![]() |
Also though what other hidden motives are their for Bush being in Iraq ? I feel if the government was more upfront about this stuff their would be a more positive response about all of this.
|
Lets face it, every president after JFK has been an asshat. happy:
|
When it comes down to it, I guess I really don't have a big problem with Liberals in the broadest of terms. My problem is with what is referred to as Progressive Liberalism.
These are the people who refuse to support our troops. These are the people bolstering the ridiculous antics of the ACLU and NAACP. The people who want "One Nation Under God" removed from the Constitution. Progressive Liberalism is extremism, much like Extreme Conservatism is equally insane. Progressivism just scares me more because they literally seem to thrive on absolute anarchy. |
I can't understand how people cant support their troops. They are putting their lives on the line for these stupid bastards that sit at home on the couch and bitch and cry that everything is wrong
|
Re: Iraq-From a Soldiers View
I dont know, but it doesnt seem likely that a medic should happen upon those statistics himself. I would say he was told that or given a piece of paper equivalent to mission statements you get at work from management. Still I can name a hundred good things that were created by the coalition invasion. On the other hand I can list one bad thing for every good. Its really hard to say, because the Iraqi people really needed our help, but it really doesnt seem worth it after you look at all the problems that came with it. I think we should change our strategy. Moving our forces to the remote countryside would be a good thing, I agree with Eames oOo: because then the irregulars wont be able to blend in with the civilian population. If they even think they can fight us conventionally, they would be annhiliated. But if you move out to the countryside, you let the enemy move in and recruit, bully, and fleece off the population even with a police force (especially one with questionable loyalties).
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
rolleyes: |
It has more to do with the precedent that would then be set, Stryker.
Every piece of currency would need to be recalled and destroyed to remove the words "In God We Trust" from them. That alone would have a huge economic impact. That aside, this is the only democracy I've ever seen in my life where an 80% majority has less say than a vocal 5% minority. |
I dont think the marines or 101st think any different, if your a soldier, your ready to die for what ever reason your country tells you to, and especially if your helping ppl at the same time, I dont care if its the USA or Iraq but we are still helping ppl, and were doing a good job, Id die for this cause, and I think we should evem send 1000's of more troops over there, also that whole Iraqi prisoner thing, he deserved worse then what they did to him...
|
Has anyone else noticed that when there's good news out of Iraq, it's automatically labeled as propaganda, but bad news is always unquestionably accepted as the truth?
|
[quote="SW-14":532c8]Has anyone else noticed that when there's good news out of Iraq, it's automatically labeled as propaganda, but bad news is always unquestionably accepted as the truth?[/quote:532c8]
This is because people are sceptical about the reliabilty of this information how subjective the source is. If An american gives bad news people are sure its unbias and not propaganda. Its the contrary if an American says something good, people who are humans are easily judgemental. It would be less likely to be believed. You need something good coming out of an Iraqi's mouth to trusted as true. This shows how much the world distrust America. |
[quote="Pvt.Pinhead":8ed74]I dont think the marines or 101st think any different, if your a soldier, your ready to die for what ever reason your country tells you to, and especially if your helping ppl at the same time, I dont care if its the USA or Iraq but we are still helping ppl, and were doing a good job, Id die for this cause, and I think we should evem send 1000's of more troops over there, also that whole Iraqi prisoner thing, he deserved worse then what they did to him...[/quote:8ed74]
I think its funny how 15 and 17 year old kids form their own opinion about how and when it is appropriate for others to die. If you are so keen on this war, skip the ROTC and sign up because most of the soldiers probably havent been through ROTC or the academy, you should do just fine. As for the prisoners, who are you to say that they deserved what they got? Some of those people arent even fighters, they are just bystanders rounded up for questioning. We sent our army over there and our leaders say how great we are for having such a democratic system and that we are liberating them. Those MPs arent any better than the people our soldiers are looking for. How can you say those men deserve it but cry out when our soldiers are tortured too? We are supposed to be better than that, we are supposed to set an example. How are we going to convice the Iraqi citizens to not support the radical clerics if we are beating and killing people in jail? Those MPs just made the world alot more dangerous for our own troops. Why do you think every general, every cabinet member and even the President himself is disgusted with this? These few MPs practically dishonored and unraveled the image we are trying to uphold in the middle east. Before you decide who deserves to fight, die and be tortured, maybe you should think a little more about the situation. annoy: |
Overall the media paints a picture of Iraq which is far worse than the true reality of past wars. So please don't blame one man for the faults in our country, heres my list of things that Bush has done right...
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January.... in the fair city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq! Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. I think history might show Eisenhower committed the troops and Kennedy was honoring that commitment. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation. We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records. It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquidthingy. It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!! You will probably never find a president that you support 100% Yes there are things that need to be fixed, however they are far more trivial than the threat of terrorism on our own soil. |
one reason why it took less time to take iraq is because we skipped certain cities--the cities that we are now fighting and dieng in everyday. We had troops in afghanistan before 911--we didnt get what we wanted in Afghanistan so we went to iraq-bush knew the public would support, and make him look like a wartime hero president
|
[quote=Madmartagen]
Quote:
I would love to sign up and go to Iraq!!! But im only 16 and thats too young, when Im 18 though and there is a war Ill drop school imidiantly and join!! |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.12 by ScriptzBin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1998 - 2007 by Rudedog Productions | All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. All rights reserved.