.

Enjoy your privilege. Exercising it in your misguided way is just as protected as using it for meaningful and productive ways.

ricardisimo
04-06-2010, 08:10 PM
The policy employed since WWII by the US has been successful. You needn't actually UNDERSTAND it farther than the fact that you are here, spewing you vitriolic hate, atheism, and half-assed "anarchy" (which is a ridiculous joke....all it REALLY is is pissed off misplaced anger at a system that hasn't been kind to you, most likely due to your own doing, or even more likely, lack thereof) because it worked.

Enjoy your privilege. Exercising it in your misguided way is just as protected as using it for meaningful and productive ways.

Does somebody need a hug?

revefsreleets
04-06-2010, 08:15 PM
Does somebody need a hug?

Yes...you do.

I'd be happy to discuss the covert (and now almost OVERT) US policy of de-stabilization with you sometime...but, I'm sure you already know everything about it already...except for the obvious fact that you know NOTHING about it, even though it has been the overriding policy since about 1955 and EVERY decision we've made as a government can be successfully ascribed to it.

Preacher
04-06-2010, 08:16 PM
This video is exactly why I'm anti-war and always will be. Innocent people will always be caught in the crossfire, civilians whose country has been torn apart from all sides. Tunnel vision causes in-attentional blindness in young troops barely old enough to buy their own clothes much less make good decisions under stress. There is nothing good about it. The cost of this has already topped 1 trillion dollars (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1415708320100114)

Always will be? Really?

Regardless of the reason for war?


I can't believe there are STILL people in this world that believe that humans are naturally loving, kind, and good, and want all the world to sing in harmony. War is a ugly, destructive, horrid necessity because there are humans in the world who like to visit suffering and death on others.

The decision to go to war is simple at its basic level. A window exists where it is reasonable assumed on one end that going to war is a probability, and at the other end, waiting to see if the conflict will conclude without war will only incur more deaths than if a nation goes to war now.

To go to war outside of that window, on EITHER SIDE, is immoral IMO. To NOT go to war INSIDE that window of time is also immoral.

Because either way, it will cause more deaths. THAT is the reality of the world. Something that most western "enlightened" thinkers have completely left behind.

NJarhead
04-06-2010, 08:17 PM
Does somebody need a hug?

Yes...you do.



Kick in the pants sounds like it'd do more good, but hey, that's just me. :noidea:

revefsreleets
04-06-2010, 08:19 PM
Kick in the pants sounds like it'd do more good, but hey, that's just me. :noidea:

I gave him one.

Anarchists are all the same...they tried, and they failed, so they need to take "it" out on somebody else...

NJarhead
04-06-2010, 08:19 PM
Tunnel vision causes in-attentional blindness in young troops barely old enough to buy their own clothes much less make good decisions under stress.

:banging:

Vincent
04-06-2010, 08:21 PM
This video is exactly why I'm anti-war and always will be. Innocent people will always be caught in the crossfire, civilians whose country has been torn apart from all sides. Tunnel vision causes in-attentional blindness in young troops barely old enough to buy their own clothes much less make good decisions under stress. There is nothing good about it. The cost of this has already topped 1 trillion dollars (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1415708320100114)

Anybody with a functioning brain is anti war. The only "people" that want wars are the assholes that start them. Unfortunately for the dear souls that are sent to fight them and the poor folks caught in the middle, its hell on Earth.

There will be wars on this disputed little rock as long as people elevate assholes to positions of "authority", whether they be hitler, Attila, tojo or osama bin c0cksucker.

What has always grinded me about war is the treatment of soldiers before, during, and after. Its unforgivable.

And another thing - let the assholes duke it out. With the notable exception of Attila, most of the despots are @#%$ed up little panty wastes that somehow find themselves in position to act out their @#%$ed-up-ness. Put a George S Patton in a dark room with that nazi F@660T for 20 seconds and settle it.

revefsreleets
04-06-2010, 08:21 PM
Dude, leftover is the ultimate Utopian. It's not even worth bothering answering him up in his glass house in cloud kukooland....

NJarhead
04-06-2010, 08:24 PM
Put a George S Patton in a dark room with that nazi F@660T for 20 seconds and settle it.

I'd give my left arm for another George Patton or Chesty Puller.

Preacher
04-06-2010, 08:26 PM
Anybody with a functioning brain is anti war. The only "people" that want wars are the assholes that start them. Unfortunately for the dear souls that are sent to fight them and the poor folks caught in the middle, its hell on Earth.

There will be wars on this disputed little rock as long as people elevate assholes to positions of "authority", whether they be hitler, Attila, tojo or osama bin c0cksucker.

What has always grinded me about war is the treatment of soldiers before, during, and after. Its unforgivable.

And another thing - let the assholes duke it out. With the notable exception of Attila, most of the despots are @#%$ed up little panty wastes that somehow find themselves in position to act out their @#%$ed-up-ness. Put a George S Patton in a dark room with that nazi F@660T for 20 seconds and settle it.

I think the last "leader" that actually led in battle was Napoleon.

That is why I am personally quite against the presidential order against assassination. In fact, I think the leader of the opposing nation should usually be the first and greatest target... probably by the person who delivers the bill of war. (As long as he let's the guy read it first, have to hold on to those precious rules of war the west has sworn itself too, even though no one else follows them).

ricardisimo
04-06-2010, 08:32 PM
Always will be? Really?

Regardless of the reason for war?


I can't believe there are STILL people in this world that believe that humans are naturally loving, kind, and good, and want all the world to sing in harmony. War is a ugly, destructive, horrid necessity because there are humans in the world who like to visit suffering and death on others.

The decision to go to war is simple at its basic level. A window exists where it is reasonable assumed on one end that going to war is a probability, and at the other end, waiting to see if the conflict will conclude without war will only incur more deaths than if a nation goes to war now.

To go to war outside of that window, on EITHER SIDE, is immoral IMO. To NOT go to war INSIDE that window of time is also immoral.

Because either way, it will cause more deaths. THAT is the reality of the world. Something that most western "enlightened" thinkers have completely left behind.

You're only saying that because Jesus would want us to kill them all.

Vincent
04-06-2010, 08:35 PM
I think the last "leader" that actually led in battle was Napoleon.

That is why I am personally quite against the presidential order against assassination. In fact, I think the leader of the opposing nation should usually be the first and greatest target... probably by the person who delivers the bill of war. (As long as he let's the guy read it first, have to hold on to those precious rules of war the west has sworn itself too, even though no one else follows them).

Oh hell yeah!! Blow dey asses to Mars. bin comewad, hussein, kuh-daffy, the whole lot of them. End it before it starts.

fansince'76
04-06-2010, 08:37 PM
It takes a particularly disciplined mind to view over 4 million civilian dead in NV, SV, Cambodia and Laos as "one hand tied behind our back." You should congratulate yourself, and take comfort... There will be no dangerous thoughts wandering into your brain any time soon.

Yes, and as everyone knows, the evil U.S. and the evil U.S. alone was responsible for every one of those deaths. :rolleyes:

smokin3000gt
04-06-2010, 08:44 PM
This video is exactly why I'm anti-war and always will be. Innocent people will always be caught in the crossfire, civilians whose country has been torn apart from all sides. Tunnel vision causes in-attentional blindness in young troops barely old enough to buy their own clothes much less make good decisions under stress. There is nothing good about it. The cost of this has already topped 1 trillion dollars (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1415708320100114)

I'm anti-everything that sucks too. Unfortunately it doesn't make any problems go away, and sometimes we have no choice but to engage in the things that do suck. Especially if there is no other way around it. This is life.

Nobody here wants war and if you have an alternative that doesn't consist of kumbaya, hugs, acoustic guitars and camp fires then be sure to pass it along to the POTUS.

MACH1
04-06-2010, 08:46 PM
It takes a particularly disciplined mind to view over 4 million civilian dead in NV, SV, Cambodia and Laos as "one hand tied behind our back." You should congratulate yourself, and take comfort... There will be no dangerous thoughts wandering into your brain any time soon.

Its time for you to take off that Mao t-shirt then.

NJarhead
04-06-2010, 08:52 PM
You're only saying that because Jesus would want us to kill them all.

Not sure what Jesus wants, but it would appear that "they" up and left you here. I'd be happy to chip in for your ticket to where ever OUT CONUS you'd like to go. I doubt we'd have much trouble digging up other contributors for your cause either.

zulater
04-06-2010, 09:25 PM
I just thank God that the press wasn't what it is today back in the 40's, otherwise we'd all be goosestepping and speaking German today.

NJarhead
04-06-2010, 09:28 PM
I just thank God that the press wasn't what it is today back in the 40's, otherwise we'd all be goosestepping and speaking German today.

You got that right.

Remember when they were waiting on the beach for the SEALs coming ashore? I was mortified to say the least. In WWII, the media would have been coming ashore WITH our troops and the footage would NOT have been live.

devilsdancefloor
04-06-2010, 10:21 PM
there is ALWAYS going ot be civilian casualties in any war or "conflict". it is human error by those firing or the civilian is in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you havent been there it is kind of like this your are dead ass tired maybe 4 hours of sleep over many days (ive been there). So you are tired then you have a rush of adrenaline. It happens all you know is you gotta make it through this and make sure the guy next to you makes it home to his family as well. It is easy to stand on a pedestal and point the all mighty finger.I am tired of hearing this highly educated people say oh we need to pull out NO we need to let the armed forces do there job and it will be over soon. And to those who want to pull out of the war effort i ask 1 question when are we gonna pull out of the war on poverty? It started in 1969 not many moaning and groaning about that and how much it is costing the America people ever single day.

Leftoverhard
04-06-2010, 10:34 PM
Always will be? Really?

WW2 - Civilians killed totaled from 40 to 52 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine. Total military dead: from 22 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)

Vietnam - North Vietnamese forces killed around 130,000 civilians and POWs from 1957 to 1975.
The estimated total number of civilian and suspected communist deaths caused by South Vietnamese forces from 1955 to 1975 was 89,500.
US forces killed an estimated 90,000 South Vietnamese civilians. Again, these are deaths caused by US Forces apart from combat deaths inflicted on North Vietnames forces.

Iraq -
Year Dates Civilian deaths
1 2003 12,049
2 2004 10,751
3 2005 14,832
4 2006 27,652
5 2007 24,522
6 2008 9,214
7 2009 1,951

Afghanistan -

??? Here's a clue to the mystery that is civilian deaths reported in Afghanistan. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(200 1–present))

And these are JUST the civilians. Not the military deaths, not the injuries, the amputations, the brain injuries, etc.

Regardless of the reason for war?

Reason? The "reason" is always revenge, retribution and religion. No good reason.

I can't believe there are STILL people in this world that believe that humans are naturally loving, kind, and good, and want all the world to sing in harmony.

That's what they call presumptuous. And condescending. Can you make an argument without doing that? I think that people follow each other good or bad. I believe that the non-violent way is an absolute one. The minute we start creating reasons to defend our behavior, we've lost. Gandhi and MLK were right. This has nothing to do with "singing in harmony." It has to do with being secure with yourself as a person and as a nation first. Every child learns these basic tenets. "Do unto others" - not "he started it."
Basic parenting skills apply to adult life too. It's called "practicing what you preach."

War is a ugly, destructive, horrid necessity because there are humans in the world who like to visit suffering and death on others.

This is not your first time challenging me on my beliefs. Why? Live and let live. Curious how much it bothers you.
Oh - and "necessity?" According to some in this very thread "Nobody here wants war." Oh - just the bad guys then? Ok.

Vincent
04-06-2010, 10:38 PM
And to those who want to pull out of the war effort i ask 1 question when are we gonna pull out of the war on poverty? It started in 1969 not many moaning and groaning about that and how much it is costing the America people ever single day.

The bewildering array of "programs" funnel more than a $Trillion a year to that "war". Nobody can say what the 40 year "war on poverty" has cost, but its a staggering number at this point.

Oh, and after, I don't know, 20 years or so, you'd think the pinheads might get the idea the "war" ain't working. "Hey, WTF. It don't need to work. Its other people's money."

NJarhead
04-06-2010, 10:46 PM
WW2 - Civilians killed totaled from 40 to 52 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine. Total military dead: from 22 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)

Vietnam - North Vietnamese forces killed around 130,000 civilians and POWs from 1957 to 1975.
The estimated total number of civilian and suspected communist deaths caused by South Vietnamese forces from 1955 to 1975 was 89,500.
US forces killed an estimated 90,000 South Vietnamese civilians. Again, these are deaths caused by US Forces apart from combat deaths inflicted on North Vietnames forces.

Iraq -
Year Dates Civilian deaths
1 2003 12,049
2 2004 10,751
3 2005 14,832
4 2006 27,652
5 2007 24,522
6 2008 9,214
7 2009 1,951

Afghanistan -

??? Here's a clue to the mystery that is civilian deaths reported in Afghanistan. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282 001%E2%80%93present%29)

And these are JUST the civilians. Not the military deaths, not the injuries, the amputations, the brain injuries, etc.



Reason? The "reason" is always revenge, retribution and religion. No good reason.



That's what they call presumptuous. And condescending. Can you make an argument without doing that? I think that people follow each other good or bad. I believe that the non-violent way is an absolute one. The minute we start creating reasons to defend our behavior, we've lost. Gandhi and MLK were right. This has nothing to do with "singing in harmony." It has to do with being secure with yourself as a person and as a nation first. Every child learns these basic tenets. "Do unto others" - not "he started it."
Basic parenting skills apply to adult life too. It's called "practicing what you preach."



This is not your first time challenging me on my beliefs. Why? Live and let live. Curious how much it bothers you.
Oh - and "necessity?" According to some in this very thread "Nobody here wants war." Oh - just the bad guys then? Ok.

I can't stand it when this or the last generation bash WWII ESPECIALLY by using only numbers. It' pathetic and gets absolutely no credibility IMO.

Numbers and Stats NEVER tell the whole story. NEVER.

And what would you do if we were invaded? Or there was another holocaust? Nothing?

Gimme a break.

:drink: Cheers to free speech for the dumb. :rolleyes:

Vincent
04-06-2010, 10:49 PM
Blah, blah, blah.......blah, blah, blah.....

This is not your first time challenging me on my beliefs. Why? Live and let live. Curious how much it bothers you. Oh - and "necessity?" According to some in this very thread "Nobody here wants war." Oh - just the bad guys then? Ok.

Up to this point you were somewhat coherent. Sort of. Then this. Would you clarify? I'm unable to follow.

MACH1
04-06-2010, 11:12 PM
It has to do with being secure with yourself as a person and as a nation first. Every child learns these basic tenets. "Do unto others" - not "he started it."


All but one, and now unfortunately he is the organizer n chief.

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 01:21 AM
You got that right.

Remember when they were waiting on the beach for the SEALs coming ashore? I was mortified to say the least. In WWII, the media would have been coming ashore WITH our troops and the footage would NOT have been live.

Yes, it is absolutely astounding the restraint the press showed in WWII... Can you believe it: the entire war with no live coverage!! :dang:

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 01:37 AM
there is ALWAYS going ot be civilian casualties in any war or "conflict". it is human error by those firing or the civilian is in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you havent been there it is kind of like this your are dead ass tired maybe 4 hours of sleep over many days (ive been there). So you are tired then you have a rush of adrenaline. It happens all you know is you gotta make it through this and make sure the guy next to you makes it home to his family as well. It is easy to stand on a pedestal and point the all mighty finger.I am tired of hearing this highly educated people say oh we need to pull out NO we need to let the armed forces do there job and it will be over soon. And to those who want to pull out of the war effort i ask 1 question when are we gonna pull out of the war on poverty? It started in 1969 not many moaning and groaning about that and how much it is costing the America people ever single day.

The two sections of the War on Poverty were:

The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the only direct descendants of which still remaining are Head Start and the Job Corps. You can claim they are a waste of money, but lots of people who have benefited from them would disagree. And you might want to compare their budgets to the costs of any war in our history, including the ever-popular liberation of Grenada. Do that, and then come back and tell us how wasteful these programs are.
The Social Security Act of 1965, which gave us Medicair and Medicaid, two of the most fantastically popular programs in the history of this country. Now, I know that for many of you, the popularity of any piece of legislation is a clear indicator of Satan's handiwork, but people who believe in democracy feel a little bit differently about popular support.


As far as the overall effectiveness of the War on Poverty, it is important to note that the impetus for it was the 19% poverty rate at the time.
In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level to date: 11.1% . They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since. Since 1973 poverty has remained well below the historical U.S. averages in the range of 20-25%.

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 01:41 AM
I just thank God that the press wasn't what it is today back in the 40's, otherwise we'd all be goosestepping and speaking German today.

I get the feeling many on these boards would feel right at home with the goose-stepping crowd. And I do mean right at home.

Preacher
04-07-2010, 01:47 AM
This is not your first time challenging me on my beliefs. Why? Live and let live. Curious how much it bothers you.
Oh - and "necessity?" According to some in this very thread "Nobody here wants war." Oh - just the bad guys then? Ok.

Why does it bother me?

Because that kind of attitude allows killers and murders like Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. etc. get more and more powerful until entire continents go to war to put an end to it.

If you would dig just a little further back in your history, you would see that all of those civilian deaths would have been avoided, if England had taken a stand against Hitler earlier. Other German politicians were about to depose of him. But when England decided to give over Poland without a fight, Hitler became emboldened, millions of Jews died, and Europe was devastated.

Live and let live is wonderful when everyone wants to abide by the same rules. Sadly, there are too many Evil people who don't.

So I find those beliefs dangerously naive, and those who hold those beliefs to vote for others to be in office holding those beliefs to be putting my family in danger.

In short. I see you as a twenty-something college graduate who is privileged enough to have never really seen or experience such evil.

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 01:49 AM
Yes, and as everyone knows, the evil U.S. and the evil U.S. alone was responsible for every one of those deaths. :rolleyes:

With what number are you more comfortable?

And, as long as you bring it up, the Geneva Accords (to which we are signatories, making it the Law of the Land) are quite clear in this regard, that occupying armies are responsible - legally, morally, economically and otherwise - for the well-being of the peoples being occupied. So, yes... technically speaking the US, according to its own laws, was responsible for all unnecessary deaths in Vietnam during the war.

Preacher
04-07-2010, 02:05 AM
W

Vietnam - North Vietnamese forces killed around 130,000 civilians and POWs from 1957 to 1975.
The estimated total number of civilian and suspected communist deaths caused by South Vietnamese forces from 1955 to 1975 was 89,500.
US forces killed an estimated 90,000 South Vietnamese civilians. Again, these are deaths caused by US Forces apart from combat deaths inflicted on North Vietnames forces.


BTW, just so that your facts are a little better for the next time you argue this.
1. 1955-1975 incorporates two wars. the first was the French-indochina war. The second was what we call the Vietnam war.

2. 90,000 SV civilians? Um, do you really mean the vietcong and their structural support? Yeah, um, those have ALWAYS been considered legitimate MILITARY targets. I just LOVE how the major enemy of the war are now considered civilians.

Oh yeah, and do you actually know the world politic at the time? WHy we considered it important?

Preacher
04-07-2010, 02:09 AM
I get the feeling many on these boards would feel right at home with the goose-stepping crowd. And I do might right at home.

Congratulations, you win the "Reductio ad Hitler" argument award.

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 04:14 AM
Oh yeah, and do you actually know the world politic at the time? WHy we considered it important?

WHY??? You're asking WHY????? Have you already forgotten 9/11????????

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 04:25 AM
BTW, just so that your facts are a little better for the next time you argue this.
1. 1955-1975 incorporates two wars. the first was the French-indochina war. The second was what we call the Vietnam war.
OK. I'll ask: What were the French doing in Indochina?
2. 90,000 SV civilians? Um, do you really mean the vietcong and their structural support? Yeah, um, those have ALWAYS been considered legitimate MILITARY targets. I just LOVE how the major enemy of the war are now considered civilians.
I'm as curious as you to find out where Lefty got that number, because I'm staring at two completely different numbers in another tab: 220,357 South Vietnam war casualties, and 1,581,000 South Vietnamese civilian dead. In other words, almost 2 million dead just in South Vietnam. I'm assuming that your claim is that they were all military targets, correct?
Oh yeah, and do you actually know the world politic at the time? WHy we considered it important?
Please don't make me mention about 9/11 again.

WH
04-07-2010, 04:36 AM
Please don't make me mention about 9/11 again. What does 9/11 have to do with Vietnam?

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 04:51 AM
What does 9/11 have to do with Vietnam?

The same thing 9/11 has to do with Iraq. Goodnight.

GoSlash27
04-07-2010, 07:14 AM
The same thing 9/11 has to do with Iraq. Goodnight.

:chuckle: Good one.

Revs,
Thank Christ I never had to maneuver through it. But Goddamn to the deepest pits of Hell the arm-chair QB's in this thread who think they are in ANY kind of position to judge these soldiers who had to make these decision in the midst of that fog of war.
I have had to maneuver through it, and it stuck with me a long time afterward. I haven't seen any of the "arm-chair QB's" in this thread judging the soldiers. They are victims in this mess too.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-07-2010, 08:42 AM
I get the feeling many on these boards would feel right at home with the goose-stepping crowd..

That is an ignorant statement.

And I do might right at home

...and I have NO idea what that even means.

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 08:53 AM
Yes, it is absolutely astounding the restraint the press showed in WWII... Can you believe it: the entire war with no live coverage!! :dang:

You really have no points or a purpose do you. You certainly lack the knowledge to back up any of your adolescent arguments.

Every rational point made on this forum seems to have sailed right over your immature head. But you go ahead; be ignorant for the rest of your life. You and folks like leftoverhard can move to the father land (San Fran) and pick apart your country's history for the rest of your days.

I have no use for any know-it-all (who actually knows very little) Monday Morning QB. You people are as boring as they come.

:coffee:

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 08:54 AM
I get the feeling many on these boards would feel right at home with the goose-stepping crowd. And I do might right at home.

:noidea:

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 09:02 AM
OK. I'll ask: What were the French doing in Indochina?

I'm as curious as you to find out where Lefty got that number, because I'm staring at two completely different numbers in another tab: 220,357 South Vietnam war casualties, and 1,581,000 South Vietnamese civilian dead. In other words, almost 2 million dead just in South Vietnam. I'm assuming that your claim is that they were all military targets, correct?

No one who relies so much on numbers has any grasp of reality.


Please don't make me mention about 9/11 again.

You really need to stop using 9-11 as a joke. I'm beginning to take serious offense to it.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-07-2010, 09:41 AM
Origianally posted by ricardisimo

The two sections of the War on Poverty were:

The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the only direct descendants of which still remaining are Head Start and the Job Corps. You can claim they are a waste of money, but lots of people who have benefited from them would disagree. And you might want to compare their budgets to the costs of any war in our history, including the ever-popular liberation of Grenada. Do that, and then come back and tell us how wasteful these programs are.

I dont have to claim they are a waste of money...The Government themselves did.

"In 1985 the Department of Health and Human Services undertook the first meta-analysis of Head Start research and shook the establishment with its dire findings: "In the long run, cognitive and socioemotional test scores of former Head Start students do not remain superior to those of disadvantaged children who did not attend Head Start." In other words, Head Start was a false start--the net gain to children was zero".
http://www.cato.org/research/education/articles/stopheadstart.html

Unlike your arbitrary "opinion" of the benefit of liberating countries. The above article is a factual study by the government itself...and to really get the liberals panties in a bind they went on to say...

...."On this, findings are conclusive: early intervention programs can boost children's test scores, but those gains wash out within a few years of exiting the programs"....

In a nutshell...a child in a disadvantaged home, will slip back into the same cognitive group as those without Head Start. The ONLY thing that will get the child a true "head start" are responsible parents who work with the child on a regular basis and provide a stable homelife in which the child can thrive. (I know..."personal responsibility"...the two dirty words of the democrats). Any other cognitive acceleration is the exception to the rule.....moving on.


]The Social Security Act of 1965[/I], which gave us Medicair and Medicaid, two of the most fantastically popular programs in the history of this country. Now, I know that for many of you, the popularity of any piece of legislation is a clear indicator of Satan's handiwork, but people who believe in democracy feel a little bit differently about popular support.

Actually...one year after Medicare was instituted...only 46% of Americans were for it. Is it popular now? OF COURSE! We have become an entightlement generation.
Its simple logic....If someone were to tell me that my local grocery store was going to give me free food I would be ECSTATIC....However if I owned that grocery store I would be scratching my head and wondering how I was going to keep from going bankrupt.
Well.....this is MY country ( We who work and pay taxes are all the store owners) and though I understand that people love freebies... I also see that by opening our coffers to the masses, we are bankrupting this country.

We have become a very myopic society and refuse to acknowledge the price that our children will pay in the future because of our lack of responsibility today.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-07-2010, 09:53 AM
The same thing 9/11 has to do with Iraq. Goodnight.

:doh:....ill-informed, pseudo-intellectual immaturity is a poor substitute for an ability to debate or even make sense for that matter.

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 11:00 AM
:doh:....ill-informed, pseudo-intellectual immaturity is a poor substitute for an ability to debate or even make sense for that matter.

Amen

zulater
04-07-2010, 11:07 AM
Anyone care to find the middle ground?:doh:

:chuckle:

SteelCityMom
04-07-2010, 12:07 PM
I feel like criticism of this video is not for any of us to dish out. None of us were there in that situation. I've never been a big fan of war (really who is?), but I have the deepest respect for our military...even if I don't agree with all of the orders they are given.

Of course this video footage seems inhuman and nasty, but nobody has the right to make judgments on some snippets of what the soldiers are saying, or how they are reacting. These soldiers have to face a horrible reality of dealing with killing people, and sometimes the only way to deal with that is to make light of it at the time. I for one can't imagine how anybody who has ever been in a war manages to stay sane. I know I couldn't.

Dino 6 Rings
04-07-2010, 02:01 PM
They missed that part entirely... not that it matters, of course, since Britain is just another US state, really. It's like New Jersey, but with nuclear weapons and less Italians.

I'm from New Jersey and my mother is Italian...that said...

This was one of the funniest effing things I ever read on this fourm!!!!

"It's like New Jersey, but with nuclear weapons and less Italians"

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-07-2010, 02:17 PM
I feel like criticism of this video is not for any of us to dish out. None of us were there in that situation. I've never been a big fan of war (really who is?), but I have the deepest respect for our military...even if I don't agree with all of the orders they are given.

Of course this video footage seems inhuman and nasty, but nobody has the right to make judgments on some snippets of what the soldiers are saying, or how they are reacting. These soldiers have to face a horrible reality of dealing with killing people, and sometimes the only way to deal with that is to make light of it at the time. I for one can't imagine how anybody who has ever been in a war manages to stay sane. I know I couldn't.

Thank you...well said.
:applaudit::applaudit:

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 03:44 PM
I'm from New Jersey and my mother is Italian...that said...

This was one of the funniest effing things I ever read on this fourm!!!!

"It's like New Jersey, but with nuclear weapons and less Italians"

It was, indeed, meant to be funny... so I'm glad I hit the mark at least some of the time with some of the gang.

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 03:47 PM
Quote:
"And I do might right at home"
...and I have NO idea what that even means.
Uggh... Yup, another typo. Note to self: Glue or quaaludes, not both.

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 03:49 PM
I feel like criticism of this video is not for any of us to dish out. None of us were there in that situation. I've never been a big fan of war (really who is?), but I have the deepest respect for our military...even if I don't agree with all of the orders they are given.

Of course this video footage seems inhuman and nasty, but nobody has the right to make judgments on some snippets of what the soldiers are saying, or how they are reacting. These soldiers have to face a horrible reality of dealing with killing people, and sometimes the only way to deal with that is to make light of it at the time. I for one can't imagine how anybody who has ever been in a war manages to stay sane. I know I couldn't.

Indeed, very well said. The long and the short of it is that they need to be home, yesterday, playing actual video games. I'm still waiting for Obama's "change", in this regard as well as many others. Looks like it's "steady-as-she-goes" instead.

stlrtruck
04-07-2010, 04:09 PM
Yes, it is absolutely astounding the restraint the press showed in WWII... Can you believe it: the entire war with no live coverage!! :dang:

Was it restraint or actualy responsiblity? I believe in that day in age the media outlets actually took responsiblity for what they reported regardless of their political stances. As was once made popular by a TV Show, "Just the facts Ma'am"! And that's what news agencies reported, unlike today where they believe we want to hear their lopsided opinions. Just give me the facts and let me decide.

With what number are you more comfortable?

And, as long as you bring it up, the Geneva Accords (to which we are signatories, making it the Law of the Land) are quite clear in this regard, that occupying armies are responsible - legally, morally, economically and otherwise - for the well-being of the peoples being occupied. So, yes... technically speaking the US, according to its own laws, was responsible for all unnecessary deaths in Vietnam during the war.

That's the freakin' problem with the so-called leaders of the "Free World". They've agreed to fight wars in a specific style and with protocol while the enemy are using various other guerilla tactics that leave our men/women of the armed forces vulnerable and unable to fulfill the obligations for which they have been sent to do.

Indeed, very well said. The long and the short of it is that they need to be home, yesterday, playing actual video games. I'm still waiting for Obama's "change", in this regard as well as many others. Looks like it's "steady-as-she-goes" instead.

That "change" will never come. First, Obama spoke out of his arse when he knew very little about either situation in Iraq or Afghanistan. Second, most of the men/women who enlisted did not do so to stay home and play video games. They knew what they were getting in line for when they did it. And for that I salute them, pray for them, and when they do come home I THANK THEM!

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 04:21 PM
Was it restraint or actualy responsiblity? I believe in that day in age the media outlets actually took responsiblity for what they reported regardless of their political stances. As was once made popular by a TV Show, "Just the facts Ma'am"! And that's what news agencies reported, unlike today where they believe we want to hear their lopsided opinions. Just give me the facts and let me decide.
It was a joke, dude... think about what "live coverage" entails.
That's the freakin' problem with the so-called leaders of the "Free World". They've agreed to fight wars in a specific style and with protocol while the enemy are using various other guerilla tactics that leave our men/women of the armed forces vulnerable and unable to fulfill the obligations for which they have been sent to do.
Considering that guerrilla tactics seem to work best on one's home soil, there is one strategy that will always beat it: not invading other countries in the first place.
That "change" will never come. First, Obama spoke out of his arse when he knew very little about either situation in Iraq or Afghanistan. Second, most of the men/women who enlisted did not do so to stay home and play video games. They knew what they were getting in line for when they did it. And for that I salute them, pray for them, and when they do come home I THANK THEM!
I'd like to think that they signed up for service in order to defend their country. Am I wrong?

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 04:35 PM
It was a joke, dude... think about what "live coverage" entails.

Yea, because you had to make a joke about such a small part of a post that had meaning and was a response to something else.

Considering that guerrilla tactics seem to work best on one's home soil, there is one strategy that will always beat it: not invading other countries in the first place.
That is such an uninformed statement. Those tactics have been used successfully by us as well. The only thing that has ever lost us a war is lack of support because of wastes of skin like yourself.

I'd like to think that they signed up for service in order to defend their country. Am I wrong?

Yep. But that's only a part of the mission. Once AGAIN, speaking about something that YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT.

:coffee:

stlrtruck
04-07-2010, 04:42 PM
It was a joke, dude... think about what "live coverage" entails.

Considering that guerrilla tactics seem to work best on one's home soil, there is one strategy that will always beat it: not invading other countries in the first place.

I'd like to think that they signed up for service in order to defend their country. Am I wrong?

Thinkg about dude, reporters were there getting shot at, just because the feed wasn't live doesn't mean it wasn't live coverage. But those in charge of deciding what was aired had a better standard.

Guerrilla tactics work best anywhere, doesn't matter if it's home soil or not. Guerrilla tactics, imo, is a mental state not a specific style of war. You have to be willing to be the first to do something different. And hell for war, the object is either completely destroy your enemy or make them surrender (see Fat Man and Little Boy).

While they signed up to defend the United States, there is more to it than just that. To find out, go down to wherever people enlist and listen to what they recite when they raise their right hand. You'll be surprised to what they do.

Yea, because you had to make a joke about such a small part of a post that had meaning and was a response to something else.


That is such an uninformed statement. Those tactics have been used successfully by us as well. The only thing that has ever lost us a war is lack of support because of wastes of skin like yourself.



Yep. But that's only a part of the mission. Once AGAIN, speaking about something that YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT.

:coffee:


Dang-it WarDen you beat me to the punch! Would you please stop it!? :chuckle:

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 04:46 PM
Dang-it WarDen you beat me to the punch! Would you please stop it!? :chuckle:


:doh: Sorry. Couldn't be helped. :chuckle:

:drink:

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 04:47 PM
You really need to stop using 9-11 as a joke. I'm beginning to take serious offense to it.

Presidents can use it as a ruse to grab at oil fields, but you're offended by my sarcasm?

Leftoverhard
04-07-2010, 04:53 PM
In short. I see you as a twenty-something college graduate who is privileged enough to have never really seen or experience such evil.

Nope - not even close. Actually, I think you could play your guessing game for months without even coming close. Not everyone fits your stereotype. There are plenty of sane people who believe in non-violence - and quite a few of us don't fit into the tired old tie-dye shirt you have in your head.

Just to remind you - I put up numbers of civilian casualties of the past few wars to remind anyone who actually reads this that those deaths are not just a few random cameramen or children brought to a firefight - those people are the reason war doesn't work. From that you jump to conclusions about my opinions.
It's easy to explain this and that off as necessary and say humans are mostly just evil - but why not try harder? Why not put some faith in real live humans? I believe that most people are capable of achieving something better than this. Of course, on this message board that means I'm a utopian hippy who lives in the clouds. Whatever makes it easier for you.

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 04:54 PM
Presidents can use it as a ruse to grab at oil fields, but you're offended by my sarcasm?

Rico, Who is brainwashing you??????


And yes, 9/11 shouldn't be used as a joke. There is nothing funny about 9/11. And if I recall, the majority of this country AND its leaders WANTED to go to war because of 9/11.

Did you actually believe (if you're old enough) that Iraq DIDN'T have WMD's back in 2002-2003?

And even if they didn't, we ousted an evil dictator and I don't care. GWB could have said, "Hey America, this asshole's got to go based on genocide alone, so we're going in to get him out." and I would have had no issues with that.

You should be asking yourself why Bill Clinton didn't act during the Rwanda Genocide, because issues of a humanitarian nature do fall under the missions of our military.

Leftoverhard
04-07-2010, 04:57 PM
I'm as curious as you to find out where Lefty got that number.

Wikipedia. When there are "disputed" numbers like these, I always use the lowest number I can find when posting on this message board. I don't think I need to explain why. :wink02:

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 04:58 PM
Nope - not even close. Actually, I think you could play your guessing game for months without even coming close. Not everyone fits your stereotype. There are plenty of sane people who believe in non-violence - and quite a few of us don't fit into the tired old tie-dye shirt you have in your head.

Just to remind you - I put up numbers of civilian casualties of the past few wars to remind anyone who actually reads this that those deaths are not just a few random cameramen or children brought to a firefight - those people are the reason war doesn't work. From that you jump to conclusions about my opinions.
It's easy to explain this and that off as necessary and say humans are mostly just evil - but why not try harder? Why not put some faith in real live humans? I believe that most people are capable of achieving something better than this. Of course, on this message board that means I'm a utopian hippy who lives in the clouds. Whatever makes it easier for you.

More numbers that lead you to believe war doesn't work. War is never pretty, but it'll never go away either. You should be thankful that there are volunteers that go off to fight wars for you and see to it that these wars don't come to you here at home.

As far as the utopian hippy thing, you don't give us much choice but to see you that way.

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 04:59 PM
Wikipedia. When there are "disputed" numbers like these, I always use the lowest number I can find when posting on this message board. I don't think I need to explain why. :wink02:

Not that you couldn't find one, but wikipedia isn't a credible source. You know that right?

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 05:17 PM
Rico, Who is brainwashing you??????


And yes, 9/11 shouldn't be used as a joke. There is nothing funny about 9/11. And if I recall, the majority of this country AND its leaders WANTED to go to war because of 9/11.

Did you actually believe (if you're old enough) that Iraq DIDN'T have WMD's back in 2002-2003?

And even if they didn't, we ousted an evil dictator and I don't care. GWB could have said, "Hey America, this asshole's got to go based on genocide alone, so we're going in to get him out." and I would have had no issues with that.

You should be asking yourself why Bill Clinton didn't act during the Rwanda Genocide, because issues of a humanitarian nature do fall under the missions of our military.
[sigh] You recall incorrectly: aside from a very few brief moments (Saddam's capture was one) majority opinion in this country was against the war, before, during and after. The few brief exceptions, by the way, are thanks largely to a completely compliant and subservient news media, the same news media you claim is somehow anti-war or otherwise misbehaving.

[deep sigh] No, Iraq obviously did not have any WMDs other than those which were catalogued by the UN inspectors at the time. Shouting the opposite doesn't change that fact. That is the entire reason why Bush (and a once-again-compliant news media) changed rationales for the war, it's why Powell called his UN speech a "blot on his record", and it's why Tony Blair just recently admitted that, of course, there were no WMDs in Iraq, but that [gasp!] he would have done it again anyway.

Ask yourself who put Saddam in power and why.

It's not true that Clinton "did not act" on the Rwandan issue. By several accounts, he and Madeleine Albright worked feverishly behind the scenes to keep both the UN and NATO out of Rwanda, most likely for exceedingly short-sighted electoral reasons. I hope that both of them have difficulty sleeping at night... although I doubt they do. I also wish to see both of them behind bars, right next to George and Dick, but for different reasons. We've covered this topic in several other threads, and I won't rehash it here unless you boys insist.

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 05:20 PM
Not that you couldn't find one, but wikipedia isn't a credible source. You know that right?

I'll refer you to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia) on the topic.

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 05:26 PM
[sigh] You recall incorrectly: aside from a very few brief moments (Saddam's capture was one) majority opinion in this country was against the war, before, during and after. The few brief exceptions, by the way, are thanks largely to a completely compliant and subservient news media, the same news media you claim is somehow anti-war or otherwise misbehaving.

[deep sigh] No, Iraq obviously did not have any WMDs other than those which were catalogued by the UN inspectors at the time. Shouting the opposite doesn't change that fact. That is the entire reason why Bush (and a once-again-compliant news media) changed rationales for the war, it's why Powell called his UN speech a "blot on his record", and it's why Tony Blair just recently admitted that, of course, there were no WMDs in Iraq, but that [gasp!] he would have done it again anyway.

Ask yourself who put Saddam in power and why.

It's not true that Clinton "did not act" on the Rwandan issue. By several accounts, he and Madeleine Albright worked feverishly behind the scenes to keep both the UN and NATO out of Rwanda, most likely for exceedingly short-sighted electoral reasons. I hope that both of them have difficulty sleeping at night... although I doubt they do. I also wish to see both of them behind bars, right next to George and Dick, but for different reasons. We've covered this topic in several other threads, and I won't rehash it here unless you boys insist.

You're hopeless. Truly hopeless. :doh:


I disagree with pretty much all of that BS you just wrote and if you think we acted then you should ask Madeline Albright. She DOES lose sleep at night because of the way she dragged her feet. Don't believe me? Go watch, "Ghosts of Rawanda." You can hear her say it herself.

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 05:28 PM
I'll refer you to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia) on the topic.


FACT: Wikipedia is NOT a credible source. While they may list credible references, they are not themselves a credible source. And again, that is a fact my little ostrich friend.

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 05:34 PM
FACT: Wikipedia is NOT a credible source. While they may list credible references, they are not themselves a credible source. And again, that is a fact my little ostrich friend.

Can you find me the Wikipedia article that supports your claim?

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 05:38 PM
Can you find me the Wikipedia article that supports your claim?

Alright, that's "kinda" funny. But I still don't like you.

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 05:39 PM
Alright, that's "kinda" funny. But I still don't like you.

We wouldn't want that, now.

Leftoverhard
04-07-2010, 05:45 PM
Not that you couldn't find one, but wikipedia isn't a credible source. You know that right?

Oh - sorry, I'll start quoting you next time. :wink02:

Wikipedia (in many cases) is what a lot of other "credible" websites use as a source. Like anything else, a person needs to cross reference whatever they use as a source - but on internet message boards, one linked source works just fine.

Leftoverhard
04-07-2010, 05:48 PM
Oops! Sorry, forgot to cite my source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use)

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 05:57 PM
Oops! Sorry, forgot to cite my source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use)

Whenever possible, I try to cite from here (http://hotchickswithdouchebags.com/), but with admittedly mixed results.

The truth is we should all be reading books, and spending way less time pissing on each other here. But that would be a little less fun.

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 06:00 PM
Oh - sorry, I'll start quoting you next time. :wink02:

Wikipedia (in many cases) is what a lot of other "credible" websites use as a source. Like anything else, a person needs to cross reference whatever they use as a source - but on internet message boards, one linked source works just fine.

Oops! Sorry, forgot to cite my source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use)

All BS aside, there's no need to provide a source. I just wanted to point out that wikipedia is not considered a credible source and is not allowed for works in pretty much all high schools and colleges. However, they do tend to list some good sources themselves.

Hey, you can quote me. I get my stuff from texts mostly.

Still, I hate stats: sports stats, corporate stats and stats like the way they're being used here. While I believe they do have a place, it's a much smaller role than what they're constantly being used for.

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 06:02 PM
Whenever possible, I try to cite from here (http://hotchickswithdouchebags.com/), but with admittedly mixed results.

The truth is we should all be reading books, and spending way less time pissing on each other here. But that would be a little less fun.

You might find this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God) interesting.

:chuckle:

Preacher
04-07-2010, 06:37 PM
Nope - not even close. Actually, I think you could play your guessing game for months without even coming close. Not everyone fits your stereotype. There are plenty of sane people who believe in non-violence - and quite a few of us don't fit into the tired old tie-dye shirt you have in your head.

Just to remind you - I put up numbers of civilian casualties of the past few wars to remind anyone who actually reads this that those deaths are not just a few random cameramen or children brought to a firefight - those people are the reason war doesn't work. From that you jump to conclusions about my opinions.
It's easy to explain this and that off as necessary and say humans are mostly just evil - but why not try harder? Why not put some faith in real live humans? I believe that most people are capable of achieving something better than this. Of course, on this message board that means I'm a utopian hippy who lives in the clouds. Whatever makes it easier for you.

Hey, I'll admit when I am wrong. Obviously I confused you with another guy on this board that just graduated college and went into teaching. Can't remember who it is now, thought it was you.

On the subject itself. The basis of evil acts by evil humans is that they usually hide behind the innocent, thus creating even more deaths. It is a well known fact that in both Vietnam and in Iraq, insurgents will hide in a church/mosque and fire at American troops. Then, when the troops fire back, they circulate pictures and rumors that Americans are bombing and shooting at those places of worship. They do the same from within crowds of innocents, PRECISELY to cause greater casualties.

Yet, if they are NOT sought out and killed, then those same battles will happen, in OUR country. However, it will be done with planes, trains, cars, etc. among OUR civilians.

When given the option, it is preferable for their civilians to die over our civilians. That is the choice they have made... for their own brothers and sisters to suffer.

Do wish it was different? yep. But look around the world. The fact of the matter is, it is not. Asia has multiple wars waging, and is constantly on the verge of a nuclear war on the Indian subcontinent. Africa is as war-torn as can be, with no end in sight. Central America still has multiple coups and South America is looking more and more dangerous. East-West tensions in Europe are ascending again, not to mention Franco-German-Anglo tensions due to the EU.

All it takes is one person to push ANY of those over the edge. Do you REALLY think that just folding up shop will stop those wars? Do you really think that we can change 5,000 years of civilized history just like that?

THAT is why you are thought of as a tye-dye liberal. Because it is the same pie-in-the-sky hope that does nothing more than welcome our enemies to attack us.

Enter stage right... 9-11. we were seen as WEAK, and that is why OBL thought he could get away with attacking the US.

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 06:52 PM
Enter stage right... 9-11. we were seen as WEAK, and that is why OBL thought he could get away with attacking the US.

But he did get away with attacking us, and we responded exactly as he hoped we would. Do either of those facts bother you at all?

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 07:15 PM
But he did get away with attacking us, and we responded exactly as he hoped we would. Do either of those facts bother you at all?

OBL wanted us out of Saudi Arabia. I'd say his plan backfired. The Taliban is no longer in control in Afghanistan and OBL hasn't been allowed to be seen in the open for almost a decade (IF he;s even still alive). Those are the facts.

Preacher
04-07-2010, 07:24 PM
But he did get away with attacking us, and we responded exactly as he hoped we would. Do either of those facts bother you at all?

Responded exactly as he had hoped? Really? You know this how?

Please explain to me the realpolitik of the Muslim community concerning their view of weakness.

Clinton responded in Mogadishu exactly as he hoped, and that is how he thinks we will respond again. By losing interest as soon as we start losing men (and women). And THAT, is documented.

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 07:27 PM
Clinton responded in Mogadishu exactly as he hoped, and that is how he thinks we will respond again. By losing interest as soon as we start losing men (and women). And THAT, is documented.

http://www.netministry.com/clientfiles/69050/bullseye.jpg

smokin3000gt
04-07-2010, 07:29 PM
But he did get away with attacking us, and we responded exactly as he hoped we would. Do either of those facts bother you at all?

What do you suppose we should have done?

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 07:37 PM
What do you suppose we should have done?

Oh, I can't wait to hear the answer to this one....


:popcorn:

smokin3000gt
04-07-2010, 07:47 PM
Oh, I can't wait to hear the answer to this one....


:popcorn:

Don't get excited. It's probably just another 9/11 joke..

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 07:56 PM
Don't get excited. It's probably just another 9/11 joke..

Please don't make me mention 9/11 again.

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 07:58 PM
What do you suppose we should have done?

I think we should have filed the appropriate papers with the Afghanis, had bin Laden extradited to the US, tried him in a court of law and punished him, along with every single one of his accomplices. Thank you for asking.

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 08:02 PM
I think we should have filed the appropriate papers with the Afghanis, had bin Laden extradited to the US, tried him in a court of law and punished him, along with every single one of his accomplices. Thank you for asking.

And what exactly makes you believe that our "filed papers" would have had any impact on OBL and Co. what-so-ever??? :noidea:

I'm sorry, but that is nothing short of laughable. In fact, it's cute. I want to pinch your little cheek now.

MACH1
04-07-2010, 08:06 PM
I think we should have filed the appropriate papers with the Afghanis, had bin Laden extradited to the US, tried him in a court of law and punished him, along with every single one of his accomplices. Thank you for asking.

What court of law would the be? International court, U.S. court, military court. Can't wait for the answer.

Next you'll want to drag them into a civil court. :doh:


http://images9.cafepress.com/product/151761019v7_225x225_Front.jpg

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 08:12 PM
And what exactly makes you believe that our "filed papers" would have had any impact on OBL and Co. what-so-ever??? :noidea:

I'm sorry, but that is nothing short of laughable. In fact, it's cute. I want to pinch your little cheek now.

I'm glad you enjoy it, and I'm glad that you find due process and international law to be entertaining. I believe that his extradition would have been processed, for the same reason anyone believes that any extradition would be processed. Do we invade every country where one of our fugitives is living?

Also, there is the pesky little detail that the Afghanis actually followed proper protocol, requesting the facts of the case before processing any extradition. Why would they do that if they had no interest in handing him over?

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 08:18 PM
I'm glad you enjoy it, and I'm glad that you find due process and international law to be entertaining. I believe that his extradition would have been processed, for the same reason anyone believes that any extradition would be processed. Do we invade every country where one of our fugitives is living?

Also, there is the pesky little detail that the Afghanis actually followed proper protocol, requesting the facts of the case before processing any extradition. Why would they do that if they had no interest in handing him over?


My goodness you are naive. :doh:

How many "fugitives" have murdered 3,000 Americans and destroyed several city blocks including two of the largest buildings in the world? :noidea:

Who would extradite him? The Taliban? :popcorn:


P.S. I'm ignoring the " I'm glad that you find due process and international law to be entertaining" teenage psycho-babble part.

smokin3000gt
04-07-2010, 08:21 PM
I think we should have filed the appropriate papers with the Afghanis, had bin Laden extradited to the US, tried him in a court of law and punished him, along with every single one of his accomplices. Thank you for asking.

:doh: Why didn't we think of that??

That does sound nice and way better then war but the TALIBAN weren't exactly pro-American or logical people to say the least.

So we ask them, we get the ol' :fingers: ... now what?

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 08:22 PM
:doh: Why didn't we think of that??

That does sound nice and way better then war but the TALIBAN weren't exactly pro-American or logical people to say the least.

So we ask them, we get the ol' :fingers: ... now what?

Well, then they'll be on DOUBLE-SECRET PROBATION! :chuckle:

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 08:25 PM
What court of law would the be? International court, U.S. court, military court. Can't wait for the answer.

Next you'll want to drag them into a civil court. :doh:

You tell me: where did we try the previous people who tried to destroy the WTC? Or McVeigh and Nichols? What about the Lockerbie trial? Was that in Geneva? In a gay bar in San Francisco? At a Klan meeting in Boise?

Where do you think the trial would be held?

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 08:32 PM
You tell me: where did we try the previous people who tried to destroy the WTC? Or McVeigh and Nichols? What about the Lockerbie trial? Was that in Geneva? In a gay bar in San Francisco? At a Klan meeting in Boise?

Where do you think the trial would be held?


The trial is secondary. These guys WOULD NOT have been extradited because there was no government TO extradite them. To even think otherwise is beyond ridiculous.

On a side note: GWB DID issue a warning about harboring these guys, and I assure you much of that region was shitting bricks about our position. Yassir Arafat himself was visibly shaking as he gave blood to the Red Cross in the days after.

Anyway, so now you've issued your "filed paperwork" and submit it to......well, who? Afghanistan's Taliban Government I guess, and they tell you to go screw. Now what?

:popcorn:

smokin3000gt
04-07-2010, 08:40 PM
Well, then they'll be on DOUBLE-SECRET PROBATION! :chuckle:

:sofunny:

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 08:54 PM
He must be doing research. The realization of his being from "lalaland" should have hit him by now. Poor, confused little guy.

ricardisimo
04-07-2010, 10:04 PM
The trial is secondary. Tell Mach that. He's the one that asked.

These guys WOULD NOT have been extradited because there was no government TO extradite them. To even think otherwise is beyond ridiculous.
So then the Bush administration was being ridiculous when they made an extradition request of the Afghan government.
On a side note: GWB DID issue a warning about harboring these guys, and I assure you much of that region was shitting bricks about our position. Yassir Arafat himself was visibly shaking as he gave blood to the Red Cross in the days after.
Arafat? Was he involved in 9/11 too? Wow... The plot thickens.
Anyway, so now you've issued your "filed paperwork" and submit it to......well, who? Afghanistan's Taliban Government I guess, and they tell you to go screw. Now what?
Why don't we look that up, and find out what the next step would be if an initial request is denied. We'll be the wiser for it.

In the meantime, I'll ask you: So the Afghan government is satisfied with the documents they are shown, and agree to extradite bin Laden. Now what? If you are George Bush, what do you do?
He must be doing research. The realization of his being from "lalaland" should have hit him by now. Poor, confused little guy.
By "research", do you mean just talking about how silly and naive anyone who disagrees with me must be? I'm willing to do that as well.

MACH1
04-07-2010, 10:05 PM
You tell me: where did we try the previous people who tried to destroy the WTC? Or McVeigh and Nichols? What about the Lockerbie trial? Was that in Geneva? In a gay bar in San Francisco? At a Klan meeting in Boise?

Where do you think the trial would be held?

Try them on the firing squad line! Or is that to harsh for your little kumbaya heart?

I'd really like to see you sit down next to a war vet and explain to them how all they did was kill innocent (or innocent until proven guilty) people and children along with all the "war crimes" they've committed in the process. Then I'd really enjoy watching them stuff your little imaginary world square up your backside. While your at it you should thank them for the freedom of speech they fought for so you can express your views openly.

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 10:13 PM
Tell Mach that. He's the one that asked.
Yet it was all you addressed.


So then the Bush administration was being ridiculous when they made an extradition request of the Afghan government.
Nope, but made the smart play and gave the opportunity. Again, didn't happen. No one with half a brain thought it would.

Arafat? Was he involved in 9/11 too? Wow... The plot thickens.
Who said he was involved? :noidea: I'm just giving an example of a non-ally in that region who was sweating the consequences for what had just happened. Who knows what else he might have been thinking about.

Why don't we look that up, and find out what the next step would be if an initial request is denied. We'll be the wiser for it.
No, no. this is YOUR theory. YOU look it up.

In the meantime, I'll ask you: So the Afghan government is satisfied with the documents they are shown, and agree to extradite bin Laden. Now what? If you are George Bush, what do you do?
That would never have happened, but since we're going the distance on speculation here, I would imagine we'd continue to investigate and "extradite" the key players and bring them home for trial.

By "research", do you mean just talking about how silly and naive anyone who disagrees with me must be? I'm willing to do that as well.
You strike me as a high school student in his junior or senior year. Now, I don't know if that's true or not, but I'm basing that on your "ideas." I mean this quite seriously and with no offense intended; You're thoughts on this matter are extremely naive. I think it's safe to say that the majority (the VAST majority) of rational thinking adults would agree with me on that one.

Vincent
04-07-2010, 10:25 PM
I think we should have filed the appropriate papers with the Afghanis, had bin Laden extradited to the US, tried him in a court of law and punished him, along with every single one of his accomplices. Thank you for asking.

Whoa! Slow down Podnah. Don't go off the deep end. There's still such a thing as a sharp letter to the Times.

tony hipchest
04-07-2010, 10:26 PM
That would never have happened, but since we're going the distance on speculation here, I would imagine we'd continue to investigate and "extradite" the key players and bring them home for trial.

:scratchchin:

personally, i thought it was much more fun to watch on live tv as we bombed the shit out of them. it was almost exhilirating when those 1st tomahawks started to land.

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 10:28 PM
:scratchchin:

personally, i thought it was much more fun to watch on live tv as we bombed the shit out of them. it was almost exhilirating when those 1st tomahawks started to land.

Now Tony, war is bad, bad, bad (and always fails apparently). Anyway, we're speculating the perfect world here; Don't you come in and ruin it all with your war mongering ways. :chuckle:

fansince'76
04-07-2010, 10:30 PM
Well, then they'll be on DOUBLE-SECRET PROBATION! :chuckle:

Is that after the UN issues 17 or so watered down "sanctions," or before?

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 10:32 PM
Is that after the UN issues 17 or so watered down "sanctions," or before?


"Sanctions:" Is that when they do the whole, "stop! or I shall say Stop again!" thing?

Vincent
04-07-2010, 10:38 PM
Now Tony, war is bad, bad, bad (and always fails apparently). Anyway, we're speculating the perfect world here; Don't you come in and ruin it all with your war mongering ways. :chuckle:

He said "almost exhilirating". That recognizes the carnality of the primal Tony yet demonstrates the conquest by the "centered" Tony.

Tony is indeed "iron"!! :hatsoff: You inspire me, Man!!

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 10:43 PM
He said "almost exhilirating". That recognizes the carnality of the primal Tony yet demonstrates the conquest by the "centered" Tony.

Tony is indeed "iron"!! :hatsoff: You inspire me, Man!!


Ahh, the many aspects of our friend Tony. He's a mystery man. :wink02:

tony hipchest
04-07-2010, 10:49 PM
Now Tony, war is bad, bad, bad (and always fails apparently). Anyway, we're speculating the perfect world here; Don't you come in and ruin it all with your war mongering ways. :chuckle:yeah, but it makes for good TV.

if 500 lb bunker busters raining down on baghdad on live television dont get your blood flowin, i dont know what will.

plus we paid billions of dollars in taxes for that firework show. might as well enjoy it. :noidea:

atleast it beats watching the ball drop in times square on new years eve. :party:

:drooling:

fansince'76
04-07-2010, 10:50 PM
:scratchchin:

personally, i thought it was much more fun to watch on live tv as we bombed the shit out of them. it was almost exhilirating when those 1st tomahawks started to land.


These cruise missile strikes were pretty cool too:

ArVaLGLe_mU

:salute:

Vincent
04-07-2010, 10:52 PM
it beats watching the ball drop in times square on new years eve. :party: :drooling:

By a country mile.

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 10:53 PM
yeah, but it makes for good TV.

if 500 lb bunker busters raining down on baghdad on live television dont get your blood flowin, i dont know what will.

plus we paid billions of dollars in taxes for that firework show. might as well enjoy it. :noidea:

atleast it beats watching the ball drop in times square on new years eve. :party:

:drooling:

You forgot to mention having Saddam's General what's-his-face narrate for us: "Dis is nutting. You think dis is sumting?" BA-BOOOOOOOOM! "I'm getting de f**k out of here"
*dust cloud where the General was standing*

Bah, $$? Who cares anymore. We spend billions on training too. May as well flex our muscle for a change. :noidea:

Vincent
04-07-2010, 10:53 PM
Brothers! We've found our inner war monger. Let us bang our drums and have a virtual hug!!

NJarhead
04-07-2010, 10:56 PM
Brothers! We've found our inner war monger. Let us bang our drums and have a virtual hug!!


No, no, no; Virtual chest bump. :chuckle:

fansince'76
04-07-2010, 10:56 PM
Brothers! We've found our inner war monger. Let us bang our drums and have a virtual hug!!

bPXVGQnJm0w

:chuckle:

Vincent
04-07-2010, 10:59 PM
You forgot to mention having Saddam's General what's-his-face narrate for us: "Dis is nutting. You think dis is sumting?" BA-BOOOOOOOOM! "I'm getting de f**k out of here"
*dust cloud where the General was standing*

Lemme lasso two threads together here...

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/walmart_pic.jpg

Vincent
04-07-2010, 11:00 PM
bPXVGQnJm0w

:chuckle:

Don't toy with my emotions 76.

tony hipchest
04-07-2010, 11:00 PM
He said "almost exhilirating". That recognizes the carnality of the primal Tony yet demonstrates the conquest by the "centered" Tony.

Tony is indeed "iron"!! :hatsoff: You inspire me, Man!!

:laughing:

X9gGrOfzkWo

tony hipchest
04-07-2010, 11:09 PM
These cruise missile strikes were pretty cool too:



:salute:truth be told, just riding along with david bloom every morning, as he passed cameljockey bedouin sheepherders, and kicked up dust in the middle of BFE, was cool too.

...that is until the blood clot traveled to his brain and exploded a vessel inside his skull.

NJarhead
04-08-2010, 01:46 AM
truth be told, just riding along with david bloom every morning, as he passed cameljockey bedouin sheepherders, and kicked up dust in the middle of BFE, was cool too.

...that is until the blood clot traveled to his brain and exploded a vessel inside his skull.


You're on the wrong side of the fence brother. :chuckle:

ricardisimo
04-08-2010, 08:37 AM
Try them on the firing squad line! Or is that to harsh for your little kumbaya heart?

I'd really like to see you sit down next to a war vet and explain to them how all they did was kill innocent (or innocent until proven guilty) people and children along with all the "war crimes" they've committed in the process. Then I'd really enjoy watching them stuff your little imaginary world square up your backside. While your at it you should thank them for the freedom of speech they fought for so you can express your views openly.

Ah, Mach, your bizarre homoerotic fetishes notwithstanding, I have indeed sat down many times with many veterans and asked them about what they went through. See, my community is comprised of working-class blacks and Latinos, who along with working-class Southern whites actually make us the bulk of the armed forces, rather than just fantasizing about it while flipping through back issues of Guns & Ammo.

Rather than do anything untoward with my backside, as per your naughty desires, they appreciate the empathy when I tell them "that sucks" after they recount what they went through, both over there and back home. Next time I talk with one of my buds, I'll tell them that you wanted me to recite the Pledge of Allegiance instead. I'll see if they find that more helpful.

ricardisimo
04-08-2010, 08:56 AM
You strike me as a high school student in his junior or senior year. Now, I don't know if that's true or not, but I'm basing that on your "ideas." I mean this quite seriously and with no offense intended; You're thoughts on this matter are extremely naive. I think it's safe to say that the majority (the VAST majority) of rational thinking adults would agree with me on that one.

Fair enough. I'd guess you were in the 7th or 8th grade. I also don't know if that's true, but I'm just basing it on your lack of "ideas". I likewise mean it quite seriously and mean no offense. You use the words "ignorant" and "naive" like the Sicilian in Princess Bride uses "incontheivable", or like you just learned them and are trying them out.

You, and many others in this forum, also still seem to believe the words that come out of the mouths of our leaders, which is inexplicable unless a) you're simply too young still; or b) you haven't been paying attention.

As far as the VAST majority of rational thinking adults, when they were asked (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) "Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?" back on 9/23/2009, 67% said "Not worth it". Mind you, they didn't screen for the "rational, thinking adult" part - which I take to mean "people who agree with WarDen", but still, you appear to be in a distinct minority.

MACH1
04-08-2010, 09:57 AM
Ah, Mach, your bizarre homoerotic fetishes notwithstanding, I have indeed sat down many times with many veterans and asked them about what they went through. See, my community is comprised of working-class blacks and Latinos, who along with working-class Southern whites actually make us the bulk of the armed forces, rather than just fantasizing about it while flipping through back issues of Guns & Ammo.

Rather than do anything untoward with my backside, as per your naughty desires, they appreciate the empathy when I tell them "that sucks" after they recount what they went through, both over there and back home. Next time I talk with one of my buds, I'll tell them that you wanted me to recite the Pledge of Allegiance instead. I'll see if they find that more helpful.

Is this where I go cry and whine to the mods like a snot nosed baby about personal attacks like you?

In the real world where the sky is blue I appreciate what they did and what they went through. Not just take it for granted and offer a bit more than a measly "that sucks dude". Unlike you I get to see, talk and care for vets on a daily basis and know enough that they are the real national treasures of this country, not war criminals. When your finished playing Yankee Doodle on your "buds" skin flute maybe you'll realize just how lucky you are to be able come out of the closet and be a part of your gay community. You should thank them for that next time too, that you have the freedom to play catcher. Maybe you'll realize that when you grow up and get out of your little fantasy world.

Indo
04-08-2010, 11:10 AM
I know some vets. One of them is my Nephew. He serves in the Big Red 1 (for those that don't know, that's US Army 1st Division)

http://64.78.33.72/images/shoulderpatch1.jpg


He was there for the Battle of Fallujah
and many other firefights that didn't quite make the news

He doesn't talk about it much---it usually takes a few beers to get him going, but once he starts, he keeps talking. About all of it.
--How he saw a mortar land on his Best Friend's head; and how he saw his friends arms and legs and other body parts scattered around him.
--How he saw little kids go up to soldiers and ask them for food, and then detonate the bombs they were wearing.
--How he had to shoot a family driving in a car who were trying to run a checkpoint; they later found some "toys" no family should have had in the trunk of the car.
--How he was recommended for the Silver Star for pulling wounded soldiers out of the line of fire; he didn't get it because the officer who recommended it got wounded and had to be transferred stateside before the final decision was made by the upper Brass
--these are just a few of the things he talks about...I don't really have time to list more...

There are tears in his eyes when he tells these stories.

When I ask him (and his soldier friends) if it is/was worth it they ALL, to a man, say yes...because each of them have had NUMEROUS Iraqi citizens hug and thank them for the New Life that they have been given---that the constant threat of oppression and tyranny has been lifted by the actions of the United States of America and the selflessness of the US Soldier.

zulater
04-08-2010, 11:12 AM
I think history will look back a lot more favorably on our invasion of Iraq than what the current view is. That country truly has the potential to become a working democracy. Taking out the Butcher of Baghdad and his sons should be viewed as a great service to the people of that country through the prism of time.

Obviously many mistakes were made trying to help that country regain it's feet. Some were preventable, others, well you just can't predict the tide of war, it's tragic that innocents have to die.

But to me what's more sad and unfortunate is that the world tolerates despots in the first place. That young girls can be stoned to death as adulterers, after having been forced into arranged marriages with perverts over 3 times their age. That the the countries that allow such things to happen sit on the U.N's human rights commision is a huge part of the reason that our country has to supposedly act unilateterally ( even though we didn't) to begin with.

I know the above is rambling and disjointed, but I truly get frustrated with those that make the US out to be the worlds enemy. I know we don't always get it right, I know our motives are often intermixed with self interest ( why wouldn't it be?) but in the end this country looks to help the world despite itself. And the world is better because of us.

Indo
04-08-2010, 11:13 AM
BTW, I''m guessing that the French said the same thing when the US liberated them from the Nazi occupation.

And I think the Jews who survived the Concentration Camps were pretty thankful, too. And the men who freed them probably thought that that was worth it...

So...how is our presence in Iraq any different from our presence in Europe in the 1940's?

("we want the oil :blah: :blah: :blah:")

ricardisimo
04-08-2010, 11:41 AM
I know some vets. One of them is my Nephew. He serves in the Big Red 1 (for those that don't know, that's US Army 1st Division)

http://64.78.33.72/images/shoulderpatch1.jpg


He was there for the Battle of Fallujah
and many other firefights that didn't quite make the news

He doesn't talk about it much---it usually takes a few beers to get him going, but once he starts, he keeps talking. About all of it.
--How he saw a mortar land on his Best Friend's head; and how he saw his friends arms and legs and other body parts scattered around him.
--How he saw little kids go up to soldiers and ask them for food, and then detonate the bombs they were wearing.
--How he had to shoot a family driving in a car who were trying to run a checkpoint; they later found some "toys" no family should have had in the trunk of the car.
--How he was recommended for the Silver Star for pulling wounded soldiers out of the line of fire; he didn't get it because the officer who recommended it got wounded and had to be transferred stateside before the final decision was made by the upper Brass
--these are just a few of the things he talks about...I don't really have time to list more...

There are tears in his eyes when he tells these stories.

When I ask him (and his soldier friends) if it is/was worth it they ALL, to a man, say yes...because each of them have had NUMEROUS Iraqi citizens hug and thank them for the New Life that they have been given---that the constant threat of oppression and tyranny has been lifted by the actions of the United States of America and the selflessness of the US Soldier.

Tell your nephew I'm very sorry. Losing friends and family is awful, but seeing it happen right in front of you like that has to be crippling at times. He and his comrades should be proud of their achievements in Iraq. They've were given a lemon and made more than just lemonade out it, and they did get rid of a complete monster and his cohorts. They deserve kudos for that.

None of which changes the fact that George Bush and Barack Obama are war mongers, war criminals and lying sacks of shit who deserve to rot in some dark prison somewhere. Nor does it change the fact that we could have rid ourselves of Hussein and his thugs and weapons exactly the same way we rid ourselves of Ceauşescu, Marcos, the apartheid government in South Africa, very soon Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and dozens of other examples around the world that didn't require a single American soldier's life.

Why does questioning the brass equate to disrespecting the grunts in your mind? I want your nephew and his friends home, defending our borders. How is that disrespectful?

Vincent
04-08-2010, 11:50 AM
Nor does it change the fact that we could have rid ourselves of Hussein and his thugs and weapons exactly the same way we rid ourselves of Ceauşescu, Marcos, the apartheid government in South Africa, very soon Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and dozens of other examples around the world that didn't require a single American soldier's life.

What involvement did "we" have in "ridding ourselves" of Ceauşescu, and apartheid, and what do you imagine our role to be in "ridding ourselves" of Mugabe?

ricardisimo
04-08-2010, 12:06 PM
What involvement did "we" have in "ridding ourselves" of Ceauşescu, and apartheid, and what do you imagine our role to be in "ridding ourselves" of Mugabe?

Little or nothing, which is precisely the point. We either left them alone completely or (in the cases of Marcos and others) stopped supporting our former clients once they became an embarrassment.

There was a time when conservatives rightly decried "Democrat wars" and called for our government to leave other people alone. How the mighty have fallen.

Indo
04-08-2010, 12:21 PM
Why does questioning the brass equate to disrespecting the grunts in your mind? I want your nephew and his friends home, defending our borders. How is that disrespectful?


I didn't think that you were being disrespectful to the soldiers. Not in the least.
I was merely pointing out that there are those that feel that it is/was worth it--not so much because they agreed with the politicians, but because they could relate to the citizens who had been subjected to severe oppression (while Saddam had how many palaces); not to mention their having to deal with the constant threat of annihilation at that hands of a (my opinion) madman. I think it gives them a sense of purpose and honor to be able to help these people live a better life. And that, in my opinion, is Noble.

Vincent
04-08-2010, 12:28 PM
Little or nothing, which is precisely the point.

exactly the same way we rid ourselves of Ceauşescu, Marcos, the apartheid government in South Africa, very soon Mugabe in Zimbabwe...

I search in vain for the point.

But hey, I'm all over ridding the planet of thugs without committing troops. With the exception of the sovs and chicomms, any enemy we face is going to be a 4G enemy. Trying to deal with that in 2G mode just gets lots of our folks killed or maimed. Killing their leaders and command structure is the better approach. D'ya thing the donkeys will go for it? We don't need to torture them or anything. Just blow dey asses up.

Our Achilles heel in that approach is our pathetic to non existent intel. If you're going to whack thugs, you need the intel and assets to do so. Although, our friends the Israelis are rather good at it, and outsourcing is all the rage.

ricardisimo
04-08-2010, 01:20 PM
I didn't think that you were being disrespectful to the soldiers. Not in the least.
I was merely pointing out that there are those that feel that it is/was worth it--not so much because they agreed with the politicians, but because they could relate to the citizens who had been subjected to severe oppression (while Saddam had how many palaces); not to mention their having to deal with the constant threat of annihilation at that hands of a (my opinion) madman. I think it gives them a sense of purpose and honor to be able to help these people live a better life. And that, in my opinion, is Noble.

No argument from me.

ricardisimo
04-08-2010, 01:43 PM
I search in vain for the point.

But hey, I'm all over ridding the planet of thugs without committing troops. With the exception of the sovs and chicomms, any enemy we face is going to be a 4G enemy. Trying to deal with that in 2G mode just gets lots of our folks killed or maimed. Killing their leaders and command structure is the better approach. D'ya thing the donkeys will go for it? We don't need to torture them or anything. Just blow dey asses up.

Our Achilles heel in that approach is our pathetic to non existent intel. If you're going to whack thugs, you need the intel and assets to do so. Although, our friends the Israelis are rather good at it, and outsourcing is all the rage.

No need to search for the point. Are we not rid of those thugs? Did we risk any of our soldiers' lives to do so? No. That's the point.

How would 4G be germane if our troops are not occupying other countries? I can see this being an issue if we start having serious problems with wacko survivalists and such, or if secessionist movements get started, but otherwise...

xfl2001fan
04-08-2010, 03:21 PM
You're only saying that because Jesus would want us to kill them all.

Really? I've read through the Bible a time or two...and I'm pretty sure there was no doctrination (as taught by Jesus) that involved the killing of anyone else. The two things Jesus tried to teach were

A: To turn the other cheek
B: Do unto others as others would do unto you.

The first part is compeltely at odds with your statement, so we'll completely ignore it. It's what you've proven to be good at anyways.

The second statement could be stretched into a manner where Jesus would have us kill them all, because "they" (being the Extremist Islamics that we're fighting) are all about killing us infidels. Since they continue to strike blows against humanity (forget about the US, forget just the military, they're killing people of their own religion...though a different sect) just to get at the Big Bad Soldier's and the President (that you can't stand.)

(That's like watching a Southern Baptist Church member strap a bomb to himself to blow up a Catholic Church that preaches to Soldiers. It's still Christianity...)

So, under those extreme circumstances...and with a bit of adolescent stretching...yes, Jesus would indeed want us to kill them all, because that is how they are treating us.

***********************************
WW2 - Civilians killed totaled from 40 to 52 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine. Total military dead: from 22 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)
Wiki? Really? Did you know I can update that information to make it say whatever I want?

Vietnam - North Vietnamese forces killed around 130,000 civilians and POWs from 1957 to 1975.
The estimated total number of civilian and suspected communist deaths caused by South Vietnamese forces from 1955 to 1975 was 89,500.
US forces killed an estimated 90,000 South Vietnamese civilians. Again, these are deaths caused by US Forces apart from combat deaths inflicted on North Vietnames forces.
Really? It was just US Forces that did that? There were no self-inflicted killings? These weren't North Viatnamese killings? It was JUST US Soldiers/Sailors/Marines/Airmen who did this?

Iraq -
Year Dates Civilian deaths
1 2003 12,049
2 2004 10,751
3 2005 14,832
4 2006 27,652
5 2007 24,522
6 2008 9,214
7 2009 1,951

Did anybody bother to filter out the number of deaths caused by Suicide Bombers? Because, I'm pretty sure (having been deployed 3 times in the last 13 years) that most of the damage to their Civilians has been caused by that. But really, why bother separating out that data...when we can make a blanket statement and attribute it all to the Big Bad US Military...and the Right Wing War Mongering Regime that took over and put us there...and that the Left Wing Weaklings haven't managed to oust us yet.

Afghanistan -

??? Here's a clue to the mystery that is civilian deaths reported in Afghanistan. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(200 1–present))

Again, Wiki is not a credible source, I've manipulated data on Wiki before just to mess with friends. Not saying you have done so here...but you're proving yourself to be quite ignorant with the "facts" you are presenting.

Reason? The "reason" is always revenge, retribution and religion. No good reason.
Sometimes, the "reason" is protection. Sometimes you have to step up and fight the bully, so that the Bully can do no further damage. Sadaam Hussein was a bully. Adolph Hitler was a Bully. The longer you let the bully prowl around the recess yard, the bigger his "gang of followers" gets...and the harder it is to remove him. Hit him hard and early...and the damage done is far reduced.


Gandhi and MLK were right.
How'd that work out for MLK?

I've had to answer to my old Church for joining the military, when they thought I was wrong (as a teenager) to join up. My answer was this:

If we're all a flock...and the Lord is the Sheperd, who protects the flock when the wolves come to play? The Sheperd has to send his Sheep Dogs, his wolf hounds, to protect that flock against the wolves. Sometimes it's bloody, but if the sheep dogs aren't there, the flock will be decimated...and the Sheperd, too, will be lost.

I am that Wolf Hound. I know you see snarling fangs and paws with claws...but I promise you, despite the fact that you can't stand the sight of me, I will still protect you from the Wolves when they come to feast. You think you can get throught he world living like sheep, but there are predators out there...and without people like me, who are willing to stand up and fight, your "be secure in yourself" sheepish ways would come to a long hard and bloody end.

Because no matter who starts it, I'll be there to finish it, or die trying. And live proud knowing I'm doing the right thing, no matter your sheepish viewpoint.


This has nothing to do with "singing in harmony." It has to do with being secure with yourself as a person and as a nation first. Every child learns these basic tenets. "Do unto others" - not "he started it."
Basic parenting skills apply to adult life too. It's called "practicing what you preach."
Security is secured through force of arms. If you can't protect yourself from the bully (either by yourself, or through an intermediate), you will be attacked by the bully.

"Basic parenting skills" apply only when all parents raise their children the same. Part of that inolves discipline. Discipline is about consequences. When you are raised by an Islamic Extremist...and you are raised that killing yourself (to kill infidels) will net you 72 virgins in heaven (hopefully all queers with huge dicks in their case), you do so. To you and I, that kind of thinking is wrong. It's wrong to kill others. It's wrong to kill yourself.

So, what do you tell your children to do to the bully who is willing to make certain self sacrifices (like their life) to make your life a living hell (or worse?) I've been bullied, it quit when I put a stop to it.

Oh - and "necessity?" According to some in this very thread "Nobody here wants war." Oh - just the bad guys then? Ok.

I don't want war. I don't want to have to spend more time overseas with the threat of a suicide bomber, or a sniper, or a roadside bombing around every other freaking corner. Just to have to listen to the media of my nation tell me (and my family) how bad things are over here...and how we're making things worse. However, I have been called to perform a duty that has left this world a little bit better of a place (for the absence of a dictator in Iraq...and his extremist family...and also for a declining presence in Afghanistan).

It's a price that must be paid...because the toll would be even greater if it came back to the US. If that upsets your delicate sensibilities, boo hoo for you. There are plenty of other countries that you can live in. None as great as this one, but you don't seem to like it here very much anyways...so go be miserable somewhere else.

Vincent
04-08-2010, 03:28 PM
Are we not rid of those thugs?

Yes, we are "rid" of those thugs. We had NOTHING to do with it. I really don't see that not having risked our soldiers constitutes a point. We risked none of our soldiers in the Gallic wars either. No casualties. No Gauls. No point. Its all good?

How would 4G be germane if our troops are not occupying other countries? I can see this being an issue if we start having serious problems with wacko survivalists and such, or if secessionist movements get started, but otherwise...

Huh? :wtf:

Vincent
04-08-2010, 03:49 PM
Every child learns these basic tenets. "Do unto others" - not "he started it." Basic parenting skills apply to adult life too. It's called "practicing what you preach.".

How many children have you reared Lefty?

tony hipchest
04-08-2010, 04:02 PM
i must take a breif moment to applaud the tolerant and respectful tone shown in here by the majority of right wing hawks towards others beliefs and values. :applaudit:

i read in another thread how american Jews primarily vote liberal because its the left who is supposed to be more tolerant of others views and principals. that idea was scoffed at. after reading this thread, i can see why. :busted:

the irony on this board will never cease to amaze me.

NJarhead
04-08-2010, 04:16 PM
i must take a breif moment to applaud the tolerant and respectful tone shown in here by the majority of right wing hawks towards others beliefs and values. :applaudit:

i read in another thread how american Jews primarily vote liberal because its the left who is supposed to be more tolerant of others views and principals. that idea was scoffed at. after reading this thread, i can see why. :busted:

the irony on this board will never cease to amaze me.


The funny thing is, the Jews in Israel don't screw around. I don't see them asking for an extradition. Other nations in the region must consider the consequences before screwing with Israel.

And for crying out loud Tone, use a capital "A" when spelling American. :wink02:

BTW - your views are stupid. lol

tony hipchest
04-08-2010, 04:21 PM
And for crying out loud Tone, use a capital "A" when spelling American. :wink02:

:chuckle: ...only if you use lower case when you spell "tone".

i HATE it when people capitalize my cybername. lol :flap:

MACH1
04-08-2010, 04:22 PM
Every child learns these basic tenets. "Do unto others"

Isn't that basically the same thing as 'an eye for an eye'.

- not "he started it.

How about "it's not my fault"

NJarhead
04-08-2010, 04:28 PM
:chuckle: ...only if you use lower case when you spell "tone".

i HATE it when people capitalize my cybername. lol :flap:

Well, how the hell was I supposed to know? :flap:

tony hipchest
04-08-2010, 04:33 PM
Well, how the hell was I supposed to know? :flap:i guess tony should start referring to himself in 3rd person more often. :thumbsup:

MACH1
04-08-2010, 04:36 PM
i must take a breif moment to applaud the tolerant and respectful tone shown in here by the majority of right wing hawks towards others beliefs and values. :applaudit:

i read in another thread how american Jews primarily vote liberal because its the left who is supposed to be more tolerant of others views and principals. that idea was scoffed at. after reading this thread, i can see why. :busted:

the irony on this board will never cease to amaze me.

Quick, look....



http://www.downtownexpress.com/DE_06/cheese.jpg

:chuckle:

NJarhead
04-08-2010, 04:46 PM
i guess tony should start referring to himself in 3rd person more often. :thumbsup:


lol. How about "The tony." :chuckle:

http://static.tvfanatic.com/images/gallery/robert-maschio-as-the-todd.png

fansince'76
04-08-2010, 04:52 PM
i read in another thread how american Jews primarily vote liberal because its the left who is supposed to be more tolerant of others views and principals. that idea was scoffed at. after reading this thread, i can see why. :busted:

Like the "tolerance" they've displayed toward members of the Tea Party movement's views and principles? :noidea:

(Insert YouTube "teabagging" video here)

ricardisimo
04-08-2010, 04:57 PM
Really? I've read through the Bible a time or two...and I'm pretty sure there was no doctrination (as taught by Jesus) that involved the killing of anyone else. The two things Jesus tried to teach were

A: To turn the other cheek
B: Do unto others as others would do unto you.

There's also Matthew 5:18, which says of the Old Testament:
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Which means that Deut 20:10-18 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Deut+20%3A10-18) is still fully in force as far as He is concerned. This means that enslavement or genocide are our two options when approaching an enemy of the state, at least so far as Jesus and His followers should be concerned. And that's just one chapter. There are many other rather uncomfortable moments in the Old Testament regarding genocide and enslavement which Jesus supports fully.

ricardisimo
04-08-2010, 05:03 PM
i must take a breif moment to applaud the tolerant and respectful tone shown in here by the majority of right wing hawks towards others beliefs and values. :applaudit:

i read in another thread how american Jews primarily vote liberal because its the left who is supposed to be more tolerant of others views and principals. that idea was scoffed at. after reading this thread, i can see why. :busted:

the irony on this board will never cease to amaze me.

The picture of tolerance and respect, to be sure. I was particularly fond of Mach opening up his heart, trusting us with his tenderest parts, and sharing his desire to watch while veterans anally rape me, although warden's liberality and generosity (with his two favorite words) deserve mention as well.

Joking aside, Vinny and Indo get nods from me, and I thank them for their respectfulness. The rest... not so much.

NJarhead
04-08-2010, 05:03 PM
Words...

:rolleyes:

NJarhead
04-08-2010, 05:04 PM
more meaningless words....


:coffee:

MACH1
04-08-2010, 05:25 PM
The picture of tolerance and respect, to be sure. I was particularly fond of Mach opening up his heart, trusting us with his tenderest parts, and sharing his desire to watch while veterans anally rape me, although warden's liberality and generosity (with his two favorite words) deserve mention as well.

Joking aside, Vinny and Indo get nods from me, and I thank them for their respectfulness. The rest... not so much.

Please from now on keep me out of your little fantasy world.

Dino 6 Rings
04-08-2010, 05:37 PM
19 pages....what a read.

Ok. so here we go.

War is bad. War is sometimes needed.

US Soldiers try to be has humane as possible most of the time
US Soldiers sometimes go to far.

All War is Bad
Some War is Good

Name Calling You're a Monger and a Hawk
Name Calling You're a Hippie and a Fool

More War is bad, Stats
More War can save lives Genocide Stats

This Prez messed up, sight the War
This Prez did right, sight the War

Little bad religion undertone
Little bad religion overtone

War is Still bad
Shiiit Happens

19 pages.

Good Stuff though, helped me finish out my boring work day.

fansince'76
04-08-2010, 05:41 PM
19 pages....what a read.

Ok. so here we go.

War is bad. War is sometimes needed.

US Soldiers try to be has humane as possible most of the time
US Soldiers sometimes go to far.

All War is Bad
Some War is Good

Name Calling You're a Monger and a Hawk
Name Calling You're a Hippie and a Fool

More War is bad, Stats
More War can save lives Genocide Stats

This Prez messed up, sight the War
This Prez did right, sight the War

Little bad religion undertone
Little bad religion overtone

War is Still bad
Shiiit Happens

19 pages.

Good Stuff though, helped me finish out my boring work day.

I think the high point of the thread was LTC Kilgore's monologue regarding the aroma of napalm in the morning, but I'm biased. :chuckle:

Dino 6 Rings
04-08-2010, 05:45 PM
Oh, and to my Moderate and Hippie Friends, and My Christian and "peaceful" friends and even my fellow soldiers that have served and understand War is really horrible;

Pretty sure you already know, but for those that don't know my stance.

I would have nuked the capital city of every Moslim nation on the planet on 9/12/01.

Algiers, Cairo, Manama, Baghdad, Teheran, Amman, Kuwait, Beirut, Tripoli, Rabat, Muscat, Doha, Riyadh, Mecca and Medina for good measure, Khartoum, Damascus, Tunis, Ankara, Abu Dubai, and Sana.

I would have wiped out all life in every one of those Cities on 9/12/01 and ended this thing in 1 day. I would have felt zero remourse for the loss of life, because in my heart, It would have been for the greater good of human kind to destroy them all in one fell swoop and not even give the people of those nations a chance to think for one second that what happened on 9/11 was acceptable by any means.

But then again, I was on a plane on 9/11/01 at 1am in the morning and was pretty bitter at these fckers for attempting to kill me that day. Sure, they missed by 7 hours, but I landed in Newark NJ at 1am on 9/11/01. that was close enough to really really really pisss me off.

Good thing I wasn't President. I wouldn't have hesitated, not for a second.

tony hipchest
04-08-2010, 05:59 PM
lol. How about "The tony." :chuckle:



the tony likes... :thumbsup:

Quick, look....



http://www.downtownexpress.com/DE_06/cheese.jpg

:chuckle::applaudit: the tony actually looked to the right....

to the far right. he only saw cheese :chuckle:



Like the "tolerance" they've displayed toward members of the Tea Party movement's views and principles? :noidea:

Gi9hgqZr6fs

:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

i dont see the problem here. pretty damn funny clip from a funny movie. :noidea: (is that dick cheney or karl rove in the clip?)

ricardisimo
04-08-2010, 06:00 PM
I think the high point of the thread was LTC Kilgore's monologue regarding the aroma of napalm in the morning, but I'm biased. :chuckle:

But that's cheating... wouldn't Kilgore be the high point of just about any thread?

NJarhead
04-08-2010, 06:13 PM
:applaudit: the tony actually looked to the right....

to the far right. he only saw cheese :chuckle:



Oh shit! lol

Well, did you at least remember to bring some WHINE with you from the left? :chuckle:

tony hipchest
04-08-2010, 06:19 PM
Oh shit! lol

Well, did you at least remember to bring some WHINE with you from the left? :chuckle:nah... the tony LEFT that behind. :laughing:

MACH1
04-08-2010, 06:27 PM
the tony actually looked to the right....

to the far right. he only saw cheese

:doh: :toofunny::toofunny:

NJarhead
04-08-2010, 06:34 PM
nah... the tony LEFT that behind. :laughing:

oh geez. :doh: I've created a monster.

Leftoverhard
04-08-2010, 07:48 PM
Wiki? Really? Did you know I can update that information to make it say whatever I want?

Way to jump into a thread without reading the whole thing first! Way to read the link in context too. Bravo. P.S - I'll give you a hint - civilians killed during war - I didn't say who did the killing.

How'd that work out for MLK?

Really? It's called civil rights. MLK took the high road and this whole country benefited from his non-violence - in other words, it worked out great for him. Gandhi was assassinated too. Both men knew this was likely, yet they stood strong for non-violence at the cost of their own lives. Here are the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.) links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi). :wink02:

If we're all a flock...and the Lord is the Sheperd, who protects the flock when the wolves come to play?

This is your own personal response to your church - and I respect that. But you've shared this philosophy with me so I am going to comment on it.
Logically, this statement doesn't work. If we're all a flock, then who are the wolves?

You think you can get throught he world living like sheep, but there are predators out there...and without people like me, who are willing to stand up and fight, your "be secure in yourself" sheepish ways would come to a long hard and bloody end.


Wow, what do you say to that? How is being secure in yourself a weakness? I'm going to be blunt here and say that when you call me sheepish, you're being condescending and sarcastic. The effect is temporary and does more harm than good in the long run. Because I'm not stupid, I can say pretty confidently that you could give a rat's ass about my security. Why pretend?

Security is secured through force of arms. If you can't protect yourself from the bully (either by yourself, or through an intermediate), you will be attacked by the bully.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

It's a price that must be paid...because the toll would be even greater if it came back to the US. If that upsets your delicate sensibilities, boo hoo for you. There are plenty of other countries that you can live in. None as great as this one, but you don't seem to like it here very much anyways...so go be miserable somewhere else.

War is hell. Thanks for your service. I have no judgement of what you choose to do. I understand you wanting to protect your family. But I think it would serve you well to look a little deeper before being so condescending towards people you don't even know.

Leftoverhard
04-08-2010, 07:56 PM
. I was particularly fond of Mach opening up his heart, trusting us with his tenderest parts, and sharing his desire to watch while veterans anally rape me.

Oh, that was real, until I read this I thought that was - well, not real. So strange.

Leftoverhard
04-08-2010, 07:58 PM
And for crying out loud Tone, use a capital "A" when spelling American. :wink02:


And don't forget the flag pin

NJarhead
04-08-2010, 08:05 PM
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche



I like that. A lot, in fact.

However, I don't think that is our issue and you would be better served to preach that to some of our enemies (i.e. Al Queda).

NJarhead
04-08-2010, 08:05 PM
And don't forget the flag pin

Why not.

Leftoverhard
04-08-2010, 08:13 PM
I like that. A lot, in fact.

It's a good one, glad you agree.

However, I don't think that is our issue and you would be better served to preach that to some of our enemies (i.e. Al Queda).

But - that would be diplomacy...

Vincent
04-08-2010, 08:14 PM
Pretty sure you already know, but for those that don't know my stance.

I would have nuked the capital city of every Moslim nation on the planet on 9/12/01.

Algiers, Cairo, Manama, Baghdad, Teheran, Amman, Kuwait, Beirut, Tripoli, Rabat, Muscat, Doha, Riyadh, Mecca and Medina for good measure, Khartoum, Damascus, Tunis, Ankara, Abu Dubai, and Sana.

I would have wiped out all life in every one of those Cities on 9/12/01 and ended this thing in 1 day. I would have felt zero remourse for the loss of life, because in my heart, It would have been for the greater good of human kind to destroy them all in one fell swoop and not even give the people of those nations a chance to think for one second that what happened on 9/11 was acceptable by any means.

Well, you're just an extremist lunatic. No need to go off the deep end. I would have only turned mecca and medina to ashtrays on 9/12 just to get their attention while waiting for intel to identify the next targets. Its a good thing we don't turn the asylum over to the extreme elements.

But then again, I was on a plane on 9/11/01 at 1am in the morning and was pretty bitter at these fckers for attempting to kill me that day. Sure, they missed by 7 hours, but I landed in Newark NJ at 1am on 9/11/01. that was close enough to really really really pisses me off.

STFU Vincent.

Good thing I wasn't President. I wouldn't have hesitated, not for a second.

Nor would I.

This all sounds horrifying, doesn't it. Here is reality. That "religion" that is laying half of Africa to genocide, has intimidated Europe into pantie wastes, and poses the largest threat in history to our well being, will not rest until every living soul on the planet has submitted to their satanic bull@#$%. Read their "book". Their are 1.3 BILLION muslims. At least 10% of them are what we call "extreme". "Extreme" means "jihadist". Simple math reveals that there are 130 million jihadists hell bent on our destruction. "The rest are 'moderates'". Bull@#$%. Read their "book". Simple translation - its a zero sum game. They "go" or we "go". They're serious. We're so @#$%ed up we haven't a clue what we believe.

Incinerating their "holy" cities is a reasonable response to 9/11. Too bad there isn't a ball among the entirety Washington political establishment.

Vincent
04-08-2010, 08:18 PM
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

And "Trust only steel".

Oh, wait. That was Conan.

Nietzsche. What a @#$%ing inspiration.:jerkit:

NJarhead
04-08-2010, 08:19 PM
It's a good one, glad you agree.



But - that would be diplomacy...

Oh c'mon. I don't think you can call it diplomacy if it's only one sided, so why bother. I'd liken it to trying to clap with one hand. Nevel Chamberlain (sp?) tried diplomacy. I think you know the result.

Leftoverhard
04-08-2010, 08:20 PM
Vincent - overuse of quotation marks is a sure sign of high blood pressure. Also - When you say "we" when speaking of your holy-war, would you mind changing that to "Vincent and his 4 friends?" Please? I know you hate the "PC" stuff, but hook a brother up.

Vincent
04-08-2010, 08:27 PM
Vincent - overuse of quotation marks is a sure sign of high blood pressure. Also - When you say "we" when speaking of your holy-war, would you mind changing that to "Vincent and his 4 friends?" Please? I know you hate the "PC" stuff, but hook a brother up.

"Quotation marks" are a civil way of ridicule. I know how important "civility' is to weenies. And just for you Lefty, I'll confess. This is mild amusement, at best.

Not familiar with "hook a brother up". "Hook up", yes. Are you coming on to me? :sissies: EEEooooo.

Oh, and Lefty, how many children have you reared?

"Have a nice day".

NJarhead
04-08-2010, 08:30 PM
"Quotation marks" are a civil way of ridicule. I know how important "civility' is to weenies. And just for you Lefty, I'll confess. This is mild amusement, at best.

Not familiar with "hook a brother up". "Hook up", yes. Are you coming on to me? :sissies: EEEooooo.

Oh, and Lefty, how many children have you reared?

"Have a nice day".

:rofl:

Leftoverhard
04-08-2010, 08:47 PM
You know what they say about being comfortable with your sexuality...Or uncomfortable :toofunny: .

But now that you mention it, this whole thread is strangely rife with homoerotic undertones. Girlfriend.

NJarhead
04-08-2010, 08:49 PM
You know what they say about being comfortable with your sexuality...Or uncomfortable :toofunny: .

But now that you mention it, this whole thread is strangely rife with homoerotic undertones. Girlfriend.


the tony is gonna give you such a pinch.

tony hipchest
04-08-2010, 08:53 PM
OH SNAP! ("in a Z formation")

you better watch it WarDen... the tony has seen your picture.... kinda cute. :wink:

NJarhead
04-08-2010, 08:59 PM
OH SNAP! ("in a Z formation")

you better watch it WarDen... the tony has seen your picture.... kinda cute. :wink:
lol

sthcratch your eythes out. :chuckle:

smokin3000gt
04-08-2010, 09:10 PM
the tony is gonna give you such a pinch.

is it wise to encourage tony?

NJarhead
04-08-2010, 09:15 PM
is it wise to encourage tony?

Not at all, but I need entertainment dammit! Utopian dreamers are boring as hell man.

smokin3000gt
04-08-2010, 09:18 PM
Not at all, but I need entertainment dammit! Utopian dreamers are boring as hell man.

It's not their fault if they can't hear us over the birds chirping. :chuckle::wink02:

Vincent
04-08-2010, 11:25 PM
You know what they say about being comfortable with your sexuality...Or uncomfortable :toofunny: .

But now that you mention it, this whole thread is strangely rife with homoerotic undertones. Girlfriend.

Is that the way you "see it"?

I married my girlfriend 35 years ago. I'm quite comfortable. Thank you.

How many children have you reared Lefty? 3rd time.

devilsdancefloor
04-08-2010, 11:58 PM
Some in this thread are not mentally strong enough to defend their way of life. You happily go out to eat or to the movies or even a concert while others put it all on the line each and every day so you can do those things. hell they even defend your right to be the way you are. The thing that is most upsetting is you all act as though you are so much smarter and so much better than those whom put it all on the line. you wouldnt know what to do with yourselves if you had to make sure you and the man or woman next to you make it back home.their are people of this world out to kill us Americans to prove a point it happened before 9-11 and will continue unless we did something. Like it or not we have to step up to the plate. If DC would just let the military do their job this crap would be long over with.

ricardisimo
04-09-2010, 12:52 AM
Is that the way you "see it"?

I married my girlfriend 35 years ago. I'm quite comfortable. Thank you.

How many children have you reared Lefty? 3rd time.

And I suspect he's going to ignore you for the 3rd time. I'm not sure how forthcoming I would be talking to a stranger in a web forum about my kids... someone who doesn't like me to boot.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-09-2010, 08:16 AM
Presidents can use it as a ruse to grab at oil fields, but you're offended by my sarcasm?

You see...this is where you lose credibility.

Where is all this oil that we have grabbed??? When I filled my car this morning I payed $3.09 a gallon. :doh:

To say that that the United States has taken over Iraq's oil production is either ill-informed paranoia or just an outright lie.

Vincent
04-09-2010, 08:50 AM
And I suspect he's going to ignore you for the 3rd time. I'm not sure how forthcoming I would be talking to a stranger in a web forum about my kids... someone who doesn't like me to boot.

Ric, I didn't ask Lefty anything about his kids, just how many he has reared. He was dispensing "basic parenting skills" as if he had some experience.

Every child learns these basic tenets. "Do unto others" - not "he started it." Basic parenting skills apply to adult life too. It's called "practicing what you preach."

Who said I don't like Lefty? I don't know him from Adam. I think our exchanges of views would indicate an affability that would afford a "Why yes, my experience rearing my "__" blah, blah, blah..."

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-09-2010, 08:52 AM
There's also Matthew 5:18, which says of the Old Testament:

Which means that Deut 20:10-18 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Deut+20%3A10-18) is still fully in force as far as He is concerned. This means that enslavement or genocide are our two options when approaching an enemy of the state, at least so far as Jesus and His followers should be concerned. And that's just one chapter. There are many other rather uncomfortable moments in the Old Testament regarding genocide and enslavement which Jesus supports fully.

You really shouldnt talk about something in which you have no knowledge whatsoever.

To misquote scripture by taking it out of context is really pathetic.

Romans 6:14,....states that “For sin will have no mastery over you, because you are not under law but under grace.”

You really need to have a proper understanding of Old Covenant vs New Covenant before you try and use scripture as some sort of "proof"

Vincent
04-09-2010, 09:03 AM
So howbout those Buccos?!

zulater
04-09-2010, 09:39 AM
You see...this is where you lose credibility.

Where is all this oil that we have grabbed??? When I filled my car this morning I payed $3.09 a gallon. :doh:

To say that that the United States has taken over Iraq's oil production is either ill-informed paranoia or just an outright lie.

Amen to that.


Wanting to keep a good portion of the worlds oil supply stabilized with some degree of regional interventiion shouldn't be confused with Imperialism, but unfortunately often is by the left. If Iran were to ever gain control of the Persian Gulf through the intimidation of nukes it could leapfrog the world from it's current reccession to a full blown global depression.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-09-2010, 10:05 AM
Tell your nephew I'm very sorry. Losing friends and family is awful, but seeing it happen right in front of you like that has to be crippling at times. He and his comrades should be proud of their achievements in Iraq. They've were given a lemon and made more than just lemonade out it, and they did get rid of a complete monster and his cohorts. They deserve kudos for that.

None of which changes the fact that George Bush and Barack Obama are war mongers, war criminals and lying sacks of shit who deserve to rot in some dark prison somewhere. Nor does it change the fact that we could have rid ourselves of Hussein and his thugs and weapons exactly the same way we rid ourselves of Ceauşescu, Marcos, the apartheid government in South Africa, very soon Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and dozens of other examples around the world that didn't require a single American soldier's life.

Why does questioning the brass equate to disrespecting the grunts in your mind? I want your nephew and his friends home, defending our borders. How is that disrespectful?

Interesting take...You talk as if you would have us believe you have some understanding about military matters. What branch of the service were you in?

As for your examples, you said we should have got rid of Hussein the "same way" that "we rid ourselves of Ceauşescu, Marcos, the apartheid government in South Africa, and Mugabe in Zimbabwe....Yet you make no distinction between those rulers gulity of Human Rights violations and those guilty of Genocide.

At what point would you have American soldiers step in and take action Mr. Chamberlain?

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-09-2010, 10:06 AM
Amen to that.


Wanting to keep a good portion of the worlds oil supply stabilized with some degree of regional interventiion shouldn't be confused with Imperialism, but unfortunately often is by the left. If Iran were to ever gain control of the Persian Gulf through the intimidation of nukes it could leapfrog the world from it's current reccession to a full blown global depression.

Very well put.:thumbsup:

NJarhead
04-09-2010, 11:12 AM
Interesting take...You talk as if you would have us believe you have some understanding about military matters. What branch of the service were you in?

As for your examples, you said we should have got rid of Hussein the "same way" that "we rid ourselves of Ceauşescu, Marcos, the apartheid government in South Africa, and Mugabe in Zimbabwe....Yet you make no distinction between those rulers gulity of Human Rights violations and those guilty of Genocide.

At what point would you have American soldiers step in and take action Mr. Chamberlain?


Funny how I made that very same connection. :chuckle:

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-09-2010, 11:46 AM
Originally Posted by ricardisimo

Considering that guerrilla tactics seem to work best on one's home soil, there is one strategy that will always beat it: not invading other countries in the first place.

Uh...yeah. I guess we can disregard the whole 82nd airborne and 101st airbornes roll during the Normandy invasion. (by the way...Normandy is in France, which is in Europe...which is not our home soil.)

I'd like to think that they signed up for service in order to defend their country. Am I wrong?

Yes. You are.

We are one of the few contries in the world who's soldiers are willing to die to insure freedom for OTHER countries....and though that is disregarded by the left, and by those who have never wore a uniform...it IS a brave and a noble thing.

NJarhead
04-09-2010, 12:14 PM
Uh...yeah. I guess we can disregard the whole 82nd airborne and 101st airbornes roll during the Normandy invasion. (by the way...Normandy is in France, whichh is in Europe...which is not our home soil.)



Yes. You are.

We are one of the few contries in the world who's soldiers are willing to die to insure freedom for OTHER countries....and though that is disregarded by the left, and by those who have never wore a uniform...it IS a brave and a noble thing.


Marines hymn:

From the Halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli
We fight our country's battles
In the air, on land, and sea;
First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title
Of United States Marine.


Our flag's unfurled to every breeze
From dawn to setting sun;
We have fought in every clime and place
Where we could take a gun.
In the snow of far-off Northern lands
And in sunny tropic scenes;
You will find us always on the job --
The United States Marines.


Here's health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve;
In many a strife we've fought for life
And never lost our nerve.
If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven's scenes,
They will find the streets are guarded
By United States Marines.

It's right there in the first line.

SteelersinCA
04-09-2010, 02:55 PM
We are one of the few contries in the world who's soldiers are willing to die to insure freedom for OTHER countries....and though that is disregarded by the left, and by those who have never wore a uniform...it IS a brave and a noble thing.

While I concur with the sentiment, when I took my oath I believe it was only to defend our country against all enemies foreign and domestic, I'm not sure I agreed to defend someone else's freedom. I think you both have valid points on this one.

NJarhead
04-09-2010, 03:12 PM
While I concur with the sentiment, when I took my oath I believe it was only to defend our country against all enemies foreign and domestic, I'm not sure I agreed to defend someone else's freedom. I think you both have valid points on this one.


Just for the record:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-09-2010, 03:18 PM
While I concur with the sentiment, when I took my oath I believe it was only to defend our country against all enemies foreign and domestic, I'm not sure I agreed to defend someone else's freedom. I think you both have valid points on this one.


I think you misunderstood what I am saying...Our soldiers have traditionally been willing to stand between the common enemy of our allies and spill their blood on foreign soil.

In that regard the oath we took in which we swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"...does not stand seperate from our soldiers willingness to die for freedoms throughout the world.

Our liberties and freedoms are directly tied to our willingness to defend our allies from a common enemy. A foothold there... brings them one step closer to us.

ricardisimo
04-09-2010, 03:24 PM
You really shouldnt talk about something in which you have no knowledge whatsoever.

To misquote scripture by taking it out of context is really pathetic.

Romans 6:14,....states that “For sin will have no mastery over you, because you are not under law but under grace.”

You really need to have a proper understanding of Old Covenant vs New Covenant before you try and use scripture as some sort of "proof"

You're quoting scripture out of context in order to prove a point about quoting scripture out of context?

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-09-2010, 03:50 PM
You're quoting scripture out of context in order to prove a point about quoting scripture out of context?

Actually ...no.

Your ignorance of scripture does not invalidate a legitimate argument, namely that between the Old Covenant vs New Covenant.

Try again.
:wave:

ricardisimo
04-09-2010, 05:29 PM
Actually ...no.

Your ignorance of scripture does not invalidate a legitimate argument, namely that between the Old Covenant vs New Covenant.

Try again.
:wave:

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I don't know scripture. I was raised a christian just like most in this country. At some point I had to choose between, on the one hand, His word and His light, and hookers, booze and crack on the other.

One of these choice just turns out to have been much more fulfilling - emotionally, spiritually and intellectually.

NJarhead
04-09-2010, 05:49 PM
I'm not sure where you get the idea that I don't know scripture. I was raised a christian just like most in this country. At some point I had to choose between, on the one hand, His word and His light, and hookers, booze and crack on the other.

One of these choice just turns out to have been much more fulfilling - emotionally, spiritually and intellectually.


:blah::blah:

My God, you are one boring individual. It can't be all that fulfilling. That, or you just don't get it, because I've seldom seen anyone with so much to say but who knew so little, than you.

ricardisimo
04-09-2010, 05:59 PM
:blah::blah:

My God, you're are one boring individual. It can't be all that fulfilling. That, or you just don't get it, because I've seldom seen anyone with so much to say but who knew so little, than you.

I think WarDen has a crush on me. Isn't that cute?

NJarhead
04-09-2010, 06:19 PM
Everyone listen, I have more to say: :blah: :blah: :blah:

No, but I think YOU have a crush on YOU.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-10-2010, 08:06 AM
No, but I think YOU have a crush on YOU.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I hope they break up.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-10-2010, 08:23 AM
I'm not sure where you get the idea that I don't know scripture. I was raised a christian just like most in this country. At some point I had to choose between, on the one hand, His word and His light, and hookers, booze and crack on the other.

One of these choice just turns out to have been much more fulfilling - emotionally, spiritually and intellectually.

Since you like to make fun of religion and Jesus Christ...its very obvious which choice you made....and explains your non-sensical responses in most threads.

The "I was raised a Christian" comeback is actually very lame....Being raised in a church no more makes you a Christian then standing in your Garage makes you a car.

The principles of Old Covennant vs New Covenant is a fundamantal concept of the Christian faith. Your response showed a lack of even BASIC knowledge towards temporal Jewish law.

Just like your arguments in politics....your arguments in religion are empty bags of gummy bears.

xfl2001fan
04-10-2010, 09:36 AM
Way to jump into a thread without reading the whole thing first! Way to read the link in context too. Bravo. P.S - I'll give you a hint - civilians killed during war - I didn't say who did the killing.
I read through EVERY page of this thread..went back and re-read it...and was still offended by your lunacy. I wanted to make sure what I thought I was reading...was what it appeared to be. It was.


Really? It's called civil rights. MLK took the high road and this whole country benefited from his non-violence - in other words, it worked out great for him. Gandhi was assassinated too. Both men knew this was likely, yet they stood strong for non-violence at the cost of their own lives. Here are the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.) links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi). :wink02:I know what MLK's stance was...and I agree that his overall philisophy is a good one...however in a world full of idiots, hate mongers and the such, you need people who are willing to stand up and fight...otherwise, you end up just like MLK. Shot dead. His peaceful solution ended with his premature death. It was a sad day in American history, but it proves my point. Peace can only truly be secured with force of arms.



This is your own personal response to your church - and I respect that. But you've shared this philosophy with me so I am going to comment on it.
Logically, this statement doesn't work. If we're all a flock, then who are the wolves?
You and I are part of a flock...but if there are those who exist outside of the flock (extremists, whether political, religious or just all in all nutjobs.)

When they come to tear apart my flock, I'm ready to fight them. You get to keep your peaceful solution, becaue of sheep dogs like me.


Wow, what do you say to that? How is being secure in yourself a weakness? I'm going to be blunt here and say that when you call me sheepish, you're being condescending and sarcastic. The effect is temporary and does more harm than good in the long run. Because I'm not stupid, I can say pretty confidently that you could give a rat's ass about my security. Why pretend?
I do give a rats ass about your security. You ever see the movie Babe? The Sheep there call the sheep dogs "wolves" and treat them like crap. That's what I meant by sheepish. If it offends you, so what. Why should I care about your delicate sensibilities when your narrow view of the world is so focused on peace, that you conveniently ignore the ugly truth of the world. Even Preacher pointed it out to you...and he's a man who teaches faith for a living. If we all shared your belief that we can get along...then my job becomes unnecessary...and I can spend a LOT more time with my family. However, there are real assholes out there (Juarez Mexico, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc...) who don't care one iota for your peaceful solution...and would infact use it against you. If I met you, I'd take a bullet for you. Know it for truth. You are an American citizen, and it is my job to do so. I knew what I was signing up for the first time I enlisted...and the 3 times I've re-enlisted since have changed nothing.


Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

The Sheep in Babe saw the sheep dogs as wolves...when it couldn't have been further from the truth. I don't expect you (a sheep) to understand that. Even when it's spelled out to you. You have your views...it's apparently hard wired into your system now. That's fine.

War is hell. Thanks for your service. I have no judgement of what you choose to do. I understand you wanting to protect your family. But I think it would serve you well to look a little deeper before being so condescending towards people you don't even know.
I think the same could be said of you. But patronize away. The wolfhound knows the difference that the sheep can never see.

xfl2001fan
04-10-2010, 09:46 AM
There's also Matthew 5:18, which says of the Old Testament:

Which means that Deut 20:10-18 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Deut+20%3A10-18) is still fully in force as far as He is concerned. This means that enslavement or genocide are our two options when approaching an enemy of the state, at least so far as Jesus and His followers should be concerned. And that's just one chapter. There are many other rather uncomfortable moments in the Old Testament regarding genocide and enslavement which Jesus supports fully.

Jesus' sacrifice, Jesus Death changed all that. Jesus Resurrection changed all fo that. There's a reason why, in the old testament, sacrifices were required, but according to the Christian faith, it is not. Jesus was that sacrifice, to last all time. Don't preach what you don't actually understand.

Proverbs 17:28
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.

Do yourself a favor, zip it. We'll all feel you have wised up if you ever learn this very basic truth.

WH
04-10-2010, 09:57 AM
I think the same could be said of you. But patronize away. The wolfhound knows the difference that the sheep can never see.

That'll do, Pig, that'll do.

With all the Babe references, it had to be said.

smokin3000gt
04-10-2010, 10:00 AM
No way man.. nothing but rainbows and smiles in the world today!

http://www.bangitout.com/uploads/34haight-hippie.jpg

War - BAD
Business - BAD
Profit - VERY BAD
Bad things - BAD
Free stuff - GOOD
Spread the wealth - GOOD
Acoustic guitar - GOOD

xfl2001fan
04-10-2010, 10:13 AM
That'll do, Pig, that'll do.

With all the Babe references, it had to be said.

Was wondering when that was going to come into play. :flap:

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-10-2010, 10:40 AM
Let's summarize...so far you have blessed us with such bits of idiocy as:

Originally Posted by ricardisimo

Considering that guerrilla tactics seem to work best on one's home soil, there is one strategy that will always beat it: not invading other countries in the first place.

Proven wrong....our special forces and airborne units have been trained in and have successfully implemented querilla tactics for generations....on foreign soil.

Originally Posted by ricardisimo
There's also Matthew 5:18, which says of the Old Testament:

Which means that Deut 20:10-18 is still fully in force as far as He is concerned. This means that enslavement or genocide are our two options when approaching an enemy of the state, at least so far as Jesus and His followers should be concerned.

Proven wrong....You have absolutely NO concept of the basic principles behind the new covenant of Jesus Christ nor the difference bertween temporal Jewish law and perpetual law..

Originally Posted by ricardisimo
Presidents can use it as a ruse to grab at oil fields, but you're offended by my sarcasm?

Easily proven wrong.....this is simple the old liberal rallying cry that was occuring during the war. There is no facts...no evidence...no logic behind this statement. If there were...the liberal media would be ALL over it.


You see...these are what we call "uninformed comments" made by psudo-intellectual people who are either too lazy to research their point of view...or by those who hide behind the anonymity of their computer to make statements in which feel there are no reprecussions.

As i said...you are offering the intellectual equivelant of an empty bag of gummi bears....nothing more.

tony hipchest
04-10-2010, 05:22 PM
Easily proven wrong.....this is simple the old liberal rallying cry that was occuring during the war. There is no facts...no evidence...no logic behind this statement. If there were...the liberal media would be ALL over it.


.wouldnt it be even more illogical to assume that after 8 years, 4000+ lives lost, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, we arent getting atleast a little sump'n sump'n out of the deal?

i would like to think we went to war because it is the Christian/American thing to do for our fellow earthly beings, who have been oppresed, but isnt it logical to assume that all politicians have an ulterior motive, beyond the goodness of their own hearts?

You see...this is where you lose credibility.

Where is all this oil that we have grabbed??? When I filled my car this morning I payed $3.09 a gallon. :doh:

To say that that the United States has taken over Iraq's oil production is either ill-informed paranoia or just an outright lie.appearantly the oil is on south korean based/singapore owned crude tankers being hijacked by somali pirates on its way to the US. :doh:

perhaps you know the answer, because i havent researched this, but who in the hell actually owns the oil fields in iraq?

im assuming it is not (or atleast wasnt) owned by publicly traded companies, such as an iraqi version of exxon/mobile.:hunch:

i guess i always just assumed since hussein was the dictator, he and his cronies owned it all, but never really gave it too much thought.

any insight you can offer will probably go a long way in shedding some light on whether us getting a little oil out of the deal is completely non-factual and illogical.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-11-2010, 06:52 AM
wouldnt it be even more illogical to assume that after 8 years, 4000+ lives lost, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, we arent getting atleast a little sump'n sump'n out of the deal?

i would like to think we went to war because it is the Christian/American thing to do for our fellow earthly beings, who have been oppresed, but isnt it logical to assume that all politicians have an ulterior motive, beyond the goodness of their own hearts?
.

We did have a motive. Most people are under the false impression that the 9/11 commision absolved Iraq from having any relationship with Al Qaeda whatsoever. The truth is...the commison said in a carefully worded conclusion that it could find evidence of no ``collaborative operational relationship' of Iraqi involvment in 9/11. .....Big difference.

Before the War in Irag... Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee said he saw a ``substantial connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.'' ...and it was Senator Hillary Clinton who said "Iraq has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members"

In 1998....In the legal indictment against Osama bin Laden in Federal Court ,during the Clinton Administration, stated....`Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government, and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.''
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

Al Zawahiri who with the help of Osama bin Laden issued the "fatwa" against the United States .. is know to have consulted with Iraqi officials 1998 and received $300,000 for his efforts.

Our government has also released documents from prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, in which an Al Al Quada prisoner admitted to having traveled with an Iraqi intelligence agent to discuss blowing up US and British embassies.

Right after the war The US military also found documents from the Iraqi Intelligence Service that described Al Qaeda members as "useful assets" and that, "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreements.''

Unfortunately...the media presented a straw man argument...and equated the lack of evidence between Iraq and 9/11 and the percieved lack of evidence in finding WMD's with our having NO JUSTIFICATION in attacking Iraq.

Some of this blame falls on George Bush. His adminsitration did a piss-poor job of educating the American people of the al Queda connection to Iraq and instead put all their eggs in the WMD basket.. Had they done this...(in light of 9/11 and the American emotion of the time)...the public would have probably felt the war was more justified .

perhaps you know the answer, because i havent researched this, but who in the hell actually owns the oil fields in iraq?

im assuming it is not (or atleast wasnt) owned by publicly traded companies, such as an iraqi version of exxon/mobile.:hunch:

i guess i always just assumed since hussein was the dictator, he and his cronies owned it all, but never really gave it too much thought.

any insight you can offer will probably go a long way in shedding some light on whether us getting a little oil out of the deal is completely non-factual and illogical

Here is an article from the right-wing publication....Time Magazine.:chuckle: (jk)

Who Owns The Oil?
Do oil and Islam mix? Several prominent Iraqi exiles have tentatively endorsed a plan from the U.S. designed to give Iraq's vast oil reserves to "the Iraqi people." The plan defines oil as a government asset, but recommends sharing production with foreign oil companies in exchange for development costs. Now many scholars of Islamic law (Shari'a) say the U.S. plan inadvertently (or perhaps cunningly) delivers a more "Islamic" arrangement than the one followed in supposedly Islamic Saudi Arabia.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,443143,00.html

Before anyone jumps on the portion that states "recommends sharing production with foreign oil companies in exchange for development costs"...

According to GlobalPolicy.org, The United States and Great Britain "envy" France, Russia, and China who have obtained the majority of the major contracts.

ricardisimo
04-11-2010, 01:15 PM
Let's summarize...so far you have blessed us with such bits of idiocy as:

Proven wrong....our special forces and airborne units have been trained in and have successfully implemented querilla tactics for generations....on foreign soil.

And so our forces - far and away the most powerful and technologically advanced army in the history of the world - is losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... why? Make no mistake, we are losing them. fs76 was much nearer the mark when he suggested that wars of extermination are the only winnable wars. Unless and until we are willing and able to kill every single Iraqi and Afghani who opposes our presence there (at last count well into the 90th percentile), we're not going to win. Period.

Many of you lament that fact, and some of us rejoice in it. Losing wars we never should have started in the first place is far preferable to winning them at the cost of millions of lives as well as our souls (or what passes for souls nowadays).

Proven wrong....You have absolutely NO concept of the basic principles behind the new covenant of Jesus Christ nor the difference bertween temporal Jewish law and perpetual law..

I know everything I'm ever going to need to know about the Judeo-Christian bible. Going through just how ridiculously cherry-picked it is, or how self-contradictory it , that what it says either doesn't matter at all (best possible case) or how adhering to it actually makes one a far worse person (my personal view) is probably a waste of time, but we can have at it in another thread if you'd like.

Easily proven wrong.....this is simple the old liberal rallying cry that was occuring during the war. There is no facts...no evidence...no logic behind this statement. If there were...the liberal media would be ALL over it.

I'm not really sure what to say about this. There was extensive coverage of the motivations behind the war(s), just not in the mainstream U.S. media. I'm not a liberal, so I'm not going to get suckered into defending "the liberal media". That's Tony's or LOH's battle, not mine. In this country, there's Indymedia, one, maybe two programs on Pacifica Radio, and numerous internet newsletters and blogs. The extreme Left on television is - appropriately enough - The Colbert Report, which is just a Wally George spoof, and on cable. Even that is probably just centrist. But that's the extent of it.

You're absolutely right: every newspaper in the country beat the drums of war steadily and without the slightest deviation from the Bush administration's official version of events: that Iraq was linked to 9/11. Later it was modified to assert that they had extensive weapons of mass destruction, and the media reported it thus. When his pretense for war changed to regime change, so did theirs. When it changed again to "democracy building", they followed lockstep again.

All of this is an indictment of the press in this country, not a critique of what half of the country, and pretty much the entirety of the rest of the world took for granted: that the U.S. was seizing upon a moment of anger within its own population to invade a country which had never done squat to us, and thereby take over control of its substantial and largely untapped oil reserves.

You see...these are what we call "uninformed comments" made by psudo-intellectual people who are either too lazy to research their point of view...or by those who hide behind the anonymity of their computer to make statements in which feel there are no reprecussions.

As i said...you are offering the intellectual equivelant of an empty bag of gummi bears....nothing more.

Not only is the idea of someone who can't spell pseudo-intellectual calling me one weird, but I'm now going to add that term to WarDen's list of abused and misused words, "naive" and "ignorant", and say to you:
http://elultimoquecierrelapuerta.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/inigo1.jpg
I do not think this word means what you think it means.

Vincent
04-11-2010, 01:40 PM
For those of you who are apparently new to posting in forums, please, when quoting, leave the name of those you quote. It makes your posts easier to follow.

Vincent
04-11-2010, 02:05 PM
fs76 was much nearer the mark when he suggested that wars of extermination are the only winnable wars. Unless and until we are willing and able to kill every single Iraqi and Afghani who opposes our presence there (at last count well into the 90th percentile), we're not going to win. Period.

I don't think "war of extermination" is very good "packaging". It'll never sell. Howbout "war for our existence"? Same, but broader concept. Everybody can relate to it. "I get to exist. That's a good thing". And its much closer to reality. We're all into "reality' these days.

At some point, probably a great deal later than sooner, that reality will manifest even in the dullest of minds. The enemy knows it. Indeed, they are driven by it. It comes down to the "war" between the will of islam, and the will of the West. Its a "zero sum game", whether we realize it or not. It will come down to the extermination of every muslim on the planet or the destruction of Western civilization. And we will see it in our lifetimes. Now, that'll be some reality TV. Yeah, howdy!

Many of you lament that fact, and some of us rejoice in it. Losing wars we never should have started in the first place is far preferable to winning them

Ric, I think Steelers Fever has been very accommodating to your views to this point. Don't rejoice at any defeat or loss this country suffers. That goes beyond "point of view". It puts you squarely in the category of those that should be exterminated. Yes, I said that. Feel free to quote.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-11-2010, 02:24 PM
And so our forces - far and away the most powerful and technologically advanced army in the history of the world - is losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...Many of you lament that fact, and some of us rejoice in it.

Let me get this straight...you REJOICE in what you percieve as our soldiers "losing".

Those are American soldiers lives that you are so giddy about!!!!!!....I can't tell you how livid it makes me to hear spineless POS's like you "rejoice" over the loss of young men amd women who have more nobility and integrity in their little finger than you will ever know in your pathetic life.

I'm just glad this whole forum gets to see your true colors....and what type of person you really are.

To REJOICE ???? WTF is wrong with you?????


I know everything I'm ever going to need to know about the Judeo-Christian bible. Going through just how ridiculously less cherry-picked it is, or how self-contradictory it , that what it says either doesn't matter at all (best possible case) or how adhering to it actually makes onne a far worse person (my personal view).

So says the person who rejoices over American soldiers killed. You present yourself as a FINE example to judge Judeo-Christian values


All of this is an indictment of the press in this country, not a critique of what half of the country, and pretty much the entirety of the rest of the world took for granted: that the U.S. was seizing upon a moment of anger within its own population to invade a country which had never done squat to us, and thereby take over control of its substantial and largely untapped oil reserves.

Your ingorance of truth...is only outweighed by your evasion of facts.

Please show me where we have taken control of oil fields....let me guess...this mythical right-wing media is covering it up...right?

If you werent so obviously uneducated and self-important...you might be humerous.


Not only is the idea of someone who can't spell pseudo-intellectual calling me one weird, but I'm now going to add that term to WarDen's list of abused and misused words, "naive" and "ignorant",

Yet you couldnt dispute one thing I said (sadly having to pull at the grammar card) You are little more than a TROLL who vomits non-facts into this forum while DESPERATELY hoping someone will find you relevant.

Well...your not.

You are the worst kind of liberal...one who actually thinks himself above the rest and "too wise" to be pigeon-holed into a category...and in doing so convinces himself that he need not research, need not debate...with the end result being that you are simply....

....an uninformed troll.

very sad.

ricardisimo
04-11-2010, 02:34 PM
Ric, I think Steelers Fever has been very accommodating to your views to this point. Don't rejoice at any defeat or loss this country suffers. That goes beyond "point of view". It puts you squarely in the category of those that should be exterminated. Yes, I said that. Feel free to quote.

And feel free to quote me: I'll be glad when we officially lose this war and must recall our troops. I will ask that you don't misquote me, however. I fully expect you or (more likely) WarDen or tooth to suggest that I in some way enjoy seeing our soldiers maimed and killed. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I want our men and women back, safe and sound, in their own country and in their own homes yesterday. If I had a Wayback machine, and could somehow prevent them from having been deployed to that hell-hole in the first place, I would do it. I certainly tried at the time. I would argue that I seem to care for our boys and girls more than you do.

ricardisimo
04-11-2010, 02:38 PM
And sure enough, tooth has already gone and done it...

No, I do not rejoice in the suffering and loss of life among our troops. I submit to you that the cheerleaders of this war are nearer the mark in that regard than I ever will be.

"Atheist" that I am, I have a deep and abiding love for all life, which is not restricted to "Christian" or "Western" life.