Lol he doesnt know what he's talking about. He thinks all of our troops are dope smokers, insane, and dropping like flies overseas.
Printable View
Lol he doesnt know what he's talking about. He thinks all of our troops are dope smokers, insane, and dropping like flies overseas.
"I don't see a single fact among that. To me, you're just spouting a bunch of unbased crap in a vain attempt to make a point. It usually helps if your "facts" are true before you try to argue."
The fact I do see is the WoMD claim. If there are ever are WoMD in that country, I have to believe America or a nation other than Iraq helped them get the weapons. If I recall history correctly, we aided Saddam when he attempted to take over Iran, because we felt that if we supported this, perhaps he wouldn't go against us. Once again, appeasing a dictator failed, but we did provide aid and information to help this attack, though it ultimately didn't pan out.
However, until some are actually found, then I'd agree we went into war until false pretenses. Even if your eventual goals are noble, that's no justification for lying to get in there to begin with. Rather, had the Bush Administration just said, we're going in to get rid of Saddam from the get-go, I would have probably been less critical and perhaps even admired their ambition to go in there.
Most everything else is just speculation at this moment, I do agree.
Take care all.
Vince.....the whole premise was WMD, which there was NONE of. if they now claim it was simply because of a evil dictator...theres planety of them around which bush takes no interest in..zimbabwe for example.
Those were both reasons. The US did originally go in to get rid of WMD, which they didnt find. Saddam however did threaten the us, thus beginning the war to overthrow the dictator. Yes, there are other evil dictators in the world, such as Iran. HOpefully the US will go after them too- of course only if the soldiers want to, right Talus? :D
Just because we didnt find any doesnt me there werent any.
You mean US soldiers get drugs for free? Woah, now that sounds really good, I'm thinking about joining the US army now! Welcome to Baghdad, an orgy of sex and drugs!
OK, seriously, truth is I have heard the whole drugs thing before, to make soldiers more effective on combat. However, I haven't seen any real evidence of this, it's more like a rumour.
Democratically elected dictators count, too?Quote:
Yes, there are other evil dictators in the world, such as Iran. HOpefully the US will go after them too
"Just because we didnt find any doesnt me there werent any."
That's a tricky thing to say. You cannot say that you want facts with everything, yet when you cannot find a fact to support your side, say it isn't needed. It needs to work both ways. If facts arise about the drug thing, then one would assume that it is true. However, I haven't actually seen any proof, so I don't believe it either. To say that there might have been WoMD in Iraq, well, are there now? If there were but aren't now, then, how did they pose a threat to us right at that moment?
To me, that's like saying, there was Nazism at one time in Germany, so we should occupy them in case it ever arises again. Yes, we must learn from the past, but we cannot allow our future to be defined by it.
What I think people fail to understand is that there isn't a correct point of view. There are just differing ones. What seems to happen is that we just disagree entirely instead of seeing that we actually do agree in parts and have debates when really, our opinions aren't that far apart. I believe Saddam was a threat to the world, and should have been taken out of power, however, you need real justification in this day and age for any sort of backing. To claim something just to get support is the equivalent of purposely leaving facts out of a question to get the desired result. The ends don't always justify the means is what I think. If Bush had actually rationalized why Iraq needed to be invaded: for the well-being of Iraqis, not only Americans, then I'd have less of a gripe.
Take care all.
hey it's up to you guys if you dont want to belive me....but everything ive said has come from both BBC and Channel four news Over here in the united kingdom.
Tal, for my explanation. when the innitial attack on iraque was finished, according to leaked reports which britain, being anti war was happy to soak up, bush had given the go ahead to publically announce a death figure for american troops which was three times smaller than reality. recently the military saked a female officer who took photographs of loads of american dead being hounherd on a warship.....these pictures managed to get to teh american and british press and suddenly this story erupted how bush wasnt trying to falsyfy american death numbers but be sympathetic to those greaving familys....as a govenment Psycheatrist said however....EVERYONE in america needs time to greave and understand teh losses they are suffering and it was obvious bush is trying to protect his electoral position.
froum teh mouths of US soildgers themselves to channel four news they admitted they are on drugs to keep calm during operations in iraqe. one soildger said that he had asked the military medical guys not to be sent to iraqe because he wouldnt be able to cope, they tore up his papers in his face and said stop being a pussy, sent him out and now he's taking whatever he can find just to keep his trigger finger stable. im not saying all US soildgers are going through this, but it seems the american press is a hell of alot more censored than teh british press. heck it even showed that thursday night is disco night in iraque and in the US base, formerly one of saddams strongholds 50 US officials were filmed disco dancing on saddams huge light up star on teh floor which intelligance claims he and his sons used to use for killings, but then not many know this since the huge concreate walls hide this from iraques, the BBC had to sneak a camera in to catch it.
thats the problem vincent...when bush pushed saddam actually backed down, but bush wasnt happy because all HE WANTED was a war, thus he dared to shout down teh united nations like teh manical dictator he is. Blair has finally given up the WMD protest..having tried changing the way he prhased it untill everybody was kicking his arse. in zimbabwe at teh mo they are trainginchildren how to torture, they are recouting women for rape, they publically beat, and murder any form of protest.
as i said before...it really doesnt bother me if no one belives me because everything ive said was aired nationally on british televistion on a number of channels....and many reports came from teh people fighting out there themselves and filmed footage. but eveyones entiltied to belive what ever they want....some wouldnt open their eyes if it was sticking a gun to their heads
"as i said before...it really doesnt bother me if no one belives me because everything ive said was aired nationally on british televistion on a number of channels....and many reports came from teh people fighting out there themselves and filmed footage. but eveyones entiltied to belive what ever they want....some wouldnt open their eyes if it was sticking a gun to their heads"
Hmm, that is an interesting possibility. The American media is notorious for not showing an event from both sides. Often time, unless it bestows American glory, the whole story won't be shown. From interning at CBS for a while now, I can tell you from experience, that most news events get so drastically censored and watered down, that the true nature of a story is often completely lost, and only a small detail is left to become the entire topic.
Take care all.
Allow me to doubt the validity of your news, you just said they were anti-war and would "soak up" stories that would support their view. Being so blatantly biased, I don't doubt they fabricate these bizarre stories that you take up as fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
Wow, I can't believe a story could be manipulated so much. It has always been the policy to protect the privacy of service members and their families, releasing those photographs was a direct violation of the policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
It disgusts me that the media wants to get juicy pictures of our dead to further their agenda.
Saying, "I can't cope." won't get you out of a deployment. Sounds like straight up cowardice, turning his back on his country when the call comes. If he gets caught taking narcotics then he can expect to be prosecuted for violating UCMJ and will be punished severly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
No, our news might be biased in one direction, but your news is just as biased only going the opposite way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
Sometimes, they bring out movies and let soldiers watch videos. I mean, who do these people think they are? How dare they try to bring a little enjoyment to the men and women who serve?Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
If "disco dancing" gets these guys through the day, then go for it, they earned it. So what's your point?
Wait wait wait, the BBC infiltrated into this compound, sneaking past battle-hardened soldiers to get this footage? BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
im glad you understand Captain. in the same manner i can point out how the USA media was happy to the point of obsesstion to show footage and facts about princess diana which the UK was too scared to. i think the US was RIGHT to do this if the people were interested. personnally i dont care, but if others want to know the truth.....why should it be hidden.
thats up to you Tal, but teh BBC is world reknowed for being professtional and telling teh truth, but then it could be said you are also biased, judgin by your avvie etc.
it was argued that those photographs were aired and taken to pay homage to the brave american warriors who died fighting for what they belived was right. after all how many people watched footage of September 11th to better understand the plight of newyorkers and the horrors they felt they endured. to see brave firemen in action saveing lives.....for many that would be the last glimpse they would see of their sons. Dont you want to pay tribute to teh brave who died in your name and your familys, that was their intention.....but it didnt fit bushs propoganda.
he wont be convicted because half teh guys out there are in a similar situation.....and what right on earth do you have to call someone else a coward when they are actually out there..what makes you such a heroic standad of braveery Tal. should we throw away our lives when we dont belive in teh cause. ive fought for my life a number of times, and ive been in the position to kill in combat, hell my grandfarther was a commando in WW2 and i know that life is damn precius and any nutcase who starts shouting about cowerdace and teh flag, even on my side, is the first person i shoot because they are dangerous in battle.
hey tal, if dancing in decadence on teh bloodstaned tiles of innocents is what floats your boat...
belive what you want, but the facts are on film.
*sigh* I'm not even going to bother responding. You're obviously too wrapped up in your own propoganda to even begin to understand the concepts of duty, honor, and sacrifice.
duty and honer do not always walk hand in hand, if you lived by them you would understand. neither is it honerable to slag off a fellow warrior and acuse them of cowerdace. but then here you are judging me Doc.
It isnt propoganda if it's real. the facts are the facts.
Anybody who takes everything they read/watch/hear in the media as absolute fact is going to end up seriously misinformed.
Oh, and I'm sure you know *so* much more than me about duty and honor. Please, enlighten me, as to how it came to pass that you know so much more than I do about such hallowed concepts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
Slagging on a fellow warrior? Malarky. This man *volunteered* to serve in the armed forces. When the same man refuses to perform his duty and to fight alongside his comrades-in-arms, which he *swore* to do, for some bullcrap reason like "he can't cope," then he deserves to be branded a coward.
But of course, what do I know about duty? Please, tell me I'm wrong, because you know so much more than I, o enlightened one.
Half? Come on now, you can create more believable "facts" than that. I guess if you're going to fib a little you might as well go all out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
Because when I gave my oath of enlistment I meant it damnit. When Uncle Sam told me I'm going to be spending a minimum of 14 months overseas, I didn't turn my back on my brothers. Hell, I have 4 more days with my family before I report back for mobilization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
So I view a soldier that wants to dip out on his brothers and take up narcotics a coward. He needs to spend a few years in Fort Leavenworth prison and dishonorably discharged.