FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


A soldier's rant





xalophus
Taken from the blog, http://www.livejournal.com/users/rev_wayfarer/54995.html
of an American soldier (dated Aug-13-2005)

Quote:
My truck, which I left here in good working order, is destroyed mostly.

The insurgency is on the rise in our area, with a most impressive coordinated assault on one of my sister FOBs (St. Joe) under their belt. Apparently they have enough folks and sophistication in my back yard where they can simultaneously place accurate mortar rounds on three seperate locations (at least 30k apart) to tie up any ground mounted quick reaction forces, as well as offer up multiple RPG strikes on the guard towers at Joe. These RPG attacks really bring out the QRF who face their own ambush as they come out the gate, at least 12 insurgents occupying buildings with an overwatch position to Joe's only entrance armed with more rpg's and small arms. The only possible responses are tanks or Apaches. Luckily we have both on call. 12 dead insurgents, destroyed buildings, a compromised FOB, sustained, accurate and unaswered indirect fire and lots o unanswered questions later... I'm here.

What the f**k has my chain of command been doing? We were winning somewhat when I left. And now we're being pinned down in our own f**king homes? Insurgents are pushing locals out of their homes and taking over my area at will? What kind of f**ktarded plan have we been half-a**edly executing? Obviously the kind that neglects sound contact with locals. Obviously the kind that gives further distance to unbridged gaps between soldiers and locals. Obviously the kind that has shown enough weakness when confronted by the insugency that it has been encouraged to grow.

Back home (the USA kind) I have no home, no job, and my commander in chief is on vacation (he's about 20 days behind Ronald Reagan right now in the race to become the most vacationing president ever. Hey W! we all got our fingers crossed! Here's to you and two more years of presidency...er vacationing!). Luckily pretty much everything that is important to me can fit into the back of a truck. Luckily I just paid off one of those.

In their fear to build relationships and get out of their hiding holes the FOBbits above me have f**ked my friends and I.

We've just completed the first 1/4 of our tour. we've sent 4 of 24 members of this platoon home with injuries.

Thankfully we're not like another who has sent 8 home in body bags...but we got 9 months to go.

Stay true lambs,
REV


27 year old U.S. Army National Guard Sergeant Thomas J. Strickland
died on August 15th, exactly two days after he wrote that entry into his blog.( http://www.ajc.com/news/content/custom/blogs/guard/entries/2005/08/16/douglas_soldier.html )

Quote:
U.S. Army National Guard Sergeant Thomas J. Strickland
Age:
27
From:
Douglasville, Georgia
Assigned To:
1st Battalion, 108th Armor Reg., 48th Infantry Brig.
Based In:
Calhoun, GA
Fatality Date:
Monday, August 15, 2005
Fatality Cause:
Non-hostile - vehicle accident (drowning)
Fatality Location:
Al Mahmudiyah, Iraq


Apparently, not everyone who dies in a war wanted to be there in the first place. We should expect some people to dismiss the man's blog as Liberal propaganda or biased media.
He died in the Bush war, and he never wanted to.
shr3dd
I'm not going to satisfy you by shouting "liberal! liberal!" This isn't biased media, because he was a soldier, not a newscaster. The military offers a lot of people chances to get free college (fact). A lot of people who enlisted before 9/11 thought they would never have to go to war and just wanted free college (fact). These same people cannot just "quit" if/when a war breaks out (fact). So 9/11 happens and we go to war in Afghanistan and eventually Iraq (fact). Some of the soldiers in the Middle East do not want to be there (fact). I can't help that when their country calls on them they become spineless and would rather someone else die for their country. No one wants to die, and this guy died by non-hostile drowning, not in combat. So you can't blame his death on any combat. His disrespect for his leader is uncalled for and his disrespect for the late great Reagan is even more distasteful. How dare he say that Bush is vacationing? Bush understands the effects on American casualties on the homefront and is doing his best to console the victim's familes. That doesn't mean he is vacationing. he travels with a LOT of staff who keep him informed of going-ons in Iraq and elsewhere so he can still lead the American troops. Saying the President is neglecting his job proves ignorance, which leads me to believe he was one of those who enlisted for free college and was bummed out when he had to go defend the country who has provided every ounce of freedom he enjoyed. I'd also like to know how Reagan vacationed? He did a lot more in one term than Clinton did in both. Clinton just did interns instead of his job. Reagan made the military quite strong and so did Bush Sr. and Clinton chose to downsize the armed forces and give more money to welfare families pumping out kids for checks. Now we're still pouring money into the same families whose check producing kids ended up in jail. So now we have to pay for them to live, still. This soldier's story is tragic at the least, but I'd have to say he was a very misguided and ignorant soldier. Here's to hoping the smart ones don't get killed.
xalophus
shr3dd wrote:
I'm not going to satisfy you by shouting "liberal! liberal!"

But you did, all through your reply.

shr3dd wrote:
So 9/11 happens and we go to war in Afghanistan and eventually Iraq (fact). Some of the soldiers in the Middle East do not want to be there (fact).

What's so factual about your "(facts)" anyways ?
that 9/11 happened ?
that US is in war in Iraq ?
that some people don't want to be there ?
what does it prove ?

What links Iraq (or for that matter, even Saddam) with 9/11 ?
If you believe in existence of any such connection, you've been giving heed to the terror campaign which helped Bush win a second term in office.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

The closest you can get to *linking* Iraq to any hostility towards US is this -

"[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged." - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.

So, what is your plan ? Nuke the whole "region from which the 9/11 threat emerged." ???
Is that appropriate ?

Bush administation claims the fact that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (accused of spearheading al-Qaeda's campaign against the US occupation of Iraq) was believed to be present in Iraq, to be the link between Iraq & al-qaeda.
Perhaps the Bush administration did not prefer to let the people know about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2003 and is in US custody.
Quote:
According to Sheikh Mohammed, he himself first pitched the idea of the aerial-style attacks on the US, calling for the for hijacking of 10 jetliners on both coasts of the US and crashing nine of them.

He features prominently in a recent US commission report on how the attacks were carried out, and this drew heavily on his statements during interrogations.

Source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2780525.stm

Read that article in detail please.
Now it would make anybody (except those who'd rather not) think about why...Just why did Iraq pose such a threat to US ?

After a brief initial bombing in Afghanistan (Osama), Bush turned his attention to Iraq, making his intentions very clear.

There are other countries where people are suffering. There are other countries ruled by dictators. These countries have nuclear weapons, which are known to be much more a threat than the kind of weapons Bush administration alleged to be in Saddam's possession. There are other countries with much more clearer links to al-qaeda (which is directly responsible for terrorist attack against US)
BUT...Bush invaded Iraq instead. The world knows why.
These countries don't have huge oil reserves.
So they pose no "threat" to the US.
Their internal affairs do not concern USA as much as Iraq's.

Was Saddam a bigger threat or more an enemy than Osama ?

Speaking of Iraqi WMDs, there never was a proof that they still existed.
What does exist instead, is a big "perhaps".
All the evidence Bush has of WMD presence in Iraq, is the invoices of their sale to Saddam by USA. (My dad sold it to them, they must be there)
If Bush administration has proof that WMDs' exist, why don't they publish it ?

But what they do instead is, award Iraqi oil-field "re-construction" contracts, without competitive bidding, to companies whose former heads are Bush's vice-presidents and his primary election campaign financers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3006149.stm

The war is about oil, and just talk without evidence will not make it otherwise.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

I remember reading about Iraq's violation of UN agreements, what about the Bush war ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

shr3dd wrote:
No one wants to die, and this guy died by non-hostile drowning, not in combat. So you can't blame his death on any combat. His disrespect for his leader is uncalled for and his disrespect for the late great Reagan is even more distasteful.

One would assume that he didn't choose to die in an accident.
That he would have fought, like every other soldier, had he been still alive.

Perhaps he doesn't deserve to be wrapped in the country colours since he died in an accident ?

shr3dd wrote:
How dare he say that Bush is vacationing? Bush understands the effects on American casualties on the homefront and is doing his best to console the victim's familes. That doesn't mean he is vacationing. he travels with a LOT of staff who keep him informed of going-ons in Iraq and elsewhere so he can still lead the American troops.

"How dare he say", what an attitude.

However, he dared to say that Bush was vacationing, because Bush WAS vacationing.
And Bush cut short his vacation, by 2 days, to be in office, due to a hurricane that is hitting the country, and not because soldiers were dying in his war.

shr3dd wrote:
The military offers a lot of people chances to get free college (fact). A lot of people who enlisted before 9/11 thought they would never have to go to war and just wanted free college (fact). These same people cannot just "quit" if/when a war breaks out (fact)
shr3dd wrote:
Saying the President is neglecting his job proves ignorance, which leads me to believe he was one of those who enlisted for free college and was bummed out when he had to go defend the country who has provided every ounce of freedom he enjoyed.

How does "Saying the President is neglecting his job" prove that he was spineless or ignorant or was afraid or war ?
Read the blog entry it's clear that he was just angry about the recent setbacks.
It's a shame that you had to resort to questioning the soldier's intellect and sincerity, in an attempt to justify your political preferences, while all he did was express his discontent over the way the war is being handled.

And what's wrong with enlisting for free college ?
Isn't the army the one who offered him that ?
Does it make him cheap labour ? A disposable hero perhaps ?

shr3dd wrote:
Reagan made the military quite strong and so did Bush Sr. and Clinton chose to downsize the armed forces and give more money to welfare families pumping out kids for checks. Now we're still pouring money into the same families whose check producing kids ended up in jail. So now we have to pay for them to live, still.

What kind of thinking is that ?
Is public welfare wrong ?
should the welfare funds be redirected to the military instead ?
let people die so that you don't "have to pay for them to live" ?
and let more people die in Bush's war for conquering ?

OR was this soldier a "cheque producing kid" so he can be done without ?

shr3dd wrote:
This soldier's story is tragic at the least, but I'd have to say he was a very misguided and ignorant soldier. Here's to hoping the smart ones don't get killed.

There are always people who don't share your political opinions, does it mean they are OK to die ? Is the death of this soldier OK with you ?
Or is his death less significant than that of a soldier who votes for Bush ?

shr3dd wrote:
I can't help that when their country calls on them they become spineless and would rather someone else die for their country.

Dying for one's country is one thing, dying for someone's greed is another.

I didn't like to mark out my facts with "(fact)" after every sentence, but they're still facts. Cold hard facts.
shr3dd
The facts I presented were there simply to support my argument. Nothing links Iraq to 9/11? Ansar al-Islam, a senior member of Al-Qaeda, was arrested in Iraq in 2004.
link

For christ's sake read this

taken from above link wrote:
* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.


There is much more in the article that you might find proves a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. So Saddam Heussein wasn't a part of 9/11, I'll accept that. Do you not realize this isn't a war against the people who were behind 9/11? It's a war against terror and there is more than enough intelligence to link Iraq with mass amounts of terrorists. My plan is not to nuke the whole region, I've been against ANY country using ANY kind of nuclear arms, ever.

So what other countries are ruled by dictators and have nuclean weapons? You failed to provide a source for that information. I'd also like to know how they are a threat. What evidence do you have that Bush is in Iraq for oil? That is simply speculation. We're helping them re-construct their oil fields to help Iraq's economy. The US is trying to help Iraq be able to stand on their own in every circumstance. Oil is a big export and if the oil fields are damaged, their economy suffers.

Saddam has killed millions of his own people, we fight to spread democracy and peace to better the international community.

I never said he chose to die in an accident. I assume he wouldv'e kept fighting. I never said he doesnt deserve to be wrapped in his country's colors. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Bush might have been on a vacation from the White House, but not from his duties. In a four year term he gets no breaks from his job so he might want to leave Washington. How outrageous is that? Saying the President neglected his job ONLY proves his ignorance. I never said it was that which made me believe he was spineless. I questioned his intellect/sincerity because of his demeanor, not to justify any politcal preference.

Nothing is wrong with enlisting for free college, but you have to understand in case of war, you WILL go. It doesn't make him cheap labor, or a disposable hero. It means if he didn't want to go to war, he shouldn't have enlisted.

Public welfare isn't wrong, by any means. I'm saying that a lot of people abuse the program. If people deserve it, fine, more power to them. People are sitting around doing nothing. They have no job and 8 kids. Most of them single mothers. They eat better than you and me, my friend. Imagine steak every night, or veal, or even more shocking, chicken! Lots of chicken! These people don't deserve constant handouts. The people that do eat conservatively consistently try to fend for themselves and do not want to be on welfare.

I'm aware not everyone shares my politcal views and I don't expect them to. I'm not saying it's ok for them to die. All I'm saying is I hope the soldiers who are proud to fight for their country and who are proud to be aiding anothing country in need survive.

Dying for someone's greed? If Bush was in Iraq for oil, why are gas prices so high? Think about it.

Edit: fixed links.
xalophus
shr3dd wrote:
The facts I presented were there simply to support my argument. Nothing links Iraq to 9/11? Ansar al-Islam, a senior member of Al-Qaeda, was arrested in Iraq in 2004.
link

For christ's sake read this

...

There is much more in the article that you might find proves a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. So Saddam Heussein wasn't a part of 9/11, I'll accept that. Do you not realize this isn't a war against the people who were behind 9/11? It's a war against terror and there is more than enough intelligence to link Iraq with mass amounts of terrorists.

So this war isn't about 9/11 ?
Wasn't this how this "war" was advertised ?
Quote:
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.
- President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2002. The speech was primarily concerned with how the US was coping in the aftermath of 11 September.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September.
- Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime

Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.
- President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
- President Bush speaking in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October, 2002, in which he laid out the threat he believed Iraq posed.

[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged. -National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

Could Iraq have supplied WMD's to terrorists ? WMD's that no longer existed ?
Isn't that absolutely baseless ?
Is that not talk without substance ?

what do you think helped Bush win his second term in office ?
Is that not false terror campaign ?
Is that not capitalising on the American peoples' emotions for 9/11 ?

No ? Here's proof -
Quote:
a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

So this war isn't about people behind 9/11 ? wasn't this one of your own stated "facts" ?
shr3dd wrote:
So 9/11 happens and we go to war in Afghanistan and eventually Iraq (fact)

Even from the link to an obviously Pro-Bush site that you posted -
Quote:
ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994

If links were there since 1994, why did the "war" start after 9/11 ? isn't it about 9/11 ?
And my question still remains unanswered, even if links existed between Iraq and terrorists, it's not the only such country. why the "special treatment" ? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2780525.stm
(I'll come back to this)
xalophus
shr3dd wrote:
My plan is not to nuke the whole region, I've been against ANY country using ANY kind of nuclear arms, ever.

No. and I never said it was your plan.
It's Bush and his administration's job.
to nuke the "region from which the 9/11 threat emerged".

No ! wait ! they wouldn't nuke them, they'll selectively bomb and conquer the oil rich countries in the "region from which the 9/11 threat emerged".
I'll bet that it'll be Saudi Arabia next.

Quote:
[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged. -National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

"region from which the 9/11 threat emerged"!! I might not be surprised upon hearing you or the guy next door talking like that,
But I certainly don't expect the president's security advisor to have such ideas.
Now how outrageuos is that ?!
If that's how they plan to link 9/11 and Iraq, if that's how knowledgeable the security advisor is, if that's the kind of research they do before they start bombing a nation, if that's the justification for killing 100000 civilians, no wonder I'm not convinced.

besides, "nuke" was used as a phrase, don't take it literally.
You don't support any country using nukes, that's very human.
But you do support US using regular bombs on a group of children just because the house next to them perhaps belonged to a suspected militant ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1740538.stm

shr3dd wrote:
So what other countries are ruled by dictators and have nuclean weapons? You failed to provide a source for that information. I'd also like to know how they are a threat.

I thought that would be an obvious thing, without me having to take names and provoke more people here.
since you don't seem aware enough, I'll point you - http://www.saag.org/papers9/paper807.html
Also if you are not aware of other nuclear powers (and more with other WMD's) which are anti-US, you need to do some research.

To name another country (which has already had a fair share of US bombs being dropped on civilians), where, if you remember, was the hotbed of al-qaeda activities ?
Didn't Bush start out his campaign with Afghanistan ?
Now Saddam is captured and Osama is still roaming free.
However, Bush is still posing all his strength in Iraq.

shr3dd wrote:
What evidence do you have that Bush is in Iraq for oil? That is simply speculation. We're helping them re-construct their oil fields to help Iraq's economy.

If you read the links I gave, please. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3006149.stm
contracts are being awarded without any competitive bidding to companies, from which Bush's top officials still receive "deferred compensation".
Also any competitive bidding in this regard categorically excludes all non-US firms.

Perhaps if Bush showed some respect towards the international community, if only there was any transparency in the way this invasion is being carried out, if only terror was not just a pretense to cover up greed, what you say would have made any sense at all.

Besides, isn't "speculation" is the very foundation of this "war" ?

The whole world (excluding the 20% American people who voted for Bush and a few, perhaps, in the ally countries) knows that the war is about oil.

shr3dd wrote:
The US is trying to help Iraq be able to stand on their own in every circumstance. Oil is a big export and if the oil fields are damaged, their economy suffers.

Oil sure is a big export, and until other sources of energy replace it (or until the average American is prepared to give up his gas guzzling car, which he somehow perceives to be his birth-right) US must ensure complete control over oil if it is to stay as strong as it is.
today US is more dependant on oil than any other country.
And no matter how expensive it may seem to you, gas is still cheaper in US then the rest of the world. The American citizen has obviously grown used to oil as cheap as water.

If oil fields don't work, or if Iraq is in control of them, it is the US ecomony which will eventually suffer.

shr3dd wrote:
Saddam has killed millions of his own people, we fight to spread democracy and peace to better the international community.

Bush has killed over 100000 civilians (and counting) in Iraq in his greed (or the alleged pursuit of terrorists.)
Is that justified ?
Does it make him any different than Saddam himself ?
xalophus
shr3dd wrote:
I never said he chose to die in an accident. I assume he wouldv'e kept fighting. I never said he doesnt deserve to be wrapped in his country's colors. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Right, you never said those exact words, here's what you did say -
shr3dd wrote:
this guy died by non-hostile drowning, not in combat. So you can't blame his death on any combat.

You didn't give the man enough credit for having fought and died in a war.
"you can't blame his death on any combat", just because he made anti-Bush remarks.

Are you sure you still want to let him be wrapped in the country colours ?

Please refrain from refusing to own what you say.

shr3dd wrote:
Bush might have been on a vacation from the White House, but not from his duties. In a four year term he gets no breaks from his job so he might want to leave Washington. How outrageous is that?

Can you deny that Bush was on vacation the month before 9/11 happened ?
Can you deny that he played down intelligence about of 9/11 style attacks being planned ?
How can you possibly say he was not vacationing from his duties ?
Quote:
Mr Bush received a briefing on 6 August 2001 saying that Osama Bin Laden was "determined to attack inside the US". The White House took the extremely unusual step of declassifying the memo at the weekend.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3625781.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3617289.stm

Quote:
Had I known there was going to be an attack on America, I would have moved mountains to stop the attack. I would have done everything I can. - President Bush, upon whether he thought his administration could have done anything more about 9/11
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040411.html

Can you deny the fact that Bush sat down with second-graders and did a 20-minute photo op knowing very well that America was under attack ?
only the president has the authority to order a civilian aircraft shot down. But if that needed to be authorized on 9/11, Bush was not available.
And despite the knowledge of stray planes hitting sky-scrapers, he did nothing. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
Read through that article and try to justify his actions (I have personally seen the video in question)

Quote:
Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans." - President Bush in his address to the nation
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-16.html
Is reading "my-pet-goat" a part of the government emergency response plans ???

Yet that's not what the soldier said.
Please quote what he said apart from the fact that Bush was on vacation.
I must ask you to refrain from putting words into a dead man's mouth.

shr3dd wrote:
Saying the President neglected his job ONLY proves his ignorance. I never said it was that which made me believe he was spineless. I questioned his intellect/sincerity because of his demeanor, not to justify any politcal preference.

I must, once again, ask you to refrain from putting words into a dead man's mouth.

Yet you contradict yourself.
It's his remarks against Bush that make you call him ignorant, yet you say you are not questioning his intellect in an attempt to justify your political preferences.
Please cite the part that makes you think he was not willing to fight for his country, and that his anguish was only against Bush.

Isn't it his remaks against Bush that made him "spineless" ?
xalophus
shr3dd wrote:
Nothing is wrong with enlisting for free college, but you have to understand in case of war, you WILL go. It doesn't make him cheap labor, or a disposable hero. It means if he didn't want to go to war, he shouldn't have enlisted.

See above...
What did he ever say about not wanting to go to war ?
Please refrain from putting words into a dead man's mouth.

To me it appears, he was as entusiastic about fighting as any soldier could be.

shr3dd wrote:
Public welfare isn't wrong, by any means. I'm saying that a lot of people abuse the program. If people deserve it, fine, more power to them. People are sitting around doing nothing. They have no job and 8 kids. Most of them single mothers. They eat better than you and me, my friend. Imagine steak every night, or veal, or even more shocking, chicken! Lots of chicken! These people don't deserve constant handouts. The people that do eat conservatively consistently try to fend for themselves and do not want to be on welfare.

For once I might have to agree with you, people abuse public welfare.
And I'm no happier about it than you are.
But then again, people abuse power, office, court, law etc etc.
We don't abolish things because some people abuse them.

shr3dd wrote:
I'm aware not everyone shares my politcal views and I don't expect them to. I'm not saying it's ok for them to die. All I'm saying is I hope the soldiers who are proud to fight for their country and who are proud to be aiding anothing country in need survive.

You call anybody who remarks against Bush as ignorant.
and you hope that "smart ones don't get killed".
So you are fine with the ignorant ones dying.
That is to say, anybody who doesn't vote for Bush is fine to die.
If that's a wrong conclusion to arrive at, science has failed me.

shr3dd wrote:
Dying for someone's greed? If Bush was in Iraq for oil, why are gas prices so high? Think about it.

low priced gas wouldn't fill Bush & his sidekicks' pocket as much.
The war is not about making available cheap gas (increasing production), it's about controlling the world economy for the years to come.
besides, the oil fields in Iraq have been damaged, and the re-construction contracts have already been awarded to the "right" companies (link above)

Justify the killing of more than 100000 innocent people for oil (or even for hunting a few terrorists), and I'll justify what Saddam did.
shr3dd
xalophus wrote:
So this war isn't about 9/11? Wasn't this how this "war" was advertised ?
The initial strikes against Afghanistan were about 9/11, yes. The war in Iraq is about Saddam harboring and funding terrorists, and committing genocide against his own people. They were two different wars, and we're still in Afghanistan. Both are a part of the overall war on terror.
xalophus wrote:
Is that not false terror campaign? Is that not capitalising on the American peoples' emotions for 9/11 ?

False terror campaign? Are you serious? Bush has always said that Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11. He made very clear before the war that it was about Saddam supporting terrorists and murdering mass amounts of his own people. There is nothing false about telling the people what is going on, it's called being a good leader. He did not overplay the situation for scare tactics either.
xalophus wrote:
If links were there since 1994, why did the "war" start after 9/11 ? isn't it about 9/11 ?
And my question still remains unanswered, even if links existed between Iraq and terrorists, it's not the only such country. why the "special treatment"?

The war did not start until after 9/11 because that was the first attack on the US since Bush had been in office. If you wish the war started after the 1993 WTC bombings, complain about Clinton, who was in office at the time and did nothing about the attack. We're not only in Iraq. As stated before we are still in Afghanistan. US troops are in nearly 130 countries worldwide. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm So Iraq isn't the only country getting "special treatment". http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/boots.htm
xalophus wrote:
No ! wait ! they wouldn't nuke them, they'll selectively bomb and conquer the oil rich countries in the "region from which the 9/11 threat emerged". I'll bet that it'll be Saudi Arabia next.

Wrong again. What country have we conquered? None. Last time I (or anyone) checked the US is protecting Iraq from insurgency right now and Iraqis are in power. The Iraqi government nor it's people has asked (or told) us to leave. the only oppostion to US troops in Iraq is from the insurgents, and liberal Americans.
xalophus wrote:
If that's how they plan to link 9/11 and Iraq
Bush has gone on record saying there is no link between them. You even gave me links supporting that.
xalphus wrote:
if that's the justification for killing 100000 civilians

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ Where did you get your figure?

I know "nuke" was used as a phrase. But do you support terrorists strapping bombs to themselves and killing innocent people (incl. women and children) and getting away with it?

I am aware that other countries have nuclear power. I was not asking you to prove it to me that they existed, I was seeking clarification.

I'll get back to this later... girlfriend called.
xalophus
shr3dd wrote:
The initial strikes against Afghanistan were about 9/11, yes. The war in Iraq is about Saddam harboring and funding terrorists, and committing genocide against his own people. They were two different wars, and we're still in Afghanistan. Both are a part of the overall war on terror.

False terror campaign? Are you serious? Bush has always said that Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11. He made very clear before the war that it was about Saddam supporting terrorists and murdering mass amounts of his own people. There is nothing false about telling the people what is going on, it's called being a good leader. He did not overplay the situation for scare tactics either.

I've given you proof that even after the war started, Bush and administration were linking Iraq and 9/11.
I gave you proof that the supposed "terror threat" which America was facing after 9/11 (and it's Iraqi connection), was being intravenously fed to the American public.

I'll post those statements again (they were quite an effort to format properly, don't just ignore them, please)
I'm not asking you what this war is about. (I know what it is about)
What I'm asking is - Wasn't this how it was advertised ?
(The context of the statements is as important the statements themselves, I'll underline that for you)
Quote:
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.
- President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2002. The speech was primarily concerned with how the US was coping in the aftermath of 11 September.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September.
- Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime

Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.
- President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
- President Bush speaking in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October, 2002, in which he laid out the threat he believed Iraq posed.

[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged. -National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.

We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. - Mr Cheney in the same interview, commenting on the war against Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

wasn't 9/11 and "war against iraqi terror" the main political agenda of the Bush campaign ? wasn't that the main reason he won ?
did his administration not, again and again, falsely portray Saddam as the biggest threat to America ?
Did they not, repeatedly, connect him to 9/11 until the public was convinced he was personally responsible for it ?

Has it come down to pure denial ?
Quote:
a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks. Many Americans believe that some of the hijackers were Iraqi - when none were - and that the attacks had been orchestrated by Baghdad, despite any concrete evidence to support that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

If one fails to see an attempt, direct or subtle but definite, to use public emotions after 9/11 for justifying Iraq war and for political gain, despite reading the above links, he's either too young to understand, or too biased to be able to see through.

shr3dd wrote:
The war did not start until after 9/11 because that was the first attack on the US since Bush had been in office. If you wish the war started after the 1993 WTC bombings, complain about Clinton, who was in office at the time and did nothing about the attack. We're not only in Iraq. As stated before we are still in Afghanistan. US troops are in nearly 130 countries worldwide.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm So Iraq isn't the only country getting "special treatment". http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/boots.htm

Should America have bombed the s*** out of Iraq for something that was clearly done by al-qaeda ?
Do you know that Ramzi Yousef, responsible for 1993 bombing was based in Pakistan ? His uncle, Khalid Sheik Mohammed (you'll remember this name from a few posts above), who claimed responsibility for 9/11, was coincidentally based in Pakistan too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef

I never really liked Clinton, but I'm glad he didn't kill thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians for that.

This comes from the link you provided -
Quote:
The forces of the United States military are located in nearly 130 countries around the world performing a variety of duties from combat operations, to peacekeeping, to training with foreign militaries.

The key-words here are "combat operations, peacekeeping, training with foreign militaries".
Think about the reason US army is in Iraq and then in the rest of the 129 countries, you'll notice the "special treatment".
Not just US, almost all countries with relatively strong militaries deploy troops in troubled countries (UN peace keeping force)

No special treatment ???
Quote:
The UN Peacekeeping Forces may only be employed when both parties to a conflict accept their presence.
Quote:
The Peacekeeping Forces are subordinate to the leadership of the United Nations. They are normally deployed as a consequence of a Security Council decision.
http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1988/un-history.html
There lies the difference between the other 129 countries and Iraq.
The US occupation of Iraq has not been approved by the security council.
Read through the link you gave me and you'll see, It's Iraq and Kuwait that most US military is concentrated upon (no, not even Afghanistan).
Notice something common in the two countries ?

Are you telling me that US deploys its military in 130 countries without UN approval ? An empire bigger than the British from the imperial days ?
With that in mind, US has no right to attack Iraq on the pretense of Iraq's violations of UN directives, because occupation of Iraq by American military is itself the most blatant violation of UN.

shr3dd wrote:
Wrong again. What country have we conquered? None. Last time I (or anyone) checked the US is protecting Iraq from insurgency right now and Iraqis are in power. The Iraqi government nor it's people has asked (or told) us to leave. the only oppostion to US troops in Iraq is from the insurgents, and liberal Americans.

The last time I (or anyone who's not biased) checked, the Iraqi government HAD indeed asked Bush to leave.
The last time I (or anyone who's not biased) checked, Bush had no plans of pulling out anytime soon. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4720083.stm
The last time I (or anyone who's not biased) checked, mere army pullout wouldn't render the multi-billion dollar oil field contracts as null and void.
The last time I (or anyone who's not biased) checked, these oil field contracts were not open to any firm that was not American. (link posted before)

shr3dd wrote:
Bush has gone on record saying there is no link between them. You even gave me links supporting that.

Bush has gone on record with that, only AFTER the average American was convinced that the two were linked.
The link I gave proves that.
Forgive me for the personal attack, but apparently your bias prevents you from seeing the whole picture, you're reading selectively, you're hearing only what you want to hear.

shr3dd wrote:
xalphus wrote:
if that's the justification for killing 100000 civilians

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ Where did you get your figure?

I get mine from BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
And I prefer to use the more realistic, non-"official", figures.
But again, is the killing of "even" 27705 innocent civilians, reported dead as per the site you linked, justified ?
I will assume that accuracy to the nth decimal place is not as important as the fact that so many civilians are dying.

shr3dd wrote:
I know "nuke" was used as a phrase. But do you support terrorists strapping bombs to themselves and killing innocent people (incl. women and children) and getting away with it?

No. I don't support terrorists.
Terrorism is one of the most hideous crimes.
And that's exactly my point.

Terrorists use terror as a means to certain end. So did Bush - he won a second term by putting fear into the minds of American people.
Terrorists kill innocent people. So does Bush - and at a much larger scale.

So what differentiates Bush from Osama ?
Both get their men killed for their greed.
Both's men die thinking they died for a "cause".

And in terms of getting innocent civilians killed, Bush surpasses Osama himself.

shr3dd wrote:
I am aware that other countries have nuclear power. I was not asking you to prove it to me that they existed, I was seeking clarification.

I thought you'd be aware, I was just putting things (Iraq, the threat it posed to US, and the connections it had to al-qaeda) into the right perspective.
And in that perspective,
Selectively targeting Iraq for alleged al-qaeda links is unjustified and reeks of greed.
James Bamfield
IRAQ'S weapons of Mass Desruction. The assesment of the british goverment.
Was as is now known based of some false intellegence. I personally believe that Saddam had WMD's but thats just what i think as none have been found.

"No greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Now there is no doubt in my mind as has been said in the above posts that many people do join the forces for an easy ride. But saying that in the British army at the moment from what i understand its no t an easy ride.

Now i believe in the iraq war, It is NOT Bushes war it is our war the British and American peoples war. Yes bush may have started it with Blairs help and even if their case for war was full of holes. What Saddam was doing to his people was a small version of Adlof Hitlers Holocaust. Saddam used tecniques on his people that the SS used on the Jews. Now justify why we should not intervien when that is happening what if Churchill had given up in WW2. Britain would be under Nazi controll. The free world would no longer exist. I believe that Bush and Blair have done the right thing. Yes people die in war and if U.S soliders and British Soliders die in war thats the way it is. When they signed up they swore to give thier lives for their country> If they dont like that well im sorry but i have no sympthay for them. As i have already said on this forum im about to sign up for the RAF and i will die for my country if i have to. I dont want to and i pray to god it wont come to that but thats the way it is.

I finsih with a quote form Sir Winston Churchill.

Quote:
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Potternet
shr3dd wrote:
I'm not going to satisfy you by shouting "liberal! liberal!" This isn't biased media, because he was a soldier, not a newscaster. The military offers a lot of people chances to get free college (fact). A lot of people who enlisted before 9/11 thought they would never have to go to war and just wanted free college (fact). These same people cannot just "quit" if/when a war breaks out (fact). So 9/11 happens and we go to war in Afghanistan and eventually Iraq (fact). Some of the soldiers in the Middle East do not want to be there (fact). I can't help that when their country calls on them they become spineless and would rather someone else die for their country. No one wants to die, and this guy died by non-hostile drowning, not in combat. So you can't blame his death on any combat. His disrespect for his leader is uncalled for and his disrespect for the late great Reagan is even more distasteful. How dare he say that Bush is vacationing? Bush understands the effects on American casualties on the homefront and is doing his best to console the victim's familes. That doesn't mean he is vacationing. he travels with a LOT of staff who keep him informed of going-ons in Iraq and elsewhere so he can still lead the American troops. Saying the President is neglecting his job proves ignorance, which leads me to believe he was one of those who enlisted for free college and was bummed out when he had to go defend the country who has provided every ounce of freedom he enjoyed. I'd also like to know how Reagan vacationed? He did a lot more in one term than Clinton did in both. Clinton just did interns instead of his job. Reagan made the military quite strong and so did Bush Sr. and Clinton chose to downsize the armed forces and give more money to welfare families pumping out kids for checks. Now we're still pouring money into the same families whose check producing kids ended up in jail. So now we have to pay for them to live, still. This soldier's story is tragic at the least, but I'd have to say he was a very misguided and ignorant soldier. Here's to hoping the smart ones don't get killed.


I actually agree with you. I n asia lots of soldiers do not want to be there. Trust me. My grandpa was a soldier. And basically you did shout liberal liberal so you did satisfy us.
xalophus
James Bamfield wrote:
IRAQ'S weapons of Mass Desruction. The assesment of the british goverment.
Was as is now known based of some false intellegence. I personally believe that Saddam had WMD's but thats just what i think as none have been found.

I really appreciate that you recognise and accept the difference between personal belief and proven fact.
But as I've been trying to say throughout this thread, personal beliefs are not grounds enough for taking war to a country.

James Bamfield wrote:
It is NOT Bushes war it is our war the British and American peoples war. Yes bush may have started it with Blairs help and even if their case for war was full of holes. What Saddam was doing to his people was a small version of Adlof Hitlers Holocaust. Saddam used tecniques on his people that the SS used on the Jews. Now justify why we should not intervien when that is happening what if Churchill had given up in WW2. Britain would be under Nazi controll. The free world would no longer exist. I believe that Bush and Blair have done the right thing.

Comparing Saddam and Hitler ? Please! it doesn't do "justice" to the magnitude ot crimes that Hitler committed.

Saddam selectively killed his people and using inhuman methods, no doubt.
But that's about all the similarity between the two.
Hitler had designs of world dominance and envisioned an empire larger than the British, Saddam did not.
Hitler invaded Britain, Saddam did not (neither Britain nor America)
A country was not invaded and it's civilian population not bombed under the pretense of getting rid of Hitler, the same can not be said of Saddam and Iraq.

That's why fighting off Hitler was right and invading Iraq is wrong.

What makes one believe that Iraq posed a threat as big to the free world as Hitler did ?
I'll try to answer using a statement I've quoted before -
Quote:
Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. - President Bush
It is -
Because instead of showing the people facts, they were made to imagine.
Because instead of telling them the truth, they were shown nightmares about terrorist attacks.
Because, despite lack of evidence, Iraq was linked to 9/11.
Because public emotion for 9/11 was exploited and milked for political mileage with clever terror campaign.

James Bamfield wrote:
Yes people die in war and if U.S soliders and British Soliders die in war thats the way it is. When they signed up they swore to give thier lives for their country> If they dont like that well im sorry but i have no sympthay for them. As i have already said on this forum im about to sign up for the RAF and i will die for my country if i have to. I dont want to and i pray to god it wont come to that but thats the way it is.

If you sign up to serve your country today, and tomorrow should you be dissatisfied with your leadership and should you express such discontent, I will still be against anybody calling you "spineless" due to differences in political opinion.
A person's dissatisfaction with his leaders neither undermines his patriotism nor does it give us the right to label him spineless.
James Bamfield
Quote:
Hitler invaded Britain, Saddam did not (neither Britain nor America)
A country was not invaded and it's civilian population not bombed under the pretense of getting rid of Hitler, the same can not be said of Saddam and Iraq.


hitler did not invade Britain he tried but the RAF defeated him in the sky and with out holding the skys they couldnt invade. Also Saddam had a view to conquer. Him invading Kuwait is an example of that but we crushed him.

Now Spinless soliders. A solider does not need to rely on there commanding officer. Because if he or she did then if the CO was KIA then they would have no one to lead. Therefore having faith in a CO or even as i think you saying the President that should not be an issue. A solider is there to do a job. When a solider is on active duty in a war situation politics does not come into the equation therefore anyone not willing to do there job is as you say spineless. If a solider is on the ground in the front line and is worrying about politics and not the job in hand then he should consider if hes in the right job.
xalophus
James Bamfield wrote:
hitler did not invade Britain he tried but the RAF defeated him in the sky and with out holding the skys they couldnt invade. Also Saddam had a view to conquer. Him invading Kuwait is an example of that but we crushed him.

I can't believe I'm having to justify the difference between Hitler and Saddam.
If you must take the word invasion to the precise dictionary definition, fine. Hitler did not "invade" Britain, He attacked Britain.
Quote:
In the summer of 1940, the German Luftwaffe attempted to win air superiority over southern Britain and the English Channel by destroying the Royal Air Force and the British aircraft industry.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/battle_of_britain_01.shtml

As for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait -
Quote:
The invasion came amid an Iraqi economic crisis stemming from post-war debt.

Saddam Hussein accused Kuwait of keeping oil prices low and pumping more than its quota from the two countries’ shared oil field.

Iraq had never accepted its British-drawn borders, which established Kuwait as a separate entity.

And when Kuwait refused to waive Iraq’s war debts, Saddam Hussein invaded.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/kuwait_invasion.stm
Do you think that was a threat to America or Britain.

Perhaps yes.
Because if Saddam was successful in his invasion, he'd come to own 20% of the world's oil resource.
He'd be the largest largest producer and exporter of oil, having immense influence upon world economies, especially western.
I'm not saying what Saddam did was right, just pointing out the difference between him and Hitler.

Additionally, the removal of Saddam from Kuwait was UN approved.
The action was backed by the world. Unanimously.
Quote:
On 9 August 1990 the UN Security Council voted 15-0 to declare Iraq's annexation of Kuwait null and void.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/2/newsid_2526000/2526937.stm
Not the current invasion of Iraq.

James Bamfield wrote:
Now Spinless soliders. A solider does not need to rely on there commanding officer. Because if he or she did then if the CO was KIA then they would have no one to lead. Therefore having faith in a CO or even as i think you saying the President that should not be an issue. A solider is there to do a job. When a solider is on active duty in a war situation politics does not come into the equation therefore anyone not willing to do there job is as you say spineless. If a solider is on the ground in the front line and is worrying about politics and not the job in hand then he should consider if hes in the right job.

By "leaders" I meant political, yes.
I'm not defending or sympathising with the truly "spineless" people.
I'm opposing people being labelled so merely because of differences in political opinion.
If one thinks the soldier in question should be declared spineless just because of his remarks against his leader (political), in his personal blog, it's nothing short of outrageous.
The soldier was obviously doing his job. Did you notice, that even in the blog entry where he commented on the President, he was primarily worrying about the job in hand ?
James Bamfield
I would not call the solider in the blog spinless. He obviously new he was there to do his job and he understood that. I would like to point out my Uncle is serving in Iraq right now with the US army and hes been keeping me up to date with what is happening out there.
shr3dd
What do soldiers think?

[img]http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/******.bmp[/img]
James Bamfield
Damn right those soilders have the nright idea. Very Happy
myth-plan
god help us ! NO killing , NO crying .
ewfdemon
Hi, I have served my country in 2 wars...Panama and Desert Storm. I served willingly and proudly. It drives me nuts when somebody with no experience complains about our presence in a conflict or war. Freedom costs blood, seems alot of americans forget that little bit of info. My worst day in the war was not in combat, not during body counts, but hearing a fellow soldier whine about his not wanting to be there, that he only joined up for the college money. What kind of thing is that? It was disgusting to hear. I wish the protesters would just shut up and let those who know what they are doing, do their jobs.
S3nd K3ys
ewfdemon wrote:
Hi, I have served my country in 2 wars...Panama and Desert Storm. I served willingly and proudly. It drives me nuts when somebody with no experience complains about our presence in a conflict or war. Freedom costs blood, seems alot of americans forget that little bit of info. My worst day in the war was not in combat, not during body counts, but hearing a fellow soldier whine about his not wanting to be there, that he only joined up for the college money. What kind of thing is that? It was disgusting to hear. I wish the protesters would just shut up and let those who know what they are doing, do their jobs.


Thanks for serving ewfdemon. It's people like you that make it possible for the people (Americans and others, whether they know it or not), to FREELY speak their mind without fear of being killed/jailed etc.

Nice post.
xalophus
ewfdemon wrote:
he only joined up for the college money.

Why does it always come down to accusing the dead soldier of being in the army for college money ?
What tells you that he was in the army for college money ?
If not, then how is this statement relevant here ?
Where is the similarity between the soldier in the blog and the soldier you're talking about ?

Not everybody who is in the army and who doesn't like Bush, is there for college money.


ewfdemon wrote:
I served willingly and proudly. It drives me nuts when somebody with no experience complains about our presence in a conflict or war.


And all Americans must surely be proud of you for having served.

Bush himself, just got "preferential treatment".
and this is how whitehouse counters such allegations -
A Q&A between whitehouse spokesperson & a journalist.
Quote:
Q. On the attendance records of the National Guard, it said he had 56 out of a required 50 points. Is that considered a good attendance record, do you know? Or do you know what the maximum number of points you can get --

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, we were pleased to be able to provide you all with these additional records that just recently came to our attention. These documents clearly show that the President fulfilled his duties. And we had previously released some of the point summaries that you are referencing. There is more complete information relating to those point summaries that document the fact that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties when he was serving in the National Guard back in the early '70s.

Q. Scott, a couple of questions I have -- the records that you handed out today, and other records that exist, indicate that the President did not perform any Guard duty during the months of December 1972, February or March of 1973. I'm wondering if you can tell us where he was during that period. And also, how is it that he managed to not make the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, the records that you're pointing to, these records are the payroll records; they're the point summaries. These records verify that he met the requirements necessary to fulfill his duties. These records --

Q. That wasn't my question, Scott.

MR. McCLELLAN: These payroll records --

Q. Scott, that wasn't my question, and you know it wasn't my question. Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73? And why did he not fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?

MR. McCLELLAN: These records -- these records I'm holding here clearly document the President fulfilling his duties in the National Guard. The President was proud of his service. The President --

Q. I asked a simple question; how about a simple answer?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, if you'll let me address the question, I'm coming to your answer, and I'd like --

Q. Well, if you would address it -- maybe you could.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, John. But this is an important issue that some chose to raise in the context of an election year, and the facts are important for people to know. And if you don't want to know the facts, that's fine. But I want to share the facts with you.

Q. I do want to know the facts, which is why I keep asking the question. And I'll ask it one more time. Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73? Why didn't he fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status in 1972?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President recalls serving both when he was in Texas and when he was in Alabama. And that is what I can tell you. And we have provided you these documents that show clearly that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties. And that is the reason that he was honorably discharged from the National Guard. The President was proud of his service.

The President spent some of that time in Texas. He was a member of the Texas Air National Guard, and he was given permission, on a temporary basis, to perform equivalent duty while he was in Alabama. And he performed that duty. And the payroll records, that I think are very important for the public to have, clearly reflect that he served.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040210-3.html

Bush supported the Vietnam war, but he wouldn't personally risk his own life fighting it.
And while his comrades were dying in Vietnam, he was serving "equivalent duty" in Alabama and Texas !

It drives you nuts if somebody "with no experience" complains about war.

Why doesn't it drive you nuts when somebody who ran away from his duties, starts the war ?
Why doesn't it drive you nuts when someone, who deserted his comrades in Vietnam, pushes loyal soldiers into a greedy war ?
ewfdemon
1. I never said the deceased soldier joined for the college money. I only imparted a personal experience that I had.

2. Bush started the war? Prove it. Did he talk Saddam into murdering his own countrymen? Did Bush advise Saddam to withold the basic human rights of those in his country?

People who are only informed by way of the popular media often have the wrong idea of alot of things. Nothing can take the place of REAL experience. Maybe I can't put out a buch of links to the things I know, but at least I know facts because I lived them. I do have the desert storm sickness and I STILL am proud of what I did and wouldn't trade it. I have daily thoughts about what I did and how my little part of things may have benefitted at least one person. If I made anyone persons life just a bit better, it was worth it. In the real world, sometimes the needs of many are a higher priority than those of the few. There is no place for selfishness in such arenas.
Military service is not for everyone, we all have the things we are effective at. And since we have freedom of speech in this country (thanks to the blood of others who are always forgotten), I will hold back from flaming you.
S3nd K3ys
ewfdemon wrote:
...

People who are only informed by way of the popular media often have the wrong idea of alot of things. ...


Concur. I get so tired of hearing about how dubya did this or dubya lied about that. Let me break it down for you ONE MORE TIME...

1. Saddam would not come clean and cooperate with inspectors looking for WMD. Intelligence (Faulty as it may be) indicated that he had WMDs, and he was going out of his way to not cooperate with inspectors. If you weren't suspcious, you were stupid.

2. Saddam signed a cease-fire in 1991 and violated that agreement. The Persian Gulf War in 1991 never truly ended, and violation of those terms warranted further military action

3. Saddam repeatedly - DAILY - was attempting to shoot down and KILL American and British pilots. But of course, you would still call this "unprovoked" because you selectively forget this fact.

4. Saddam stood as a figure of defiance against the West. Post 9-11, it was much better to take him out. Saddam DID INDEED have a well-known connection to financing terrorism, albiet in Israel. Most payments were oil-for-food money.

5. We need to turn around a century of patronizing the ME with dictators who are "OUR sonofabitch". Democracy is contagious. Worked in Europe. Look how big of pacifists they became.

If you still have not figured that one out, the only reason you have not is because you refuse to see the obvious.

Saddam was saved in the first war because he agreed to dismantle his WMD programs and he agreed to have unfettered inspections. He also agreed to other conditions as part of the treaty not to take him out. If you remember, he invaded another country and started wars in the past.

Saddam did not comply with the agreement and was given chance after chance. Many world leaders met with him to get him to comply. He did not. He was given an ultimatum and refused. Saddam did have programs.....however big or small can be debated forever.....the bottom line is he made it appear he had programs and that was good enough.

He bluffed and got called on it. Saddam gassed the Kurds, Saddam killed millions, Saddam had ties to terrorists...again the degree can be debated but the facts are, he did.

Saddam would have eventually let the pot boil over and in this day and time we could not allow that to happen. Yes, the WMD did not turn out like we thought but that is not relevant. What is relevant is Saddam made it appear he had them and thus he got his ass handed to him.
shr3dd
I love how xalophus took ewfdemon's story about a fellow soldier who was in it only for college money and used it in a completely different context for personal gain. Saddam killed millions, why based on that point alone would you not want to take him out? "It's not our business"?? Maybe some of the millions were Americans, so what if he tried to shoot down our pilots?

Saddam is non-compliant with the U.N. and it's not our business. People call the Iraqi war "illegal", whos laws are we breaking? Why don't we have the U.N. send their army to take care of Saddam, (oh, they don't have an army.) So what makes it ok for Saddam to be non-compliant with the U.N. and then you have these liberals saying we need to ask the U.N. for permission to attack Saddam? What the hell kind of logic is that? We don't need to ask the U.N. for permission to do anything, ever, we are soveriegn.

How is Bush's military record at all relevant? He did certaintly not desert anyone in Vietnam. He was never deployed to Vietnam. You must have him confused with John Kerry, who was in Vietnam, came back, joined the anti-war crowd and prevented US POW's from either living or ever returning to the US. If you haven't seen it, watch a certain documentary called "Stolen Honor". It's about Kerry's Vietnam trek. I'm sure there's copies of it on the internet.
xalophus
ewfdemon wrote:
2. Bush started the war? Prove it. Did he talk Saddam into murdering his own countrymen? Did Bush advise Saddam to withold the basic human rights of those in his country?

Bush didn't start the war ?
Perhaps PNAC did ?
But I saw people giving Bush all the credit for "having the balls".
He won the elections due to that, didn't he ?
(I'll come back on Bush, Iraq and Saddam later)

ewfdemon wrote:
People who are only informed by way of the popular media often have the wrong idea of alot of things.

I wonder if Bush's presedential addresses count as popular media ?
They sure are misleading.
He used 9/11 to get the people to support him in his Iraq crusade.
After getting reelected, he himself denied knowledge of any link between Saddam and Al-qaeda.
(I'll come back on Bush, Iraq and Saddam later)

ewfdemon wrote:
Nothing can take the place of REAL experience. Maybe I can't put out a buch of links to the things I know, but at least I know facts because I lived them. I do have the desert storm sickness and I STILL am proud of what I did and wouldn't trade it. I have daily thoughts about what I did and how my little part of things may have benefitted at least one person. If I made anyone persons life just a bit better, it was worth it. In the real world, sometimes the needs of many are a higher priority than those of the few. There is no place for selfishness in such arenas.
Military service is not for everyone, we all have the things we are effective at. And since we have freedom of speech in this country (thanks to the blood of others who are always forgotten), I will hold back from flaming you.

I appreciate what you did. From your prespective, you did the right thing.
and I will definitely not label you "spineless" or question your loyalties just because your political opinions maybe different from mine.
It just doesn't seem right when another soldier who died in the war is being labeled spineless, let alone being proud of.

shr3dd wrote:
he was a very misguided and ignorant soldier. Here's to hoping the smart ones don't get killed.
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Thanks for serving ewfdemon. It's people like you that make it possible for the people (Americans and others, whether they know it or not), to FREELY speak their mind without fear of being killed/jailed etc.


And you, of all people, compare him to that greedy soldier you once met.
It's ironic that the only person here defending that soldier is me.
Almost everybody else is writing him down as "spineless" just because he said things which are not exactly praises for Bush.
I never knew that being a Bush supporter was a prerequisite for being a loyal soldier.

And I appreciate you not flaming.
That's something that those whose arguments lack substance resort to.


shr3dd wrote:
How is Bush's military record at all relevant? He did certaintly not desert anyone in Vietnam. He was never deployed to Vietnam.

Bush's military record is relevant because someone brought up the topic of people with not war experience.
When faced with allegations, White house released his military records which do not disprove that he went AWOL for one whole year from his war duties.
And if you think I will try to fight back on allegations made on Kerry, you will be disappointed. I do not blindly support anybody.


shr3dd wrote:
I love how xalophus took ewfdemon's story about a fellow soldier who was in it only for college money and used it in a completely different context for personal gain.
I agree, I believed that such comments were posted in different context.
I demand to know their relevance here.

I love how these greedy soldier memoirs keep ending up in this thread and are used to insult the person whose only fault is speaking against Bush.

I love how you never noticed that there is nothing which indicates that the soldier in question was in the army for college money.
and I love how you were the first to make this allegation -
shr3dd wrote:
A lot of people who enlisted before 9/11 thought they would never have to go to war and just wanted free college (fact). These same people cannot just "quit" if/when a war breaks out (fact). So 9/11 happens and we go to war in Afghanistan and eventually Iraq (fact). Some of the soldiers in the Middle East do not want to be there (fact). I can't help that when their country calls on them they become spineless and would rather someone else die for their country.
Apart from calling him ignorant and spineless and dismissing him as you can not "blame his death on any combat" , ofcourse.

When you post it, it's not out of context.
But when I reply to it, it is "used it in a completely different context for personal gain" ?
xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
1. Saddam would not come clean and cooperate with inspectors looking for WMD. Intelligence (Faulty as it may be) indicated that he had WMDs, and he was going out of his way to not cooperate with inspectors. If you weren't suspcious, you were stupid.

I don't understand how inspections were held again and again, if Iraq was not cooperating.
The intelligence is faulty, but let's bomb them anyway.
Why not shed these pretenses and state the real reason as well ?


S3nd K3ys wrote:
2. Saddam signed a cease-fire in 1991 and violated that agreement. The Persian Gulf War in 1991 never truly ended, and violation of those terms warranted further military action

3. Saddam repeatedly - DAILY - was attempting to shoot down and KILL American and British pilots. But of course, you would still call this "unprovoked" because you selectively forget this fact.

Even in the security council declaration, Saddam was not obliged to protect aircrafts in the no-fly zone.
That is not to say that he was a law abiding citizen.
Atleast he was not breaking any UN agreements.
He was adhering to all UN terms in order to get the sanctions revoked.
And he was succeeding.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
4. Saddam stood as a figure of defiance against the West. Post 9-11, it was much better to take him out. Saddam DID INDEED have a well-known connection to financing terrorism, albiet in Israel. Most payments were oil-for-food money.

Yes, the old 9/11 Saddam connection.
Cite one incidence, one proof that Iraq was hostile to America.

Yet, does defiance against the west means "being taken out" ?

This is the first time I seen an American say this in such clear words.
I appreciate that you say it so candidly.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
5. We need to turn around a century of patronizing the ME with dictators who are "OUR sonofabitch". Democracy is contagious. Worked in Europe. Look how big of pacifists they became.

To say it other words, America needs to quit patronizing peaceful methods of world domination.
And the project for new American century intends to do just that.
It's no coincidence that senior officials in Bush government are its members.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Saddam was saved in the first war because he agreed to dismantle his WMD programs and he agreed to have unfettered inspections. He also agreed to other conditions as part of the treaty not to take him out. If you remember, he invaded another country and started wars in the past.

Saddam did not comply with the agreement and was given chance after chance. Many world leaders met with him to get him to comply. He did not. He was given an ultimatum and refused. Saddam did have programs.....however big or small can be debated forever.....

Iraq had dismantled all its wmd programs by 1996.
And American intelligence had full knowledge of this.
The CIA special report to the DCI, which has been used as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq, repeatedly speaks only of Saddam's supposed intentions.
However, even this report does mention the facts, although in just one sentence -
Quote:
[Iraq’s WMD capability] was essentially destroyed in 1991
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

Iraq was severely weakened by UN sanctions.
It was, as the phrase goes, "ripe for taking".

S3nd K3ys wrote:
the bottom line is he made it appear he had programs and that was good enough.

He bluffed and got called on it. Saddam gassed the Kurds, Saddam killed millions, Saddam had ties to terrorists...again the degree can be debated but the facts are, he did.

Saddam would have eventually let the pot boil over and in this day and time we could not allow that to happen. Yes, the WMD did not turn out like we thought but that is not relevant. What is relevant is Saddam made it appear he had them and thus he got his *** handed to him.

The bottom line is that all these are purely allegations.
absolutely No fact whatsoever.

There were no WMDs since 1996. There were no proven or even known links between Saddam and terrorists. Iraq was no threat to America.
But thousands of Iraqi people got their ***es handed to them anyway.
You think this is a card game we are talking about ?

Anybody with the slightest knowledge of the middle-east will tell you that Saddam was a major opponent of Al-qaeda and other international terror organizations, the prime reason why Iraq was not the head-quarters of al-qaeda operations, the prime reason why Osama (then American pet) offered guerillas to fight Saddam in Iran.

But you know what the American people were sold, don't you ?
Quote:
Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. - President Bush

This is something that I haven't heard any explanation for. Neither from Bush government, nor from you.

I'm not a democrat (and no S3nd K3ys, I'm not posing as a rep either Wink ), after all the democrats are not much different from Bush as far as American aggression in pursuit of more power is concerned.
I'm against anybody who blindly supports any leader, the leader's mistakes and the leader's crusades.
S3nd K3ys
xalophus wrote:
...blah blah blah...


Shr3dd, did you hear something? Oh, never mind. Wink

shr3dd wrote:
I love how xalophus took ewfdemon's story


To be honest, I haven't read a word he's written ever since he tried to put words into my mouth. His posts make no sense, present no viable argument, and are just annoying. He refuses to look outside his little CNN box and accept facts. Very Happy
tidruG
I normally tend to stay out of the DWN discussions, but this is pretty ridiculous:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
To be honest, I haven't read a word he's written ever since he tried to put words into my mouth. His posts make no sense, present no viable argument, and are just annoying. He refuses to look outside his little CNN box and accept facts.

I read almost all the threads in this forum, and I've been following the threads... none of the sources he posted were from CNN. All his posts are long and present a good argument with proofs... So, I'm a little confused as to why you're just dismissing this member Confused

(Don't judge me all over again. I've already said before that I'm neither a liberal nor a conserv... I just like reading a good discussion when I see one, and this last post of yours is in no way considered an argument in this discussion)
shr3dd
xalophus wrote:
Why not shed these pretenses and state the real reason as well ?
What is the real reason?

xalophus wrote:
Atleast he was not breaking any UN agreements.


He broke his agreement to allow U.N. inspectors access to what he had, and he did not. The reason there was multiple inspections is because they repeatedly failed. Partially because the U.N. sucks, partially because they had to keep going in since he didn't grant them full access.

xalophus wrote:
There were no proven or even known links between Saddam and terrorists.
Saddam was a known to finance terrorism. Also, Iraq DID have ties to al-Qaeda. http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

I do not blindly support my leader, I support the things which in my opinion he is doing right. I will criticize my leader concerning things he is screwing up on, or could be doing a better job on, most importantly, the southern border. I think it is wrong to say some of the things about a country's leader, however. While shopping I saw a shirt with a picture of Bush with the caption "satan". To me, this is treason. I believe in freedom of speech, but that's going way too far. I'm not accusing you of doing that, I'm clarifying my stance on leader support.
S3nd K3ys
tidruG wrote:
... none of the sources he posted were from CNN. All his posts are long and present a good argument with proofs... So, I'm a little confused as to why you're just dismissing this member Confused

...


The CNN comment was mearly an analogy of his blind following of the Democratic party without regard for what's really going on or how his presentation of the truth is being skewed to favor his opinion.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the theory that perception is fact. I also don't put words into other people's mouths to try to make their 'perception' coincide with my own.

For example, I will take his last post where he quoted me...

I said:

Quote:
Saddam stood as a figure of defiance against the West. Post 9-11, it was much better to take him out. Saddam DID INDEED have a well-known connection to financing terrorism, albiet in Israel. Most payments were oil-for-food money.


To which he tried to make it seem like I said something completely different...

Quote:
Yes, the old 9/11 Saddam connection.


Now, I must ask; WHERE did I say that Iraq had connections to 9/11? ANYWHERE?

I didn't.

Yet he tries to make it seem as though I did.

That's why his drivel has no merit with me and I will generally not read any more of his posts.
S3nd K3ys
shr3dd wrote:
... Saddam was a known to finance terrorism. Also, Iraq DID have ties to al-Qaeda. http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html...


Quote:
Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:


Seems about par to the course.
Billy Hill
S3nd K3ys wrote:
...

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the theory that perception is fact. I also don't put words into other people's mouths to try to make their 'perception' coincide with my own.
...


That seems to be normal operating procedure these days. Scream about something loud enough and long enough, and people might start believing it. Put words into other people's mouths and eventually people will forget what the person really said and start believing the hype.

Luckily, the mainstream media is rapidly losing credibility as bloggers and the like step up to report unbiased articles and people move more and more to the internet for their news.
xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
To be honest, I haven't read a word he's written ever since he tried to put words into my mouth. His posts make no sense, present no viable argument, and are just annoying.

Make no sense ? no viable argument ? your opinion.
Annoying ? surely to you. Laughing you just proved it.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
xalophus wrote:
...blah blah blah...


Shr3dd, did you hear something? Oh, never mind. Wink

"blah blah blah" ? Seriously, you amuse me.
I guessed you'd not take any opposition well.
but I never thought you'd stoop to this level.
That's just ridiculous.

I can throw insults at you too, but like I said before, if you want to take a debate to the mud, you'd be the only one wallowing in it, I won't follow you there.

There are other people here who disagree with me, but you seem to be the only rude one.

What you just said above is usually enough grounds for getting kicked out of a forum or any other place of social gathering.
You have a bad attitude.
I wonder why the administrators and moderators of this place let you stay.
You deserve the special rank of Forum Troll.
xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Now, I must ask; WHERE did I say that Iraq had connections to 9/11? ANYWHERE?

I didn't.

Yet he tries to make it seem as though I did.

Let's revisit that particular statement of yours.
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Post 9-11, it was much better to take him out.

9/11 was terrible, let's take out Saddam.
No, nothing to imply a connection between the two.
Right in the footsteps of your dear president -
Quote:
Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.

Never saying that Saddam and 9/11 were connected, but saying it nonetheless.
Billy Hill wrote:
Scream about something loud enough and long enough, and people might start believing it.

Yes, American people believed it.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
tidruG wrote:
... none of the sources he posted were from CNN. All his posts are long and present a good argument with proofs... So, I'm a little confused as to why you're just dismissing this member Confused

...


The CNN comment was mearly an analogy of his blind following of the Democratic party without regard for what's really going on or how his presentation of the truth is being skewed to favor his opinion.
S3nd K3ys wrote:
That's why his drivel has no merit with me and I will generally not read any more of his posts.

I've said it before, if you hate me (I know you do) because you think I vote democratic party, you couldn't be more wrong. (not to say that I vote republican either)
I can't help it if the facts, or the lack of them, happen to favour "my" opinion.
If you feel better by dismissing them as based on CNN or by completely ignoring them, feel free. You are as free a man as I am.




S3nd K3ys wrote:
Sorry, I don't subscribe to the theory that perception is fact.

Yet you are guided by nothing but your perceptions.
Quote:
Intelligence (Faulty as it may be)
Quote:
Saddam did have programs.....however big or small can be debated forever

And the most important -
Quote:
What is relevant is Saddam made it appear


So how it "appeared" is all that matters ?
I thought you said something about facts a while back. Rolling Eyes


Several thousand innocent people are OK to be killed based on perceptions.
Why did you got annoyed when a writer said that people blame Bush based on their perceptions ?
Because he was a f***** liberal, right ?
James Bamfield
Right

FACT.

Mass Graves found in Iraq each containing hundereds of bodies.

FACT.

Saddam broke the rerms of teh gulf war treaty by kicking out the weapons inspectors and the UN were to weak to respond.

Now goverments will not release all the intellegence they have. If you have to brain cells you will understand why. MI6, MI5, the CIA will not release all their intellegence because it gives them an advantage. So if facts are missing it is probable because they are...wait for it.... CLASSIFIED.

As for Bush you can bitch about him all you like im gald to say he aint my problem. The fact is no-one knows why Bush was missing from active service but there could be a number of reasons you just choose to persume the worst.

As for a comment about our planes being shot down. This is true between 1991 and untill 2000 whilst RAF planes were flying patrols over iraq 17 were fired at from SAM sites within Iraq. Sadly i can give no link to this as its not public information. ( i can read about it at RAF bases).

Yet there are still people saying the war is wrong. There is enough grounds to go to War there.

Quote:
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter.

Sir Winston Churchill 1874-1965
shr3dd
xalophus wrote:
9/11 was terrible, let's take out Saddam.
No, nothing to imply a connection between the two.
Right in the footsteps of your dear president

You have obviously got a blood clot in your brain. Bush nor anyone in his administration has said Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks on the WTC. If you believe otherwise find a quote from him saying so. The connection between Saddam and 9/11 is only relativity. al-Qaeda attacked the WTC (not Saddam) and America's eyes were rudely opened. Opened to the threat of islamic terrorists and the like. The like being people who fund terrorism like, you guessed it Saddam Hussein. Saddam notably funded several terror organizations and members of his regime were associated with al-Qaeda. I'm tired of you saying that Bush spread lies that Saddam played a part in 9/11 when Bush never said anything of the such.

So a WMD has to be a nuke or something of the like? Mass graves found in Iraq, millions of Iraqis killed. Saddam's regime WAS the WMD. He committed genocide in Iraq. Because he didn't do it all in the same split-second or with a single weapon means there wasn't any WMD(s)? Hundreds of armed Saddam loyalists who catered to his love for killing put together isn't a WMD? This is a quite clear example of liberals thinking inside the box. And for all you "inside-the-box" thinkers, I'll explain that. You think a WMD has to be a single munition capable of killing a hell of a lot of people. Reality will tell us a WMD is anything that can or has killed a hell of a lot of people. Saddam killed a hell of a lot of people. It's a shame that even though repeating myself so that you might actually get it, more than likely won't.
S3nd K3ys
xalophus wrote:
...
What you just said above is usually enough grounds for getting kicked out of a forum or any other place of social gathering.
You have a bad attitude.
I wonder why the administrators and moderators of this place let you stay.
You deserve the special rank of Forum Troll.


So now that your points have been all but debunked, and you are against the ropes, you are going to take the basic lieberal stance to try to 'silence' me because you STILL can't back up what you say?

So freedom of speach is only free if it works in YOUR favor?

Pathetic.

You're back on ignore.
illini319
Of all posts in this particular thread, the only member who has consistently provided some type of outside reference has been xalophus. Everyone else appears to either ignore them or refute his (or her) references WITHOUT particularly effective counterpoints (as it lacks substantive referencing). While I cannot claim to have checked the validity of all xalophus' references, certainly the effort put forth merits intelligent discourse; not emotional ranting (on both sides).

I do not intend to preach liberalism, nor conservativism. Although it absolutely floors me that, in the midst of a common enemy (i.e. terrorism), we find the citizens of the free world bickering minutiae... Perhaps it is this near-sightedness that is taken advantage of by radical idealogues.

Idea Hone your arguments; keep them clean and objective, respect other views, and perhaps all of us will learn something from each other.
xalophus
shr3dd wrote:
You have obviously got a blood clot in your brain. Bush nor anyone in his administration has said Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks on the WTC. If you believe otherwise find a quote from him saying so. The connection between Saddam and 9/11 is only relativity.

I don't think that blood clot comment deserves to be replied to.
However, I'll remind you that I've posted the quote that you demand, again and again.
However since you've ignored, or should I say, been delibrately oblivious to anything I post, I don't see how posting it again will help.
anyway here goes -
Quote:
Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. - President Bush
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm
There's more I've posted before, you've just been ignoring it. http://www.frihost.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=51832#51832

Bush could not go on his crusades on the pretext that he wanted to liberate Iraqi people.
He needed something more to get his people to back him.
Thus -
Quote:
chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. - President Bush
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

Is this not linking Saddam to 9/11 ?
Is that not using people's emotions (and the fear Bush administration instilled) to get them to support his "war" ?
As I said before, it's direct or subtle, but definite and deliberate attempt at capitalizing on public emotion.
The sudden enormous threat of terrorism is primarily false campaign. Read up about PNAC.

I don't know about you, but I need more convincing than just "imagining" Saddam in place of Osama.

Terrorizing American people to get their support is nothing new in the American defense think-tanks and the Presidents usually comply. Ever heard of Operation Northwoods ?
Each time the majority public support for a war was not expected, their government has lied to American people.
Battleship Maine, Pearl Harbor, Tonkin Gulf - everytime. It's really nothing new.


I've quoted this on the post that you quote here. you did read that post. you just quoted me on this -
shr3dd wrote:
xalophus wrote:
9/11 was terrible, let's take out Saddam.
No, nothing to imply a connection between the two.
Right in the footsteps of your dear president

You have obviously got a blood clot in your brain.

You, however, ignored what I quoted, the reason I made that statement.
a blood clot in your eye ?


shr3dd wrote:
So a WMD has to be a nuke or something of the like?

Why Yes !
The dictionary happens to agree. So does Bush and CIA.

shr3dd wrote:
Mass graves found in Iraq, millions of Iraqis killed

I've never before objected to this as I thought this was not important to the discussion.
But now that it's about Saddam having "killed a hell lot of people", I'll ask you to recount your numbers, and next time please make more credible claims instead of "millions".

a few million Iraqis had died, however, as a result of US sanctions on Iraq.

And talking of having his own people gassed,
have you ever heard of Project 112 ? Read up on it too.


Oh and by the way, the person who came up with the idea of killing American people and blaming it on the Cubans to get public support for their "war", General L.L. Lemnitzer, was a republican. Kennedy opposed that idea, he was assassinated.




S3nd K3ys wrote:
So now that your points have been all but debunked, and you are against the ropes, you are going to take the basic lieberal stance to try to 'silence' me because you STILL can't back up what you say?

My points haven't been debunked, they've been ignored.
S3nd K3ys wrote:
His posts make no sense, present no viable argument, and are just annoying.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
his drivel has no merit with me and I will generally not read any more of his posts

Nice way to debunk an argument, no doubt. Rolling Eyes

and I'm not against the ropes, you are -
S3nd K3ys wrote:

xalophus wrote:
...blah blah blah...

Shr3dd, did you hear something? Oh, never mind. Wink

You were saying something about me trying to silence you ? Rolling Eyes



S3nd K3ys wrote:
So freedom of speach is only free if it works in YOUR favor?

You are free to provide your argument, but the post which I quoted was no argument.

All I did was raise an objection to that post !
surely you are an avid supporter of freedom of speech. Rolling Eyes


S3nd K3ys wrote:
You're back on ignore.

Yes, close all your senses, and chant Bush. Typical. Rolling Eyes



Why do you keep coming back to this thread if you don't have anything relevant to say ?
It's spamming. apart from flaming and trolling.
Is this the way you always debate ?
S3nd K3ys
xalophus wrote:
...I'll remind you that I've posted the quote that you demand, again and again.


You did NOT. WHERE DOES IT SAY SADDAM AND 9/11 WERE DIRECTLY RELATED? You keep trying to insinuate it was. A very small post with a quote is sufficient. Not an ef'n novel. And not quotes like

Quote:
chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein.


Because that doesn't say it...

Not quotes like

Quote:
Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.


That doesn't say it either.

What I'm getting to is that it wasn't said.

Not by me.

Not by Shr3dd.

Not by Bush.

Only by you trying to put words in someone elses mouth.
S3nd K3ys
illini319 wrote:
... the only member who has consistently provided some type of outside reference has been xalophus.


Providing an outside reference while trying to skew it's meaning is just as bad as not providing a reference. Worse in fact.

Just as a reminder, this is the first time in the entire thread that xalophus confronted me. I had not said a word to him, about him or anything to do with him, yet he feels the need to attack me like this??

xalophus wrote:
...
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Thanks for serving ewfdemon. It's people like you that make it possible for the people (Americans and others, whether they know it or not), to FREELY speak their mind without fear of being killed/jailed etc.


And you, of all people, compare him to that greedy soldier you once met.
It's ironic that the only person here defending that soldier is me.
Almost everybody else is writing him down as "spineless" just because he said things which are not exactly praises for Bush.
I never knew that being a Bush supporter was a prerequisite for being a loyal soldier.

And I appreciate you not flaming.
That's something that those whose arguments lack substance resort to


Rolling Eyes
shr3dd
xalophus wrote:
However since you've ignored, or should I say, been delibrately oblivious to anything I post

I'm deliberately oblivious? I asked you where anyone, ever, regardless of who they are, has said that Saddam was connected to the 9/11 ATTACKS. Bush hasn't said it, I haven't said it, S3nd K3ys hasn't said it either, no one has. You consistently insist that every conservative has taken part in (either spreading or believing) lies that Saddam was connected to 9/11. This is simply not true. Again, (although repitition seemingly is fruitless), please provide one quote from any human being that states that Saddam had a connection to 9/11. You probably need a refresher in what 9/11 means. 9/11 is when al-Qaeda hijackers flew planes into U.S. buildings and killed thousands of innocent U.S. citizens.



Bush wrote:
Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. - President Bush


This is true, no argument. However, how is this connecting Saddam with the 9/11 ATTACKS? It simply uses the ATTACKS as a reference in time.

You're posting source after source that doesn't support what you say. They link Saddam to terrorists (how is that untrue?) but none support, or even suggest that Saddam was linked with the 9/11 ATTACKS. I'll say it again, if there is ANY link between Saddam and 9/11 it's that of relativity. 9/11 opened America's eyes to the threat of terrorism (Clinton blinded the people of it) and after 9/11 the US wasn't willing to take chances. The willingness of a leader to take chances with his/her own people's life proves them to be a coward. If Gore had been president when 9/11 happened, I think (I can only have an opinion since thankfully Gore wasn't the prez) that there wouldv'e been more attacks on U.S. soil because Gore wouldn't have reacted the same way Bush did. Gore would not have defended the U.S. citizens' lives like a leader should.

Learn to read.
Billy Hill
S3nd K3ys wrote:
illini319 wrote:
... the only member who has consistently provided some type of outside reference has been xalophus.


Providing an outside reference while trying to skew it's meaning is just as bad as not providing a reference. Worse in fact.

Just as a reminder, this is the first time in the entire thread that xalophus confronted me. I had not said a word to him, about him or anything to do with him, yet he feels the need to attack me like this??

xalophus wrote:
...
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Thanks for serving ewfdemon. It's people like you that make it possible for the people (Americans and others, whether they know it or not), to FREELY speak their mind without fear of being killed/jailed etc.


And you, of all people, compare him to that greedy soldier you once met.
It's ironic that the only person here defending that soldier is me.
Almost everybody else is writing him down as "spineless" just because he said things which are not exactly praises for Bush.
I never knew that being a Bush supporter was a prerequisite for being a loyal soldier.

And I appreciate you not flaming.
That's something that those whose arguments lack substance resort to


Rolling Eyes


So what did you do to piss him off? (besides post the truth) Confused
xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Just as a reminder, this is the first time in the entire thread that xalophus confronted me. I had not said a word to him, about him or anything to do with him, yet he feels the need to attack me like this??

(AS PER S3nd K3ys) xalophus wrote:
...(cleverly snipped)...
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Thanks for serving ewfdemon. It's people like you that make it possible for the people (Americans and others, whether they know it or not), to FREELY speak their mind without fear of being killed/jailed etc.


And you, of all people, compare him to that greedy soldier you once met.
It's ironic that the only person here defending that soldier is me.
Almost everybody else is writing him down as "spineless" just because he said things which are not exactly praises for Bush.
I never knew that being a Bush supporter was a prerequisite for being a loyal soldier.

And I appreciate you not flaming.
That's something that those whose arguments lack substance resort to


Rolling Eyes


Amazing ! You almost make me look like a villain.
But I'll quote it right -

xalophus ACTUALLY wrote:
ewfdemon wrote:
...

I appreciate what you did. From your prespective, you did the right thing.
and I will definitely not label you "spineless" or question your loyalties just because your political opinions maybe different from mine.
It just doesn't seem right when another soldier who died in the war is being labeled spineless, let alone being proud of.

shr3dd wrote:
he was a very misguided and ignorant soldier. Here's to hoping the smart ones don't get killed.
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Thanks for serving ewfdemon. It's people like you that make it possible for the people (Americans and others, whether they know it or not), to FREELY speak their mind without fear of being killed/jailed etc.


And you, of all people, compare him to that greedy soldier you once met.
It's ironic that the only person here defending that soldier is me.
Almost everybody else is writing him down as "spineless" just because he said things which are not exactly praises for Bush.
I never knew that being a Bush supporter was a prerequisite for being a loyal soldier.

And I appreciate you not flaming.
That's something that those whose arguments lack substance resort to.


Clearly, that statement wasn't aimed at you. I said it for ewfdemon.
Read this part - "I appreciate you not flaming" which is in reply to -
ewfdemon wrote:
I will hold back from flaming you.

You seriously think I'd thank you for not flaming ?


shr3dd's and your comments were quoted there merely to demonstrate the different treatment that two soldiers who served in the same war are getting here.
The only difference ? one of them spoke against Bush.





This is what qualifies as flaming -
S3nd K3ys wrote:

xalophus wrote:
...blah blah blah...

Shr3dd, did you hear something? Oh, never mind. Wink
Rolling Eyes



Just when I think you'd gone low enough, you manage to stoop even lower. Now it has come to snipping my posts to make it sound like I made a personal attack on you ?

I'll say let a third party be the judge as to who resorts to making personal attacks here.


Billy Hill wrote:
So what did you do to piss him off? (besides post the truth)
Before you express your biased opinions, please go through the entire thread and tell me who made a personal attack.
xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
WHERE DOES IT SAY SADDAM AND 9/11 WERE DIRECTLY RELATED?

I said it before, never literally saying it, but saying it nonetheless.


I'll justify why I form such opinion -
Quote:
Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. - President Bush


Did he not imply that Saddam somehow became "uncontainable" with 9/11 ?
or in other words that Saddam had a hand in it ?

There's more -
Quote:
We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. - Mr Cheney in the same interview, commenting on the war against Iraq.

Did he not imply that Iraq was the base of 9/11 terror ?
or in other words that Saddam had a hand in it ?



The journalists asked him for a justification for attacking Iraq.
Quote:
chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. - President Bush

All the justification offered is that they had somehow "imagined" Saddam sending terror to American soil.

I can imagine Bush doing bad things too, does it justify beating him up ?
What kind of a justification is that ?
xalophus
shr3dd wrote:
You consistently insist that every conservative has taken part in (either spreading or believing) lies that Saddam was connected to 9/11.

I've never said that shr3dd, leave alone having said it "consistently".
I'll repeat it again, I'm not a liberal. I don't support Clinton's policy on Iraq anymore than I support Bush. Clinton had sold the WMD theory to the people too.
And I know what happened on 9/11.

shr3dd wrote:
You're posting source after source that doesn't support what you say

I'm posting source after source to show you that it's very common for American government to lie to people to get them to support a "war".
The "enemy" is made so evil in people's minds that they support any action against him.


I'll list out the main points in Irar war -

WMD ?
It's been the staple of American hatred towards Iraq for decades, and was no longer relevant after 1991. CIA agrees.
Quote:
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf


Gassing of Kurds ?
Bush and his government (and you) repeatedly used Halabja for demonizing Saddam.
What they don't say is -

that Iran was in possession of Halabja at the time.
that Iran used WMDs there as well.
that even as per their understanding, the deaths in Halabja were due to Iranian WMDs.

Quote:
Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in the war—the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two agents-and the Iranians do - we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack.
- Appendix B to Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War, Vol . I, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/


Threat to America ?
Saddam was a small-time dictator capable only of attacking his handful of neighbours.
But Bush stated - "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror".


Apart from the above,
In 1988, when Saddam had and used WMDs - America did nothing.
In 1991, when Iraqi people revolted against Saddam - America did nothing and Saddam brutally crushed the uprising.
Did the Iraqi people not need to be liberated back then ?


Why, you ask ?
Because Saddam was a US pitbull at that time.
His arms and perhaps even WMDs are bought or developed with US aide.

Infact US assured Saddam that they'd overlook his invasion of Kuwait and encouraged him to start a war.
Quote:
I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods
- American ambassador April Glaspie in a meeting with Saddam Hussein. http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

This, in 1990, after the gassing of Kurds, and just 4 days before invasion of Kuwait.


shr3dd wrote:
Learn to read.
Learn to see.
S3nd K3ys
xalophus wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
WHERE DOES IT SAY SADDAM AND 9/11 WERE DIRECTLY RELATED?

I said it before, never literally saying it, but saying it nonetheless.

...


The backpeddling begins.

xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
The backpeddling begins.


As I said, I've accepted that before.
It's not back-pedalling, it's re-iterating. I've given justification for my opinion.


However, You said nothing to that OR to the remainder of my posts.
Should I celebrate shouting "you have nothing to say" ?

You realise that a false sense of jubilation is no argument and it doesn't really prove anything, don't you ?
Perhaps it helps you in comfortably ignoring my arguments. but that's just childish.
S3nd K3ys
xalophus wrote:
shr3dd wrote:
You consistently insist that every conservative has taken part in (either spreading or believing) lies that Saddam was connected to 9/11.

I've never said that shr3dd, leave alone having said it "consistently".
....


Oh.

xalophus wrote:
Yes, the old 9/11 Saddam connection...
9/11 was terrible, let's take out Saddam...
Never saying that Saddam and 9/11 were connected, but saying it nonetheless...
Is this not linking Saddam to 9/11 ?...
Did he not imply that Saddam somehow became "uncontainable" with 9/11 ?
or in other words that Saddam had a hand in it ? ...



Really?

Wink
xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
xalophus wrote:
shr3dd wrote:
You consistently insist that every conservative has taken part in (either spreading or believing) lies that Saddam was connected to 9/11.

I've never said that shr3dd, leave alone having said it "consistently".
....


Oh.

xalophus wrote:
Yes, the old 9/11 Saddam connection...
9/11 was terrible, let's take out Saddam...
Never saying that Saddam and 9/11 were connected, but saying it nonetheless...
Is this not linking Saddam to 9/11 ?...
Did he not imply that Saddam somehow became "uncontainable" with 9/11 ?
or in other words that Saddam had a hand in it ? ...



Really?

Wink


Does any of my statements mean that "every conservative has taken part in (either spreading or believing) lies that Saddam was connected to 9/11" ?

Eh?

Are you not putting words into my mouth ?
Perhaps I should have made a huge cry about this when shr3dd accused me of saying that. But unlike you, I preferred to stay on the topic.

Speaking of which, why don't you say something to counter my arguments instead of framing false charges against me ?
S3nd K3ys
xalophus wrote:
...
Speaking of which, why don't you say something to counter my arguments instead of framing false charges against me ?


I'm game.

Briefly; what charges would you like me to counter specifically?
illini319
S3nd K3ys wrote:
xalophus wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
WHERE DOES IT SAY SADDAM AND 9/11 WERE DIRECTLY RELATED?

I said it before, never literally saying it, but saying it nonetheless.

...


The backpeddling begins.



This is NOT backpeddling. Xalophus is asking all of us to read between the lines of what was said. If one were able to sit Bush or Chaney down (or their numerous lawyers... err.. supreme court justices), it would be very clear that neither of them DIRECTLY drew a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. That much I believe to be accurate. HOWEVER, the type of campaigning that the Bush administration embarked upon, in the months prior to the war, is nothing short of preying upon the fears of the American people... In particular the fear of 'another 9/11.' Fear is, as we all know, an irrational emotion; a characteristic which the current administration took advantage of as a means of justifying this war. Whether you believe in the war or not, I believe we can all agree that FEAR was used as the impetus for this war. i.e. the fear, improper or not, of radicalism threatening our way of life.

Let's not all lose focus of the sprit of this discussion. Whether or not you believe the claims put forth by the Bush administration is largely irrelevant. Why? Because it's history. However, questions remain: What now??? Is nation-building such a bad thing? (Germany... Japan...) What role should US play in the middle-east? What are the positive and negative outcomes of the war?
ewfdemon
Ok, we all agree on the fact that the Iraq under Saddam was not a good place to be, and that Osama is a dangerous critter. So instead of criticizing the current action that the US govt has taken, I'd like to see if anyone has ideas on how those situations could've been dealt with effectively. I think the pres made a valid point at his latest speech...that being, if we did nothing, would be be safe with those 2 onionheads on the loose. No other country or govt had the means to do anything. People argue the WMD point, that there were none found. I think the red flag should be on the word 'found'. Just because you can't find the needle in the haystack doesn't mean it isn't there to jab your toe when ya step on it. And who knows what state things would be in if those two really got together on the terrorism thing. I know I'd be a bit worried. Even though one is still out there somewhere, at least we have one contained and people who lived under his thumb now are starting to have the freedoms they have a right to as human beings. I'm no tree hugger, but I do believe in rights.
Dread Lord Chaos
The more I've read through these posts, the more respect I've reserved for xalophus(good research...but you have too much time Razz). He provides evidence for the points he makes and I'd honestly consider his posts to be unbiased. I'd actually label him as more of a moderate then a liberal...however people who dislike Bush are generally labeled as liberal.

I am a moderate and I lean towards conservatism. However, I do oppose the Bush administartion and especially their handlings in the wars they have brought up.

As much as I'd love to get into this little political ruckus, I don't have the time to proves every phrase I dispel...All I ask, is state facts and not opinions, back up what you say and your argument will be that much more valid. Shr3dd, you speak from an emotional standpoint, and such breeds bias.


On a final note, thanks to illini319, I can bet you understand what I mean in what I'm saying. Keep it clean, keep it factual.
ewfdemon
I can't wait to read this forum once somebody starts taking care of the North Korea situation.
S3nd K3ys
ewfdemon wrote:
I can't wait to read this forum once somebody starts taking care of the North Korea situation.


I think the North Korea thing might take care of itself.
ewfdemon
Dread Lord Chaos wrote:

All I ask, is state facts and not opinions, back up what you say and your argument will be that much more valid. Shr3dd, you speak from an emotional standpoint, and such breeds bias.


I hope that you don't consider the fact that I am a 2 time war veteran as being biased. I've seen the situations first hand. Both the good and the bad, victories and mistakes. I still believe in what is being accomplished in the mid east even though it is slow. Look how long our own civil war lasted. And as far as quoting sources, my occupation is directing live newscasts for NBC, so I have access to materials and sources that baffle the mind. Unfortunately, time restricts us as far as how much of the stories we can tell. I wish we could spend a couple hours on just one thing and really get into the meat of it. Too bad all the media can do is gloss over and hit the 'big' points of issues.
shr3dd
Quote:
Shr3dd, you speak from an emotional standpoint, and such breeds bias.


How so? I try to use a factual argument as much as possible. I also specify when I'm using my opinion. That would not be biased it would be my thoughts.
illini319
ewfdemon wrote:
I hope that you don't consider the fact that I am a 2 time war veteran as being biased. I've seen the situations first hand. Both the good and the bad, victories and mistakes. I still believe in what is being accomplished in the mid east even though it is slow. Look how long our own civil war lasted. And as far as quoting sources, my occupation is directing live newscasts for NBC, so I have access to materials and sources that baffle the mind. Unfortunately, time restricts us as far as how much of the stories we can tell. I wish we could spend a couple hours on just one thing and really get into the meat of it. Too bad all the media can do is gloss over and hit the 'big' points of issues.



The fact that you are a 2 time veteran ABSOLUTELY makes anything you say biased. That does not discount your contribution; that does not make your deeds less honorable. I believe the whole conversation on bias rests solely on information received from anyone outside of oneself. Any information that is not directly received (or experienced) will have a personalized slant to it that is not your own; and can therefore influence you unfairly.
bewald
xalophus wrote:

Because Saddam was a US pitbull at that time.


I resent the pitbull comparison. Lets stop using wonderful bullies as an analogy for badness! I know its dorky but its like my life work to improve media and public disapproval of such an awesome breed.

www.pbrc.net <---great resource.
Deji
just to comment that throughout history there have been troops (and in some cases large numbers of them) who didnt want to be fighting.

this happened a lot in Vietnam (if anyone is in the UK i think there is a program on TV tonight about it)

it doesnt mean they are spineless it might mean that they think what the government wants them to do it wrong..
S3nd K3ys
Deji wrote:
just to comment that throughout history there have been troops (and in some cases large numbers of them) who didnt want to be fighting.

this happened a lot in Vietnam (if anyone is in the UK i think there is a program on TV tonight about it)

it doesnt mean they are spineless it might mean that they think what the government wants them to do it wrong..


As far as the US goes, it's a complete VOLUNTARY military. The people there joined freely. They were not forced to join.
SunburnedCactus
Uhh... Vietnam anyone? Confused
Related topics
Dog Soldier
Ne one want to have some fun with Jack Thompson?
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
Want to know if LOVE is real?
More front page news NOT on the front page..
"One US Soldier is better..."
Indian engineer abducted and killed in Afghanistan
Soldier of Fortune 2
How do you define Faith?
Soldier Of Fortune: Double Helix 2: Tweaks
Poker Bad Beat Stories- Let it out have a rant
A rant on God, religion and morality
Windows Activation (Story and [i]slight[/i] rant)
3d soldier
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.