Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:27 am
Fuck this movie, its just a republican answer to things like 'No End in Sight'. I'd also like to note that the Republican slanted documentaries never come out until AFTER the liberals tear them a new asshole.
Republican slanted documentaries
that site alone is proof enough of troops that do not support this but had to go anyway
Warriors are heroes because they sacrifice every fiber of their being for something they feel is right.
I feel a warrior is someone who engages in a true struggle, a close confrontation where the dedication of one side will top the other.
It is a war of poor people being so desperate for some cause to believe in that they're completely and utterly willing to kill themselves in hopes of stopping a world superpower.
Iraq has had 1, 197, 469 people killed in this war.
we still have no proof of bombs
we said the mission was accomplished years ago
Fuck you, they were all Saudi's, everyone who says otherwise just wants to justify the war in some way.
they had no direct link to 9/11
everyone who says otherwise just wants to justify the war in some way
Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:30 am
Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:18 am
jonthefon wrote:Hey, JT, I noticed you changed your sig relating to your MVP Baseball 2003...subtle signs?![]()
Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:31 am
JT_55 wrote:I don't have to upload pictures in .png instead of the crappy .jpg .
Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:49 pm
Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:50 pm
Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:10 pm
Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:28 am
Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:29 am
Republican or Democrat however, soldiers are just tools of the government expected to do as they're told right or wrong. That is not how it should be. People should not be forced to do things they believe are wrong because "its their job."
It is poor people fighting for their land. I know for a fact in their shoes I'd be mightily pissed off, probably enough to kill someone too. There's 2 sides to every story and everyone's done some fucked up shit. Plain and simple.
another antiwar site has the number i posted for the death count http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ (yes i realize the internet is not necessarily the most reliable source but once again: hasty post, first number i saw)
JustForeignPolicy maintains a running estimate based on the Lancet study
Civilians are not targets but havent we killed just as many of them as military?
Yes I meant WMD's; which was the original justification for going there: not "stopping saddams regime".
Didnt the gulf war end in say oh 1991 or so? Why the fuck are you bringing up an even older war acting like this isnt a new one?
Look if Bush hadnt made Congress approve his war without the WMD thing; if he had said "Saddam is evil, we need to stop him, thats why we're doing it, its our job as a world super power."
When this all started, as things progressed and more news came out, the reasons kept changing. You can watch George stumble and fumble on historic speeches that redefined this "operation" every week or so.
Bush in 2002 wrote:This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.
By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."
...
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
...
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.
Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both.
Bush, earlier in 2002 wrote: These leaders have reached the same conclusion I have -- that Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.
He has broken every pledge he made to the United Nations and the world since his invasion of Kuwait was rolled back in 1991. Sixteen times the United Nations Security Council has passed resolutions designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. Saddam Hussein has violated every one of these 16 resolutions -- not once, but many times.
Saddam Hussein's regime continues to support terrorist groups and to oppress its civilian population. It refuses to account for missing Gulf War personnel, or to end illicit trade outside the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. And although the regime agreed in 1991 to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, it has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.
Today this regime likely maintains stockpiles of chemical and biological agents
...
Saddam Hussein's defiance has confronted the United Nations with a difficult and defining moment: Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purposes of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?
Alright, they were majority Saudi's. Do you see an Iraqi or an Afghani in the list you gave me of where they were from? No? Then you just proved my point.
The reason 9/11 is the only reason to stop Islamism influenced terrorism is the fact that we as a country didnt give a shit until then.
"Saddam and Afghanistan have threatened us; we're taking them out" Ok fine, go for it. But what about Iran and North Korea? "We're starting a war on terrorism!" What about all the terrorism south of our border in central America and South America? Why dont we ever hear about military operations there?
I'm against being lied to about it from the start and going after what I believe were the smaller threats first (due to lack of WMD's etc.).
Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:29 am
Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:24 pm
Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:28 am
Mr. Shane wrote:My wife's sister would very much disagree with you, riot. She's serving her second 15 month tour in Iraq. She's an officer - meaning not enlisted - college educated, and loves - I mean loves - her job. She wouldn't do anything else.
And guess what? She isn't the only one. Just because anti-war groups and mothers of kids who enlisted into the National Guard for college (and didn't think they'd actually go to war) are furious about the war and the press is putting a negative spin on it, don't badmouth the military. If you join the military be prepared to fight. It's not, like benji said, a welfare system.
Also, the Clinton administration decimated the military by closing tons of bases, etc. They're the reasons for the long tours in active combat - not Bush.
Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:24 am
Riot wrote:You can gladly post in here if you have a comment at all about the content of the video. However, any other silly side comments are not welcome here.
Get da fuck out.
Riot wrote:Why are you coming after me? What the fuck did I say? I agree with everything you said.
Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:33 am
Jenner wrote:Riot wrote:You can gladly post in here if you have a comment at all about the content of the video. However, any other silly side comments are not welcome here.
Get da fuck out.
isn' this included?..Riot wrote:Why are you coming after me? What the fuck did I say? I agree with everything you said.
Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:09 pm
Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:58 pm
Mr. Shane wrote:Also, the Clinton administration decimated the military by closing tons of bases, etc. They're the reasons for the long tours in active combat - not Bush.