Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
LostInSpace

Ruminations about war past or present

Recommended Posts

the only thing I can say to the "RIGHT who have jumped on my last post,is this:

The "Intelligent" would avoid "WAR"!!! until there were "NO OTHER" options availiable.

To have a state of mind, where one JUMPS into conflict, WITHOUT weighing the ENTIRE consequence...is plainly MORONIC.

I would assert, THE 700 U.S. DEATHS(most probably a lot higher) is NOT the ONLY conseqence.

THOUSANDS of wounded personel on U.S. side all ready!

But WHAT of ALL THOSE IRAQI we are "so called"LIBERATING?

Their DEATHS don't matter?

And what of the long term consequences.???

ALL of us who stand against THIS ONE ACT OF IGNORANCE. are doing so, for good reason, and

are trying to help prevent unecessary death.

YOU want to KILL...GO to Iraq and DO IT!! I think, it would do all of you some GOOD to see REALITY!

But, for ANY OF YOU, to have the AUDACITY,to proclaim this war is necessary using the excuse of 9/11...you should be the FIRST to GO: right behind that chicken sh*t, lier of a president you are following!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by street:

the only thing I can say to the "RIGHT who have jumped on my last post,is this:


No one is down playing anybody's death here. In fact any death is a tragedy even more so than the ones perpetrated by extremists. I'm glad I watch Donald Rumsfeld speech today because you have the same kind of attitude that many had during civil war against Lincoln and those of all the wars we have faught. I'm quite glad we have people like you and me and others with a wide range of view points to keep us on our toes and make us a think. However, in the previous Iraq (and many other places in the world) we would not be allowed this luxury. But there has to be a line drawn in the sand sometimes and this war is it along with the war in afghanistan. Remember there are hate mongers in this world and sometimes a carrot just doesn't work as sad as that may seem those are the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

You may like your varying shades of gray, and it may make you feel like some sort of intellectual, but it tells me that you have no common sense at all, and would survive on the street for a matter of minutes.


Jag.., You have no KNOWLEDGE concerning me, nor my past...if you did, I assert, you would probably wet yourself..

quote:

I don't want to "understand" the terrorists, and why they hate us, I can intellectualize that all day long. The fact is, they want to kill us, no matter what the cause is. Therefore, it is either kill them, or die yourself.


Here is another INTELLECTUAL concept(i hope its not over your head, jag.)which you can attack, if you feel it necessary

If you kicked every dog you saw, while walking...Eventually you are going to get bit....so you KILL the dog that bit you. YOU continue to kick every dog you see...you get bit again...so, again you KILL the dog that bit you....etc. etc.(repeat situation) So. you finally declare war on ALL dogs in the world...and attempt to KILL them. (sound like a smart move to you?,Jag?) Even with the BIGGEST gun, it would not be possible.

Men are smarter than dogs(most, anyway) Men have memory, friends, relatives and are intelligent enough to find a way to bite you, without getting kicked.

If you think taking a military machine, and declaring war on a non-entity, and killing or oppressing anyone you suspect, which MIGHT be a part of it, is the answer. Your in for a rude awakening

COMMON SENSE would dictate: STOP KICKING the DOGS...would it not?....WOW a THIRD alternative is availiabe!!!!

Maybe...just maybe..this has been put on a level which can be understood by you ,die hards, who have no concept, as to what I am trying to convey!

@ Lostinspace, I too accept the diversity as a GOOD thing, in that it provides a check and balance. And, that discussion brings all perspectives to bare.

And yes, the carrot does not ALWAYS work; however, If there be more than two paths, why must our leader insist, there only be two alternatives?

The only answer possible, would be incompetant leadership.

[ 05-13-2004, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War was a neccessary in Iraq AND Afganhistan, did you not read my post, Iraq was given MANY warnings, and MANY chances. The Afganhistan government and other terrorist organizations that were in Afganhistan were at the root of the 9/11 incident. I think attacking their country and dissolving those organizations is not even a good enough punishment ofr the slaughter of over 2,000 people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

War was a neccessary in Iraq AND Afganhistan, did you not read my post, Iraq was given MANY warnings, and MANY chances. The Afganhistan government and other terrorist organizations that were in Afganhistan were at the root of the 9/11 incident. I think attacking their country and dissolving those organizations is not even a good enough punishment ofr the slaughter of over 2,000 people.

Yes I read your post, but have already stated my aurguments against such, so I moved on.

The IDEA, that Iraq had any DIRECT connection with the training of terrorist, or the al queada, is simply a huge misleading conclusion, based on scantily laid out hear say. sorry..not enough evidence to make it a fact.

Yes, Iraq violated the UN resolutions, but that was no excuse to INVADE. Isreal is guilty of the same, we did not attack them.

AND last of all, YOU still are confusing 9/11 with IRAQ.

It was MOSTLY EGYPTION members of AL QUEDA, which carried out the attack on the WTC, NOT hussein.

I agree Hussein was a bad dictator, but throughout Africa, South AMERICA, and the rest of the world, are many many more. WE do NOT hav the RIGHT, to DICTATE other's form of government. If so, Lets attack our BUDDIES(i.e. RUSSIA, and CHINA, etc. etc.

It is not the general AMERICANs fault that they are confused as to the distinction, of WHO our ENEMY really is(AL QUEDA), as BUSH used twisted facts, LIES, and absolute FABRICATIONS..to INCITE the american people toward this awful end.

HOWEVER...it IS the PEOPLES fault, for ignoring the FACTS, once they have been revealed. We cannot eliminate our guilt, by hiding, or ignoring, what actually has transpired, by JUSTIFYING our actions, just because SADDAM was a bad dictator.

I submit to you....WE have KILLED a whole lot more IRAQI, in the last year, than saddam killed during his ENTIRE REIGN.

NOW...WHO has the most blood on their hands????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraq had its many warnings back in 1992 the UN Security Council passed a Resolution telling Iraq to fully disarm its WMDs, In the Resoluition the Security Council authorizes use of force if Iraq did not complie now you tell me that from 1992 to 2003 that was the Saddams chance and boy did he blow it my god how can you democrats continue to say oh we should have gone through the UN the UN has clearly failed in the past with Rwanda with 800,000 men, women and childeren killed beneath the watch of the UN which subsequently withdrew its "Blue Helmets" after 10 were hacked to death. It is this reputation of the UN is why we made the righ choice in not going through the UN. The regime of Saddam had its chance and with its Hegominstic nature towards the surronding countries with the First gulf war with Iran and the Second with Kuwait. It is this Bullie mantality that ultimatly domed the regime of Saddam. How can the world question why we got rid of Saddam a man who killed 10,000 civilians in one day with Operation Anfal in Kurdish Controlled Areas of the North.(1988)They should be thanking us not questioning us. I think 12 years is enough time to prevent a war and Saddam did nothing to Prevent one he bought it on him self with that Bully attitude with that attidude its no wonder why hes in jail.

[ 05-13-2004, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Major.Stupidity ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they recently did give us everything we asked for durring the second UN inspection now im not privy to the papers so i dont know if they were just round and round and didnt tell us everything. And I dont belive street or anyone else on this forum for that matter are saying SADDAM IS GREAT HAIL SADDAM. What I think street is saying if you would read all his posts is that we went into Iraq wrong. We did it wrong. We expected a normal war but what we get is a political war. Muslims are very vengful they still hate nations for doing something to them 10,000 years ago. If we do not win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis then we can not win the war. If we win the Iraqis they will turn in the guerillas hiding in there back yard and all will be good. But if we continue to do stupid things (like i dont know Abu Gharib) then they will hate us more untill the entire contry is up in arms against us. But we cant kill the entire country because theres still some innocents which America would be condemed for killing. Those who see no parallel in Vietnam and Iraq are narrow minded (no offense) Both wars are essentially the same except in one we considered them "Terrorists" or "Insurgents" and in the other we consider them "Gooks" or some other such slang term. In both wars we failed to show the people we where there in there best interests. The North thought the South were simply puppets of us, and we where no better then colonials. The Iraqi "Terrorists" see us as an invading army because, although we freed them, we're still there and we plan on setting up a government with a muslim whos lived away from Iraq for most of his life. The people don't identify with him just like they didnt identify with Diem because he had been in New York for most of his life. WE have to learn that wars arn't the same anymore. There is no true right or wrong now. Just one side and the other. WWII was the last war, in my opinion, with true bad guys the entire Nazis were obviosly evil. But now its not so clear some are evil, Osama for instance, but some might just be fighting what they see to be a empiralistic nation there to take them over. Sure we might not be and we can tell them that all we want but we have to make them BELIVE it to win. Only if we get support from the populace can we win. Nations no longer let only soldiers do their fighting, now everyone can get in on the "fun".

PS: No i don't think Saddam was a good guy and yes it was right for us to go in. Just incase you didnt pick that up from the above long writing thingy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first of all i know what u mean stupidity but sadly what is "Hegominstic" its not a word you probably mean hegemonist? I never knew saddam was domed. Who built a dome over him? And clearly BULLY is spelt BULLY not the plural form bullies, bullie spelled like that is not a word plural or present tense or even past tense.

[ 05-13-2004, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: BladeMasterX ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey blade do u know what Hegemony is? that is the question and i know ur going to look it up so dont even start to Criticize my spelling errors i never said i was an English major and also its Hegomonistic not Hegemony Blade Plz think before ur finger type honest you dont know what Hegemony is in the first place! And the response to Cadrian Almondo we never went into Iraq to win hearts in minds thats not what are soldiers are trained for we went in to route out terrorism and a Corrupt government who persecutes people for mis using food stamps i saw this video of a man being savagly wipped and tied to a poast for the above post. So are u now Condoning internation terrorism now Almondo because i get the strange sense that you just had a Howard Dean moment with saying basically that we have just misunderstood Osama Bin Laden at least thats what i gather from ur above propoganda.

Street ah im am pretty sure what ur saying by saying that we have killed more Iraqs then Saddam did in his years of Terror. You have no right to say that, tell that to the Families of the dead kurds who had 10,000 men, women and children taken away without a fight. Also u have seemed to forget what Saddam did to repress political opponets, Also with the systomatic killing of Shia muslims after the End of the second gulf war that in it self is another mass grave waiting to be found. Where are u getting ur numbers from Street off of Aljazera or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I agree, and am tired of the whjining liberals screaming about how there were other optioins.

Give me a break.

Thread closed......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to re-open this thread - though Jaguar closed it. Until now, I have never had to overrule one of my mods, but an email I just received, caused me to come here and investigate this.

Read this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

I am going to re-open this thread - though Jaguar closed it. Until now, I have never had to overrule one of my mods, but an email I just received, caused me to come here and investigate this.

Read
.

Thank you SC. I did thank Jag for closing it "Again thanks (no sarcasm I really mean thanks) for closing off the Ruminations on War.... I intended that for the discussion of similarities of wars past and present and it just degenerated into a Iraq war/Bush pro/anti war slug fest again. Ugh, that issue just keeps going around in circles like telling a computer to resolve the value of PI and there's no way to escape it.". So guys can we keep it just an intellectual discussion about war. I know it can be quite hard not to get "hot under the collar" and some issues but try being calm you might enjoy it . Like SC described it "Intelligent discussions about politics and religion. A Taliban-free forum!" Well you get the point (I hope).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Street ah im am pretty sure what ur saying by saying that we have killed more Iraqs then Saddam did in his years of Terror. You have no right to say that, tell that to the Families of the dead kurds who had 10,000 men, women and children taken away without a fight. Also u have seemed to forget what Saddam did to repress political opponets, Also with the systomatic killing of Shia muslims after the End of the second gulf war that in it self is another mass grave waiting to be found. Where are u getting ur numbers from Street off of Aljazera or something?

total up...for saddam = 10000?. I will give him 30,000. Just to make my point.

compare how many soldiers were defending Iraq,(500,000-800,000) when we first started bombing to how many were left, when we stopped bombing, and marched in.

Do you really feel...they ALL just ran off and hid?

We dropped more bombs, on the Iraqi ground troops, in the first 10 days of the war, than we dropped throughout ALL of WW2..FACT!.

I assert: There is GOOD reason, as to why, the casualty list concerning the IRAQI, are NOT made publicly availiable.

AND this does not include all the civilians and others killed since we declared an END to major combat.

THUS, Major Stupidity,.....My reasoning and where my numbers come from

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I'll play.

1.)Ok ages ago alliance were built through marriage. So all the rulers of Europe wound up being related somehow. World War I was a big old family feud. At the cost of a lot of lives though. I'll take "No, that's not right" "No that's silly" or "Could have been a contributing factor."

2.)How did Germany wind up being the aggressor in both World Wars? I hope I have that right.

3.)What's an army? I was watching a history show a while back and it was talking about WWII and Hitler's 3rd 5th and 7th army being somewhere and other numbers being somewhere else. So what's an army? Our army is simply called the army. Or do smaller armies make up our total army?

History was always rather dry in school but on TV it's pretty interesting stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shingen

I say, we should've just cut to the chase, and reduced the whole region to glass.

History proclaims that Might equals Right!

History is written by the victors.

Is it "Right", no...but tell me what is.

Any other arguement is irrelevent to the fact.

Deal with it.

The U.S. Armed Services have done everything in their power to reduce collateral damage.

If you think otherwise than you:

1: have never been apart of the U.S. Military

2: have no real clue as to what is actually going on.

Jag., the floor is yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I was very tired last night, and when I started reading the threads, I noticed that not only was my temper getting hot, but so was everyones elses.

I decided to close the threads to let everyone cool off and hopefully give people the hint that we were all getting out of hand. I was going to reopen them this evening after I got home.

The SC made the point in his, It might save your life thread.

He knew why I did it, at least I hope he did.

I am going to stay out of these conversations for a while.

We obviously have some real liberals on this forum, and I can't help but get angry over their empty thinking, and lack of historical knowledge about what does and what does not work.

They are an emotional lot, and don't look to history for what works and what doesn't. They look for the feel good options, and feel good options don't work and never have.

There were other options in Iraq? NAME ONE.... that we hadn't already tried.....

We were there inspecting for 8 years, and Saddam continued to play games. Now there is evidence in Iraqi records that most of the oil for food program was a fraud, and Saddam was not only getting and giving kickbacks etc, the UN was in to it up to the hilt. The guy in charge looks to have skimmed millions, and possible BILLIONS off the top for himself, and people want the UN involved in Iraq?

There are also now records showing large amounts of money from the oil for food program going from Saddam, to various Terrorist organizations, Al Quaeda being one of them. The PLO and the suicide bombers getting a major portion of it.

I tire of hearing liberals spew, NO WMD'S, WRONG, there were and are WMD'S. I tire of hearing there was no connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda, WRONG, there is and there was, he was one of their major financiers, and was also TRAINING them in the manufacturing and Use of Chemical and biological weapons. I tire of hearing that Bush wanted to start this war no matter what. Well, NO, he didn't.

We went after Afghanistan first, which is where the major training facilities for Al Quaeda were. Then we warned Saddam, then warned him again, went to the UN, warned him again.

There were over 14 UN resolutions telling Saddam to cooperate, and he ignored each and every one.

We had every reason and right to go into Iraq for our own self defense.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is either clueless as to what is happening in the world, or just ignores inconvenient facts that destroy their arguments.

THe Berg murder makes me angry as I'll get out, and to hear some Liberal spout about moral equivalency and comparing it to treatment of Iraqi prisoners, and how we deserved it, just sets me off bigger then big.

I tire of arguing with liberals, because A: their arguments don't hold up to scrutiny. B: Their socalled options do not and never have worked, they make them feel good and waste a ton of money, but they accomplish nothing, and C: They are incapable of changing their mind, even when the fallaciousness of their argument is pointed out time and time again.

I'm tired, so I am taking some time off from reading or responding to the liberals. You know who you are. Do not expect a response, so do not direct one at me. I do not want to hear your whining, nor your inadequate arguments anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Previously posted by me on this thread.

Coalitions have been forming, disbanding, and reforming all throughout history.

One could make the argument that all the modern era's troubles actually stem from the sibling rivalry between England and France. Consider history:

France and England were the dominant empires in the Western world. They had the navies.

In the Americas, France and England were fighting their colonial wars here. The French-Indian wars of the early 1700's were the French hiring mercenary Indians to attack British colonies.

The American Revolution against England: America won largely because of France's navy. France was willing to help because it despised England.

After the American Revolution, England and France were again at war. American neutral shipping to Europe antagonized England, which was blockading France, and was a tool for France, which was blockading England. Because America was still trading with both the English and the French, the English decided to begin capturing US merchant ships, confiscating them and their cargo so their supplies could not be used to support the French. In addition they also began impressing US merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, giving the "reason" that those merchant sailors were "former English citizens", no matter that the US had been an independent nation for almost thirty years by that point. This angered the American government, and along with other reasons caused the US to eventually declare war against England in 1812.

Napoleon Bonaparte led the French Army on attacks across Europe and northern Africa in the late 1790's, ending in Egypt. He was ultimately defeated at Waterloo (Belgium) by Wellington of England in 1815.

The Opium Wars of the mid-1800's, between England and China (1840's), and then England/France and China (1850's) led to long-lasting anti-Western sentiment in Indo-China .

The French Foreign Legion was created for French colonialism of Western Africa during the mid-1800's, especially in Morocco and Algeria.

The Boxer Rebellion in China in 1898 was an attempt to oust Western influence in China. After the Opium Wars, the Chinese were forced to grant commercial concessions to England and France, and then Germany and Russia. Feeling weakend by European encroachment, the Chinese rebelled, but failed, and put themselves deeply in debt to the West, becoming in effect, a subject nation.

The Boer War in Southern Africa in 1898 was an attempt to oust British colonialism in Africa. England had been working its way south into Africa when gold was discovered. This resulted in a great influx of British into South Africa. The Boers (Dutch) had already settled those areas and rejected British attempts to control the commercialization of the area. They fought back and won sovereignty, leaving much bitterness with the English.

During all of this, America was a small, but growing, country. We were still focused on Manifest Destiny, the march westward toward the Pacific. We were not a super-power.

The 1900's saw World War I and World War II, both mostly European conflicts, and both ended by American might. World War II saw the emergence of the United States as a super-power.

With this chronology in mind, one can argue that America is paying for the sins of England and France (and the ill-will they left behind) from the 1700's forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shingen

Steve, I think that no one will comprehend your observations, and that you will be consigned to the realm of "conspiracy theory fanatic", as I have been.

What we really need to talk about is, did the USSR realy fail, or did it reconstruct to subvert capitalism and the power of the US economic/military system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Steve, I think that no one will comprehend your observations, and that you will be consigned to the realm of "conspiracy theory fanatic", as I have been.

Don't worry. I'm one of the old-timers from the very early days. I won't be consigned to anything.

And don't worry about yourself, either. Give the people here a little credit. We've been at this for quite some time. These debates are like repeats of Friends to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by hegesias:

Really Jaguar, you feel quite superior to anyone, be a little more modest.


See, that's the kind of comment that starts wars. Why not try "I can see your point of view Jaguar but I must disagree with it." With that

it shows that you are not inflaming anyone but rather have odds with their idea or ideas. And no, it's not being a brown noser to the one with the kill switch but this is how I hope everyone here would like to be treated. Remember we don't want this place to become a Dreamcatcher general forum .

quote:

Originally posted by hegesias:

Every single empire has fallen, every single empire in history has tried to rule the world by its own right. Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Arabia, Spain, England, France, China, Ottomans, Germany,... Now its USA turn.

True but there's always and exception that proves the rule. No telling what the future has in store for us.

quote:

Originally posted by hegesias:

And I will have to believe you, why?.

Can't help you with that one since I don't know what you base your beliefs on. All I can say is that I believe Jag from the past experience with him. He's generaly a fair and straight foward person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shingen

quote:

Every single empire has fallen, every single empire in history has tried to rule the world by its own right. Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Arabia, Spain, England, France, China, Ottomans, Germany,... Now its USA turn.

I would contend that the US has been ruling the world for more than 70 years. We didn't conquer by force of arms, but by basic, economic freedoms.

Freedoms that terrorize the left, because Socialism is basically Communism, which is basically Fascism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

Previously posted by me on
.

Snip Steve's huge post.

Was that for me? Thanks. Most interesting and I remember reading it now. Much better than a dry old history book.

Care to try #3? What's an army?

quote:

Shingen:

Steve, I think that no one will comprehend your observations, and that you will be consigned to the realm of "conspiracy theory fanatic", as I have been.


It's as plausible as any other reason. Plus Steve qualified it really well with the "it could be argued" statement rather than presenting it as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Care to try #3? What's an army?

Sure.

From How Are Army Divisions Numbered?:

quote:

How Are Army Divisions Numbered?

By Phillip Carter

Posted Friday, March 28, 2003, at 3:18 PM PT

Anyone watching Iraq war coverage has seen a stream of numbers go by, identifying particular Army divisionsÔÇöthe 101st Airborne, the 3rd Infantry, etc. What do these numbers mean? And if there's a 101st Airborne, what happened to the 100th and 102nd?

The first thing to know is that the Army's divisions were numbered in the order they were created. So the 1st Division was actually the first division; then came the 2nd, 3rd, etc.

There are, of course, gaps in the sequence. Today's Army has eight infantry divisions: the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, along with the 10th, 25th, 82nd, and 101st. What happened to the rest of them? Well, the military has cyclically expanded in wartime, creating lots of new unitsÔÇöduring World War II, for example, the Army's had infantry divisions running all the way up to the 106th. But during peacetime, most of the war units are deactivated, which accounts for the holes.

How does the Army pick which divisions to keep? Each unit has its own customs and history, and the Army basically preserves the ones with the most glorious lineage. Take the 101st Airborne Division, which has been part of the Army since 1942. During World War II, the "Screaming Eagles" parachuted into Normandy and fought their way across Europe, making a heroic stand at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge. The Army has kept the division on active duty ever since. During the same war, the Army's 100th and 102nd Divisions served no less bravely but somewhat less famously. Both were shuttered for good after the war.

TV coverage of Gulf War II also refers to various Army regiments (notably the 7th Cavalry Regiment, which has already tangled with Iraqi forces); but forget about trying to understand that numbering system. For a while, the Army issued regimental numbers in sequence. But the system gave out during the Civil War, when states raised and numbered their own regiments, and became further muddled during World War I, when newly formed federal regiments tried to reclaim the numbers of their Civil War forebears.

To make things more confusing, the Army has a habit of combining many regiments in the same unit. The 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, for example, includes parts of the 7th Infantry and 69th Armor regiments. It also includes a number of support units, whose numbers often bear little or no relation to the number of the combat unit they support.

Bonus Explainer: Division, regiment, battalionÔÇöwhat's the difference? Divisions have 10,000-to-15,000 soldiers divided in three-to-five combat regiments and a number of support units. Regiments have 3,000-to-5,000 soldiers and include several combat and support battalions. Each battalion has three-to-five line companies of 100-to-150 soldiers apiece. Companies break down into three-to-five platoons of 20-to-40 people, which in turn break down into squads of eight-to-12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! I'm amazed at Jaguar's post... where do I begin? It's dizzying.

"There were other options in Iraq? NAME ONE.... that we hadn't already tried....."

How about if we go after the guy who ACTUALLY had something to do with 9-11-01?

"There are also now records showing large amounts of money from the oil for food program going from Saddam, to various Terrorist organizations, Al Quaeda being one of them. The PLO and the suicide bombers getting a major portion of it."

Any proof of that? Just wondering. Don't want to put you on the spot or anything.

"I tire of hearing liberals spew, NO WMD'S, WRONG, there were and are WMD'S. I tire of hearing there was no connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda, WRONG, there is and there was, he was one of their major financiers, and was also TRAINING them in the manufacturing and Use of Chemical and biological weapons. I tire of hearing that Bush wanted to start this war no matter what. Well, NO, he didn't."

I truly apologize but, heh heh , I just need a tiny ounce of proof of the statement. If it's just pure opinion, then it doesn't really matter.

"We had every reason and right to go into Iraq for our own self defense."

Self-defense implies that there is an actual threat. The fact that there have been NO weapons of mass destruction found and that we trounced the country within a few days "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" I think it's safe to say that we had NO RIGHT to go into Iraq. We are not welcome there, we have no right to be there and we will rue the day that we invaded that country.

"I'm tired, so I am taking some time off from reading or responding to the liberals. You know who you are. Do not expect a response, so do not direct one at me. I do not want to hear your whining, nor your inadequate arguments anymore."

Yes, I know who I am, er, are. I am disheartened at your final statement. I found in you a worthy opponent. I think that your "time out" may be just the thing you need, though. All that anger has to eat away at you after awhile. Angry at terrorists, angry at Socialists, angry at Communists, angry at Liberals, angry at people who think that Rush Limbaugh should turn himself in to the authorities for drug violations. That's a lot of anger, comrade. Take some time to relax. I'll hold down the fort while you're finding yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×