PDA

View Full Version : Yikes,this is getting more messy by the minute.Marine blow up mosque-40 dead



Scar
04-07-2004, 08:04 AM
It's all kicking off.If these guys are going to use mosques to hide in what can you do?

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9223697%255E2,00.html

2Skinny
04-07-2004, 08:07 AM
I dont know about all this bombing, but isnt a Fallujah a burrito at Taco Bell? LOL

Coliones
04-07-2004, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Scar
It's all kicking off.If these guys are going to use mosques to hide in what can you do?

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9223697%255E2,00.html

Bout ****ing time we stop pussy footing around and start kicking some arse. I still think we should use fuel-air bombs to take them out, it will also deter anyone from thinking about taking up the cause again.

Time we get our boys out of there ... send Shrub in he wanted the war let him fight it on his own.

HardKnockNES
04-07-2004, 08:25 AM
It's bull****, fighting on the ground with those scum. We need to be carpet bombing that place.

badbart2000
04-07-2004, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by HardKnockNES
It's bull****, fighting on the ground with those scum. We need to be carpet bombing that place.

You said it, **** em all level the place women and children included. We need to stop being sop concerned with not hurting these animals. I hope they kill the reporters who are their with the opposition.

Prosauce
04-07-2004, 08:42 AM
We're so ****ed.

AnabolicEngine
04-07-2004, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by HardKnockNES
It's bull****, fighting on the ground with those scum. We need to be carpet bombing that place.

whats carpet bombing

badbart2000
04-07-2004, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by AnabolicEngine
whats carpet bombing

Drops a whole bunch of bombs and level an entire area.

LethalOnGuitarZ
04-07-2004, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by AnabolicEngine
whats carpet bombing
It's where they use huge numbers of unguided 'gravity' bombs to ensure the destruction of a target.

This war is pointless. If I were those soldiers I'd just boycott the war and tell Bush when he gets angry 'You wanted the war, you go fight it, tit'. :p

bgzee
04-07-2004, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by AnabolicEngine
whats carpet bombing

Multiple planes dropping multiple bombs over a large area. Many innocent people would die.

I love how people think. Let women and children die? **** all you, you are honest to God pieces of ****.

I hope you understand it is a privilege to have been born in the U.S. These people can't help where they were born, they can't help that their country is involved in a war.

Here's the ironic part. Those that are for the war say we went there because Saddam was an oppressive dictator, its a human rights issue etc. Then these people go on to say, "**** it, kill 'em all!" I really just don't understand how some people think.

badbart2000
04-07-2004, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
Multiple planes dropping multiple bombs over a large area. Many innocent people would die.

I love how people think. Let women and children die? **** all you, you are honest to God pieces of ****.

I hope you understand it is a privilege to have been born in the U.S. These people can't help where they were born, they can't help that their country is involved in a war.

Here's the ironic part. Those that are for the war say we went there because Saddam was an oppressive dictator, its a human rights issue etc. Then these people go on to say, "**** it, kill 'em all!" I really just don't understand how some people think.

They are nothing more then animals, slaughter them.

bgzee
04-07-2004, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by badbart2000
They are nothing more then animals, slaughter them.

You're a piece of ****. Suck a dick and die.

zxcvnm
04-07-2004, 08:56 AM
http://hlp.home.igc.org/iraq.html

chiba102
04-07-2004, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Scar
It's all kicking off.If these guys are going to use mosques to hide in what can you do?

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9223697%255E2,00.html


Well if they want to use it as cover what do they expect. Maybe they will place more value on their places of worship now.

BigTraps
04-07-2004, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by badbart2000
They are nothing more then animals, slaughter them.

Terrorists yes, Iraqi citizens no.

BuckWyld
04-07-2004, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by badbart2000
I hope they kill the reporters who are their with the opposition.

you can't be serious. why would you want them to kill the reporters?

Scar
04-07-2004, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by zxcvnm
http://hlp.home.igc.org/iraq.html

'During the first eight years after the war in Vietnam, more Vietnam veterans died at their own hands through suicide than actually died in combat during that 10-year war. '

I never knew that.That is one sobering fact

kingdd
04-07-2004, 09:06 AM
I cant believe how stupid some people are.

If you guys think that these terrorists are bad, how do you think the people in the middle east would feel about Americans if we just went and began recklessly bombing ****. You are say that we should go and do the same thing that the terrorists are trying to do to us. Some of you guys are the biggest morons/hypocrites I have ever seen. You have no concept of rational thinking and that is why you will never be more than a stupid peon in this country.

badbart2000
04-07-2004, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
you can't be serious. why would you want them to kill the reporters?

I'm not serious, but they need to go after these terrorist with utter ruthlessness. And a lot of people are going to get hurt on both sides.

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 09:52 AM
Regarding that Vietname statistic Id like to see that in something other than some dinks liberal spew.

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 09:57 AM
"No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now. Rarely have so many people been so wrong about so much. Never have the consequences of their misunderstanding been so tragic." [Nixon]

The Vietnam War has been the subject of thousands of newspaper and magazine articles, hundreds of books, and scores of movies and television documentaries. The great majority of these efforts have erroneously portrayed many myths about the Vietnam War as being facts. [Nixon]

Myth: Most American soldiers were addicted to drugs, guilt-ridden about their role in the war, and deliberately used cruel and inhumane tactics.

The facts are:

91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served [Westmoreland]

74% said they would serve again even knowing the outcome [Westmoreland]

There is no difference in drug usage between Vietnam Veterans and non veterans of the same age group (from a Veterans Administration study) [Westmoreland]

Isolated atrocities committed by American soldiers produced torrents of outrage from antiwar critics and the news media while Communist atrocities were so common that they received hardly any attention at all. The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy. Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while Communists who did so received commendations. From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and schoolteachers. [Nixon] Atrocities - every war has atrocities. War is brutal and not fair. Innocent people get killed.

Vietnam Veterans are less likely to be in prison - only 1/2 of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes. [Westmoreland]

97% were discharged under honorable conditions; the same percentage of honorable discharges as ten years prior to Vietnam [Westmoreland]

85% of Vietnam Veterans made a successful transition to civilian life. [McCaffrey]

Vietnam veterans' personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent. [McCaffrey]

Vietnam veterans have a lower unemployment rate than our non-vet age group. [McCaffrey]

87% of the American people hold Vietnam Vets in high esteem. [McCaffrey]

Myth: Most Vietnam veterans were drafted.

2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. [Westmoreland] Approximately 70% of those killed were volunteers. [McCaffrey]

Myth: The media have reported that suicides among Vietnam veterans range from 50,000 to 100,000 - 6 to 11 times the non-Vietnam veteran population.

Mortality studies show that 9,000 is a better estimate. "The CDC Vietnam Experience Study Mortality Assessment showed that during the first 5 years after discharge, deaths from suicide were 1.7 times more likely among Vietnam veterans than non-Vietnam veterans. After that initial post-service period, Vietnam veterans were no more likely to die from suicide than non-Vietnam veterans. In fact, after the 5-year post-service period, the rate of suicides is less in the Vietnam veterans' group." [Houk]

Myth: A disproportionate number of blacks were killed in the Vietnam War.

86% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasians, 12.5% were black, 1.2% were other races. (CACF and Westmoreland)

Sociologists Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler, in their recently published book "All That We Can Be," said they analyzed the claim that blacks were used like cannon fodder during Vietnam "and can report definitely that this charge is untrue. Black fatalities amounted to 12 percent of all Americans killed in Southeast Asia - a figure proportional to the number of blacks in the U.S. population at the time and slightly lower than the proportion of blacks in the Army at the close of the war." [All That We Can Be]

Myth: The war was fought largely by the poor and uneducated.

Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers.

Vietnam Veterans were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better. [McCaffrey]



Here are statistics from the Combat Area Casualty File (CACF) as of November 1993. The CACF is the basis for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (The Wall):

Average age of 58,148 killed in Vietnam was 23.11 years. (Although 58,169 names are in the Nov. 93 database, only 58,148 have both event date and birth date. Event date is used instead of declared dead date for some of those who were listed as missing in action) [CACF]



Deaths Average Age
Total 58,148 23.11 years
Enlisted 50,274 22.37 years
Officers 6,598 28.43 years
Warrants 1,276 24.73 years
E1 525 20.34 years
11B MOS 18,465 22.55 years
Five men killed in Vietnam were only 16 years old. [CACF]

The oldest man killed was 62 years old. [CACF]

11,465 KIAs were less than 20 years old. [CACF]

Myth: The average age of an infantryman fighting in Vietnam was 19.

Assuming KIAs accurately represented age groups serving in Vietnam, the average age of an infantryman (MOS 11B) serving in Vietnam to be 19 years old is a myth, it is actually 22. None of the enlisted grades have an average age of less than 20. [CACF] The average man who fought in World War II was 26 years of age. [Westmoreland]



Myth: The domino theory was proved false.

The domino theory was accurate. The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand stayed free of Communism because of the U.S. commitment to Vietnam. The Indonesians threw the Soviets out in 1966 because of America's commitment in Vietnam. Without that commitment, Communism would have swept all the way to the Malacca Straits that is south of Singapore and of great strategic importance to the free world. If you ask people who live in these countries that won the war in Vietnam, they have a different opinion from the American news media. The Vietnam War was the turning point for Communism. [Westmoreland]

Democracy Catching On - In the wake of the Cold War, democracies are flourishing, with 179 of the world's 192 sovereign states (93%) now electing their legislators, according to the Geneva-based Inter-Parliamentary Union. In the last decade, 69 nations have held multi-party elections for the first time in their histories. Three of the five newest democracies are former Soviet republics: Belarus (where elections were first held in November 1995), Armenia (July 1995) and Kyrgyzstan (February 1995). And two are in Africa: Tanzania (October 1995) and Guinea (June 1995). [Parade Magazine]

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 09:58 AM
Myth: The fighting in Vietnam was not as intense as in World War II.

The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter.

One out of every 10 Americans who served in Vietnam was a casualty. 58,169 were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.59 million who served. Although the percent who died is similar to other wars, amputations or crippling wounds were 300 percent higher than in World War II. 75,000 Vietnam veterans are severely disabled. [McCaffrey]

MEDEVAC helicopters flew nearly 500,000 missions. Over 900,000 patients were airlifted (nearly half were American). The average time lapse between wounding to hospitalization was less than one hour. As a result, less than one percent of all Americans wounded who survived the first 24 hours died. [VHPA 1993]

The helicopter provided unprecedented mobility. Without the helicopter it would have taken three times as many troops to secure the 800 mile border with Cambodia and Laos (the politicians thought the Geneva Conventions of 1954 and the Geneva Accords or 1962 would secure the border) [Westmoreland]

More helicopter facts:

Approximately 12,000 helicopters saw action in Vietnam (all services). [VHPA databases]

Army UH-1's totaled 7,531,955 flight hours in Vietnam between October 1966 and the end of 1975. [VHPA databases]

Army AH-1G's totaled 1,038,969 flight hours in Vietnam. [VHPA databases]


Myth: Air America, the airline operated by the CIA in Southeast Asia, and its pilots were involved in drug trafficking.

The 1990 unsuccessful movie "Air America" helped to establish the myth of a connection between Air America, the CIA, and the Laotian drug trade. The movie and a book the movie was based on contend that the CIA condoned a drug trade conducted by a Laotian client; both agree that Air America provided the essential transportation for the trade; and both view the pilots with sympathetic understanding. American-owned airlines never knowingly transported opium in or out of Laos, nor did their American pilots ever profit from its transport. Yet undoubtedly every plane in Laos carried opium at some time, unknown to the pilot and his superiors. For more information see http://www.air-america.org

Myth: The American military was running for their lives during the fall of Saigon in April 1975.
The picture of a Huey helicopter evacuating people from the top of what was billed as being the U.S. Embassy in Saigon during the last week of April 1975 during the fall of Saigon helped to establish this myth.



This famous picture is the property of Corbus-Bettman Archives. It was originally a UPI photograph that was taken by an Englishman, Mr. Hugh Van Ess.

Here are some facts to clear up that poor job of reporting by the news media.

Facts about the fall of Saigon

It was a "civilian" (Air America) Huey not Army or Marines.

It was NOT the U.S. Embassy. The building is the Pittman Apartments. The U.S. Embassy and its helipad were much larger.

The evacuees were Vietnamese not American military.

The person that can be seen aiding the refugees is Mr. O.B. Harnage. He was a CIA case officer and now retired in Arizona.



Another famous picture.



Myth: Kim Phuc, the little nine year old Vietnamese girl running naked from the napalm strike near Trang Bang on 8 June 1972, was burned by Americans bombing Trang Bang.

No American had involvement in this incident near Trang Bang that burned Phan Thi Kim Phuc. The planes doing the bombing near the village were VNAF (Vietnam Air Force) and were being flown by Vietnamese pilots in support of South Vietnamese troops on the ground. The Vietnamese pilot who dropped the napalm in error is currently living in the United States. Even the AP photographer, Nick Ut, who took the picture was Vietnamese. The incident in the photo took place on the second day of a three day battle between the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) who occupied the village of Trang Bang and the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) who were trying to force the NVA out of the village. Recent reports in the news media that an American commander ordered the air strike that burned Kim Phuc are incorrect. There were no Americans involved in any capacity. "We (Americans) had nothing to do with controlling VNAF," according to Lieutenant General (Ret) James F. Hollingsworth, the Commanding General of TRAC at that time. Also, it has been incorrectly reported that two of Kim Phuc's brothers were killed in this incident. They were Kim's cousins not her brothers.



Myth: The United States lost the war in Vietnam.

The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. (Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a renowned expert on the Vietnam War) [Westmoreland] This included Tet 68, which was a major military defeat for the VC and NVA.


THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM, THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE DID.

Facts about the end of the war:

The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides' forces inside South Vietnam and a commitment to peaceful reunification. [1996 Information Please Almanac]

The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives. [1996 Information Please Almanac]

BuckWyld
04-07-2004, 09:58 AM
I like to look at the bright side, Bush has managed to do something no one else has, he united the Suni and ****e muslims. These groups have been fighting for probably hundreds of years and in just 3 years of Bush presidency he has united them in a common goal. gg Bush

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 10:00 AM
There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam. [1996 Information Please Almanac]

POW-MIA Issue (unaccounted-for versus missing in action)

Politics & People, On Vietnam, Clinton Should Follow a Hero's Advice, Sen. John Kerrey is quoted as saying about Vietnam, there has been "the most extensive accounting in the history of human warfare" of those missing in action. While there are still officially more than 2,200 cases, there now are only 55 incidents of American servicemen who were last seen alive but aren't accounted for. By contrast, there still are 78,000 unaccounted-for Americans from World War II and 8,100 from the Korean conflict.
"The problem is that those who think the Vietnamese haven't cooperated sufficiently think there is some central repository with answers to all the lingering questions," notes Gen. John Vessey, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Reagan and Bush administration's designated representative in MIA negotiations. "In all the years we've been working on this we have found that's not the case." [The Wall Street Journal]

More realities about war: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) - it was not invented or unique to Vietnam Veterans. It was called "shell shock" and other names in previous wars. An automobile accident or other traumatic event also can cause it. It does not have to be war related. The Vietnam War helped medical progress in this area.

Myth: Agent Orange poisoned millions of Vietnam veterans.

Over the ten years of the war, Operation Ranch Hand sprayed about eleven million gallons of Agent Orange on the South Vietnamese landscape. (the herbicide was called "orange" in Vietnam, not Agent Orange. That sinister-sounding term was coined after the war) Orange was sprayed at three gallons per acre that was the equivalent of .009 of an ounce per square foot. When sprayed on dense jungle foliage, less that 6 percent ever reached the ground. Ground troops typically did not enter a sprayed area until four to six weeks after being sprayed. Most Agent Orange contained .0002 of 1 percent of dioxin. Scientific research has shown that dioxin degrades in sunlight after 48 to 72 hours; therefore, troops exposure to dioxin was infinitesimal. [Burkett]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restraining the military in Vietnam in hindsight probably prevented a nuclear war with China or Russia. The Vietnam War was shortly after China got involved in the Korean war, the time of the Cuban missile crisis, Soviet aggression in Eastern Europe and the proliferation of nuclear bombs. In all, a very scary time for our country.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES

[Nixon] No More Vietnams by Richard Nixon

[Parade Magazine] August 18, 1996 page 10.

[CACF] (Combat Area Casualty File) November 1993. (The CACF is the basis for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, i.e. The Wall), Center for Electronic Records, National Archives, Washington, DC

[All That We Can Be] All That We Can Be by Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler

[Westmoreland] Speech by General William C. Westmoreland before the Third Annual Reunion of the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association (VHPA) at the Washington, DC Hilton Hotel on July 5th, 1986 (reproduced in a Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association Historical Reference Directory Volume 2A)

[McCaffrey] Speech by Lt. Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, (reproduced in the Pentagram, June 4, 1993) assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Vietnam veterans and visitors gathered at "The Wall", Memorial Day 1993.

[Houk] Testimony by Dr. Houk, Oversight on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, 14 July 1988 page 17, Hearing before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs United States Senate one hundredth Congress second session. Also "Estimating the Number of Suicides Among Vietnam Veterans" (Am J Psychiatry 147, 6 June 1990 pages 772-776)

[The Wall Street Journal] The Wall Street Journal, 1 June 1996 page A15.

[VHPA 1993] Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association 1993 Membership Directory page 130.

[VHPA Databases] Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association Databases.

[1996 Information Please Almanac] 1995 Information Please Almanac Atlas & Yearbook 49th edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston & New York 1996, pages 117, 161 and 292.

[Burkett] Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation was Robbed of its Heroes and its History by B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley, Verity Press, Inc., Dallas, TX, 1998. Book review.






THE
VIETNAM HELICOPTER
FLIGHT CREW NETWORK


TAKEN FROM

Pericles
04-07-2004, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
You're a piece of ****. Suck a dick and die.


Originally posted by kingdd
I cant believe how stupid some people are.

You guys think that these terrorists are bad? How do you think the people in the middle east would feel about Americans if we just went and began recklessly bombing ****. You are say that we should go and do the same thing that the terrorists are trying to do to us. Some of you guys are the biggest morons/hypocrites I have ever seen. You have no concept of rational thinking and that is why you will never be more than a stupid peon in this country.

You both sound like terrorists. I hope Ashcroft and Ridge bust both of your asses for treason.

BuckWyld
04-07-2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Pericles
You both sound like terrorists. I hope Ashcroft and Ridge bust both of your asses for treason.

treason?? cause they think carpet bombing iraq is wrong.
disagreeing with the government != treason.

Pericles
04-07-2004, 10:53 AM
Terrorist.

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 10:57 AM
Nicely played. By the way what gym in Edmonton do you use?

kingdd
04-07-2004, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by JohnnyLaw
"No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now. Rarely have so many people been so wrong about so much. Never have the consequences of their misunderstanding been so tragic." [Nixon]

The Vietnam War has been the subject of thousands of newspaper and magazine articles, hundreds of books, and scores of movies and television documentaries. The great majority of these efforts have erroneously portrayed many myths about the Vietnam War as being facts. [Nixon]

Myth: Most American soldiers were addicted to drugs, guilt-ridden about their role in the war, and deliberately used cruel and inhumane tactics.

The facts are:

91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served [Westmoreland]

74% said they would serve again even knowing the outcome [Westmoreland]

There is no difference in drug usage between Vietnam Veterans and non veterans of the same age group (from a Veterans Administration study) [Westmoreland]

Isolated atrocities committed by American soldiers produced torrents of outrage from antiwar critics and the news media while Communist atrocities were so common that they received hardly any attention at all. The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy. Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while Communists who did so received commendations. From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and schoolteachers. [Nixon] Atrocities - every war has atrocities. War is brutal and not fair. Innocent people get killed.

Vietnam Veterans are less likely to be in prison - only 1/2 of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes. [Westmoreland]

97% were discharged under honorable conditions; the same percentage of honorable discharges as ten years prior to Vietnam [Westmoreland]

85% of Vietnam Veterans made a successful transition to civilian life. [McCaffrey]

Vietnam veterans' personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent. [McCaffrey]

Vietnam veterans have a lower unemployment rate than our non-vet age group. [McCaffrey]

87% of the American people hold Vietnam Vets in high esteem. [McCaffrey]

Myth: Most Vietnam veterans were drafted.

2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. [Westmoreland] Approximately 70% of those killed were volunteers. [McCaffrey]

Myth: The media have reported that suicides among Vietnam veterans range from 50,000 to 100,000 - 6 to 11 times the non-Vietnam veteran population.

Mortality studies show that 9,000 is a better estimate. "The CDC Vietnam Experience Study Mortality Assessment showed that during the first 5 years after discharge, deaths from suicide were 1.7 times more likely among Vietnam veterans than non-Vietnam veterans. After that initial post-service period, Vietnam veterans were no more likely to die from suicide than non-Vietnam veterans. In fact, after the 5-year post-service period, the rate of suicides is less in the Vietnam veterans' group." [Houk]

Myth: A disproportionate number of blacks were killed in the Vietnam War.

86% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasians, 12.5% were black, 1.2% were other races. (CACF and Westmoreland)

Sociologists Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler, in their recently published book "All That We Can Be," said they analyzed the claim that blacks were used like cannon fodder during Vietnam "and can report definitely that this charge is untrue. Black fatalities amounted to 12 percent of all Americans killed in Southeast Asia - a figure proportional to the number of blacks in the U.S. population at the time and slightly lower than the proportion of blacks in the Army at the close of the war." [All That We Can Be]

Myth: The war was fought largely by the poor and uneducated.

Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers.

Vietnam Veterans were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better. [McCaffrey]



Here are statistics from the Combat Area Casualty File (CACF) as of November 1993. The CACF is the basis for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (The Wall):

Average age of 58,148 killed in Vietnam was 23.11 years. (Although 58,169 names are in the Nov. 93 database, only 58,148 have both event date and birth date. Event date is used instead of declared dead date for some of those who were listed as missing in action) [CACF]



Deaths Average Age
Total 58,148 23.11 years
Enlisted 50,274 22.37 years
Officers 6,598 28.43 years
Warrants 1,276 24.73 years
E1 525 20.34 years
11B MOS 18,465 22.55 years
Five men killed in Vietnam were only 16 years old. [CACF]

The oldest man killed was 62 years old. [CACF]

11,465 KIAs were less than 20 years old. [CACF]

Myth: The average age of an infantryman fighting in Vietnam was 19.

Assuming KIAs accurately represented age groups serving in Vietnam, the average age of an infantryman (MOS 11B) serving in Vietnam to be 19 years old is a myth, it is actually 22. None of the enlisted grades have an average age of less than 20. [CACF] The average man who fought in World War II was 26 years of age. [Westmoreland]



Myth: The domino theory was proved false.

The domino theory was accurate. The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand stayed free of Communism because of the U.S. commitment to Vietnam. The Indonesians threw the Soviets out in 1966 because of America's commitment in Vietnam. Without that commitment, Communism would have swept all the way to the Malacca Straits that is south of Singapore and of great strategic importance to the free world. If you ask people who live in these countries that won the war in Vietnam, they have a different opinion from the American news media. The Vietnam War was the turning point for Communism. [Westmoreland]

Democracy Catching On - In the wake of the Cold War, democracies are flourishing, with 179 of the world's 192 sovereign states (93%) now electing their legislators, according to the Geneva-based Inter-Parliamentary Union. In the last decade, 69 nations have held multi-party elections for the first time in their histories. Three of the five newest democracies are former Soviet republics: Belarus (where elections were first held in November 1995), Armenia (July 1995) and Kyrgyzstan (February 1995). And two are in Africa: Tanzania (October 1995) and Guinea (June 1995). [Parade Magazine]


You actually believe all of this bull****?

That is all government rhetoric. What do you expect them to say? The truth? HAHAHAHA!

"Citizens of America, Vietnam was a huge waste of time, money, and lives. We completely ****ed up on this one. We are sorry."

The day the government admits they screwed up on something of this magnitude is the day that America as we known it will crumble. All of those statistics and numbers don't replace the fact that nearly every Vietnam vet that I know (including my dad and uncle) will never even begin to discuss what went on there and are still emotionally effected from their experiences. First hand sources mean a hell of a lot more than the governments "official statistics".

Most movies/books about Vietnam are taken from firsthand experience (i.e. Platoon.) That speaks a lot louder than any of your garbage from the previous 3 posts.

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 10:59 AM
You dumbasses these are vets talking. Not the Government. And when a vet talks you open your ears and shut your mouth. Disrespectful ****. You listen because he's seen it. You are crap because he's SEEN IT. BEEN THERE. SMELLED IT. You? You talk because you like how your voice sounds.

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 11:02 AM
You take your opinion from movies. I went to the source.


Is it warm where your head is? Whats it smell like?


Wait....how'd you get your head in your ass.

kingdd
04-07-2004, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Pericles
You both sound like terrorists. I hope Ashcroft and Ridge bust both of your asses for treason.

Shut up Canada.

This is not your matter so mind your own ****ing business. Its called "Freedom of Speech." Maybe you should go and read the Constitution if you want to be an American so badly. Otherwise, shut the **** up and go play hockey.

kingdd
04-07-2004, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by JohnnyLaw
You take your opinion from movies. I went to the source.


Is it warm where your head is? Whats it smell like?


Wait....how'd you get your head in your ass.

I would rather have my head up my ass than being kissing the government's.

And by the way... I get my opinions from the men who actually were in the trenches. Not the pussyfoots who sit back and send men off to die for no reason.

fireman_x
04-07-2004, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
Those that are for the war say we went there because Saddam was an oppressive dictator, its a human rights issue etc.
That was never the truth.

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 11:04 AM
Coward.

kingdd
04-07-2004, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by JohnnyLaw
Coward.

You are calling me a coward? Take a look at yourself. Stupid ass.

And what is with all these ****ing Canadians coming in here and telling me what is best for Americans. Do you vote in America? Do you pay taxes in America? Are you a citizen of America? NO! so shut the **** up, you don't even have an opinion on these matters.

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 11:14 AM
Oh **** homie. Geez maybe its the fact that 90% of my family is from texas...or the fact that I grew up in Texas....Yeah a texan. And I do have an opinion and Ill continue to share it. Because Im not a coward.....like you.

BuckWyld
04-07-2004, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by JohnnyLaw
texas...

that explains alot

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 11:19 AM
yee haw bitch.

kingdd
04-07-2004, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by JohnnyLaw
Oh **** homie. Geez maybe its the fact that 90% of my family is from texas...or the fact that I grew up in Texas....Yeah a texan. And I do have an opinion and Ill continue to share it. Because Im not a coward.....like you.

It dosent matter if you are a coward or not, you are still a complete dumbass and I don't want to hear anymore of your stupid, idiotic and complete bull**** anymore. What I know about Vietnam comes from my FATHER and my UNCLE who both served in the infantry corps during Vietnam. The men who put their asses in the front lines and offered their lives for their country. I'll ask my dad, but I don't think he saw Nixon or Westmoreland in the trenches with him. Your sources are from those men, mine are from the men who actually deserve to be heard. I hate little punk asses like you who think everything that the government releases is absolute fact. Nothing you can say will change my mind. I have living and breathing evidence of my opinion right in my own house. I spit on slime like you who try to dress everything up so pretty like the morons in Washington. Go to hell.

bgzee
04-07-2004, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by fireman_x
That was never the truth.

Sure it was, only after everyone realized that there were no WMD's to be found. If not that, then what else? Iraq wasn't involved in 9-11, so are we just over there for the hell of it?

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 11:37 AM
First off. Phuck you.

Now that thats out of the way. Your a coward still. If your dad and uncle are whinning- they are cowards. I wont say they are because you might be putting words in their mouthes. But if they are inline with you then they are cowards. I still serve with men that have been in Vietnam and Korea. Cyprus, Iraq, Afgan. My grandfathers served in the great wars. they will say that war is required. It cannot be avoided it can only be put off. Every male in my family has served. NO COMPLAINTS. Yes combat changed them but they knew what they were fightiong for.

As we live in the best 2 countries in the world. Free and prosperous. It would be selfish to not afford others the opportunity to live free. If we emancipate and they go back to killing each other than fine. But we in good conscience cannot let them go without a chance to be free. Thats what makes you a coward,. So willing to yap about and shatre your opinion but not put you money where your mouth is. That seperates me and you. We can never see eye to eye because I am on top looking down.

But talk away- my family has fought to preserve your right to do so.......bitch

kingdd
04-07-2004, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by JohnnyLaw
First off. Phuck you.

Now that thats out of the way. Your a coward still. If your dad and uncle are whinning- they are cowards. I wont say they are because you might be putting words in their mouthes. But if they are inline with you then they are cowards. I still serve with men that have been in Vietnam and Korea. Cyprus, Iraq, Afgan. My grandfathers served in the great wars. they will say that war is required. It cannot be avoided it can only be put off. Every male in my family has served. NO COMPLAINTS. Yes combat changed them but they knew what they were fightiong for.

As we live in the best 2 countries in the world. Free and prosperous. It would be selfish to not afford others the opportunity to live free. If we emancipate and they go back to killing each other than fine. But we in good conscience cannot let them go without a chance to be free. Thats what makes you a coward,. So willing to yap about and shatre your opinion but not put you money where your mouth is. That seperates me and you. We can never see eye to eye because I am on top looking down.

But talk away- my family has fought to preserve your right to do so.......bitch

You are the biggest idiot I think I have ever talked too. People like you are what is holding this country back. You and your 1940 beliefs. Welcome to the twenty-first century homie, you piece of trash. The only thing you are on top of is the president's dick.

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 11:45 AM
Honor and freedom? Yeah your new improved "me first" is much better.

badbart2000
04-07-2004, 11:45 AM
I love all you guys we need a group hug!

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 11:46 AM
Okay but dont grab my ass alright??

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 11:56 AM
Me? I have a rack of medals from - Highway patrol, the fire service, and the military that say that I love my country. What do you have? What have you done for anyone? Thank your father and uncle from me. I appreciate THEIR sacrifice. To bad you disrespect their legacy.

kingdd
04-07-2004, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by JohnnyLaw
Me? I have a rack of medals from - Highway patrol, the fire service, and the military that say that I love my country. What do you have? What have you done for anyone? Thank your father and uncle from me. I appreciate THEIR sacrifice. To bad you disrespect their legacy.

Sorry dude. I'm in the Coast Guard so no I don't disrespect their legacy. I am working my ass off for money to go to college and live the American Dream in peace and tranquilty. Too bad you and your buddy George Bush are destroying that.

kingdd
04-07-2004, 12:03 PM
You ain't got **** on the coast guard bee-atch! lol.

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 12:04 PM
Okay bro. Ill leave it at that. I went over my posts and Im being a total dick. Stay safe on the Ocean.

PS. I dont actually know George Bush

LethalOnGuitarZ
04-07-2004, 12:25 PM
I can't believe some of the idiots here who's idea of finishing the war in Iraq and placing the country in a safe, democratic state is: "**** them all, they're all ****ing terrorists, NUKE EM ALL". That's complete bullsh*t. That's why rich countries have a system of government to stop idiots like you ever gaining power. It's just unfortunate that the poor countries haven't adopted this sytem yet.

Who would've thought that, the Middle East, where some people regard to have been the place where civilization started, would be in such a terrible mess as it is now.

I see no quick end to this war, especially with the new strategy that has been implemented - kill anyone that may be considered a threat. I think this will drag on for many years. It won't get as bad as Vietnam though, comparing Iraq to Vietnam is not feasible.

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 12:28 PM
I agree. I also agree that we cant just "nuke em all" Even if thats my first reaction when I hear about stuff like mens bodies being paraded through the streets.

If we did just kill them all we would be disrespecting the men who died trying to bring PEACE to Iraq.

Pericles
04-07-2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by kingdd
This is not your matter


Yes, it is.


Originally posted by kingdd
mind your own ****ing business.


No.


Originally posted by kingdd
Maybe you should go and read the Constitution


I have, several times.


Originally posted by kingdd
Otherwise, shut the **** up and go play hockey.

You're quite intelligent, aren't you?

fireman_x
04-07-2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by LethalOnGuitarZ
comparing Iraq to Vietnam is not feasible.
Not yet.

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 02:34 PM
Yeah call back when the toll hits 50000. Still got a while to go. Kinda jumping the gun arent you Fireman?

badbart2000
04-07-2004, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
Not yet.

58,000/600=97 If we stay another 97 years we might get thier.

You people have no grasp of casualties in a intense conflict. At times hundreds died a day in Vietnam, 250,000 in WWII in Russia 90,000 people died in one day in battle get a grip.

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 02:44 PM
If the war goes on for another 100 year.....and Bush can only do 2 four year terms....is it really still Bushs "Vietnam"? Wouldnt the guys who do the other 90 phVcking years get some of the **** too?

fireman_x
04-07-2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by badbart2000
58,000/600=97 If we stay another 97 years we might get thier.

You people have no grasp of casualties in a intense conflict. At times hundreds died a day in Vietnam, 250,000 in WWII in Russia 90,000 people died in one day in battle get a grip.
The death toll continues to rise and the active military is stretched. I sure as hell don't want to get drafted and they say that even college students will get drafted if it is inacted. Not saying that I wouldn't defend the country if attacked but we weren't attacked by Iraq and they have shown no proof of a WMD program. The death toll contines to rise daily and is almost up to two soldiers a day. Don't forget that many soldiers are badly maimed as well to the point where thay can no longer fight. The only way this can be avoided it to act the same way the Russians did in Afghanistan, which would be to kill everyone that has a gun or looks like a possible threat.

LordNeon
04-07-2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by badbart2000
58,000/600=97 If we stay another 97 years we might get thier.

You people have no grasp of casualties in a intense conflict. At times hundreds died a day in Vietnam, 250,000 in WWII in Russia 90,000 people died in one day in battle get a grip.

Vietnam started this way. Our commitment was small at first - a few hundred. Then a thousand. Then the resistance started getting tougher, and damn if the US is gonna give in to them Commies, right? So we toss a few thousand more in. Then we got bogged down further and further ... until we were REALLY deep in the $hit.

enjoyincubus
04-07-2004, 04:22 PM
have you seen the pics of burnt corpses??? look at the people poking the bodies. most of them are kids. these are the "innocents" we are trying to protect. to me, noone there is innocent, and they should all die.

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 04:27 PM
I do see what your saying Incubus. Like should these people that WOULD harm us us if they could be allowed the opportunity to do so?

enjoyincubus
04-07-2004, 04:33 PM
these people would harm us if given the oppurtunity. thats why we need to eliminate them. im sorry, but i dont think killing people who threaten to terrorize us is wrong. i dont think arresting the guy who supports the terrorist is a violation of his free speech.

they have to learn that if you are a terrorist, or support terror you will be killed. as soon as they realise that harboring terrorism is dangerous, they will stop. for some reason, brute force is the only thing they understand and respect over there.

badbart2000
04-07-2004, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
have you seen the pics of burnt corpses??? look at the people poking the bodies. most of them are kids. these are the "innocents" we are trying to protect. to me, noone there is innocent, and they should all die.

Yep perfect

JohnnyLaw
04-07-2004, 05:14 PM
Agreed.

Scar
04-07-2004, 05:25 PM
problem is...Arabs who were unsure or neutral see ..'Marines blow up mosque' and instantly feel the US is fighting them. This creates such wild hatred,you know how these guys get about their Islam. I just think in the longrun it's a policy that will backfire and create more suicide bombers.

Jimineye
04-07-2004, 05:43 PM
If they are fighting from the Mosque we should be able to take out the Mosque simple as that. I know the insurgents would have no problem leveling a church, synagogue, or monastery.

Fight fire with fire, and if they want to play dirty then we can too.

Jimineye
04-07-2004, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by kingdd
You are calling me a coward? Take a look at yourself. Stupid ass.

And what is with all these ****ing Canadians coming in here and telling me what is best for Americans. Do you vote in America? Do you pay taxes in America? Are you a citizen of America? NO! so shut the **** up, you don't even have an opinion on these matters.

I am, and Johnny is stating the facts. His website stated VETERANS responses to the war. If you read that you would realize it. Also all Vietnam veterans that I know of were not druggies, and aren't opposed to the war.

supergarr
04-07-2004, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
Multiple planes dropping multiple bombs over a large area. Many innocent people would die.

I love how people think. Let women and children die? **** all you, you are honest to God pieces of ****.

I hope you understand it is a privilege to have been born in the U.S. These people can't help where they were born, they can't help that their country is involved in a war.

Here's the ironic part. Those that are for the war say we went there because Saddam was an oppressive dictator, its a human rights issue etc. Then these people go on to say, "**** it, kill 'em all!" I really just don't understand how some people think.

bro, just read my sig !!

supergarr
04-07-2004, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Scar
problem is...Arabs who were unsure or neutral see ..'Marines blow up mosque' and instantly feel the US is fighting them. This creates such wild hatred,you know how these guys get about their Islam. I just think in the longrun it's a policy that will backfire and create more suicide bombers.


that is also true, and that is EXACTLY why these insurgants hide their munitions and fight from places of worship and education. Because they know it will piss off the rest of population as it gets televised on stations like AL-Jazeera - "Americans destroy mosque xx iraqis dead"...

Sensationalism... what can you do though. damned if you do damned if you don't. Either iraq is going to be one messed up place in a few years. I really dont think there is going to be much we can do to fix it.

kingdd
04-07-2004, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
these people would harm us if given the oppurtunity. thats why we need to eliminate them. im sorry, but i dont think killing people who threaten to terrorize us is wrong. i dont think arresting the guy who supports the terrorist is a violation of his free speech.

they have to learn that if you are a terrorist, or support terror you will be killed. as soon as they realise that harboring terrorism is dangerous, they will stop. for some reason, brute force is the only thing they understand and respect over there.

You have no respect for human life. You need to learn to look at things from a different perspective. When did I ever say I support terrorism? Please quote my post where I said that. You probably misunderstood my post, so I went back and corrected it for you.

Why is it ok for America to go and kill people, but if any other nation tries it, they are evil? Who made America the dictator of the world? Why does every nation have to be just like America? Why is it that everything America does is completely good and if another nation attempts the same exact thing, they are evil? Why is ok for America to have weapons of mass destruction, but if another nation tries to acquire them then they are evil? What is the only country that has every used a nuclear weapon to attack another country? Why should innocent human beings die just because America believes it is right to enforce her beliefs throughout the world? Why should the American people suffer while our leaders pursue ends of which can never conceivably be met?

WHY IS AMERICA ALWAYS RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE ALWAYS WRONG?

I can answer that. It is because your are looking through an AMERICANS perspective. Try looking through a different perspective and maybe you will understand why these people are doing what they are.

kingdd
04-07-2004, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by supergarr
that is also true, and that is EXACTLY why these insurgants hide their munitions and fight from places of worship and education. Because they know it will piss off the rest of population as it gets televised on stations like AL-Jazeera - "Americans destroy mosque xx iraqis dead"...

Sensationalism... what can you do though. damned if you do damned if you don't. Either iraq is going to be one messed up place in a few years. I really dont think there is going to be much we can do to fix it.

I agree. They are fighting for their lives. They will use an means they can to survive. That is human nature. It is going to be dangerous in there which is why a decision needs to be made. Vote Bush out.

kingdd
04-07-2004, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
I am, and Johnny is stating the facts. His website stated VETERANS responses to the war. If you read that you would realize it. Also all Vietnam veterans that I know of were not druggies, and aren't opposed to the war.

Since you didn't bother reading all of the posts, I will fill you in. Johnny and I reconciliated our differences. Don't go stirring this up again.

Crimson-Model
04-07-2004, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by LethalOnGuitarZ
I can't believe some of the idiots here who's idea of finishing the war in Iraq and placing the country in a safe, democratic state is: "**** them all, they're all ****ing terrorists, NUKE EM ALL". That's complete bullsh*t. That's why rich countries have a system of government to stop idiots like you ever gaining power. It's just unfortunate that the poor countries haven't adopted this sytem yet.

Who would've thought that, the Middle East, where some people regard to have been the place where civilization started, would be in such a terrible mess as it is now.

I see no quick end to this war, especially with the new strategy that has been implemented - kill anyone that may be considered a threat. I think this will drag on for many years. It won't get as bad as Vietnam though, comparing Iraq to Vietnam is not feasible.

Jimineye
04-07-2004, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by kingdd
Since you didn't bother reading all of the posts, I will fill you in. Johnny and I reconciliated our differences. Don't go stirring this up again.


I read the posts, and I saw that. I'm just adding in my 2 cents. :D

enjoyincubus
04-07-2004, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Scar
problem is...Arabs who were unsure or neutral see ..'Marines blow up mosque' and instantly feel the US is fighting them. This creates such wild hatred,you know how these guys get about their Islam. I just think in the longrun it's a policy that will backfire and create more suicide bombers.


the problem here is, i have yet to see any unsure or neutral arabs. and if they havent stood up against the terrorists yet, they are ultimately part of the problem and will never stand up to the evils their brothers are resposible for.

enjoyincubus
04-07-2004, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by kingdd
You have no respect for human life. You need to learn to look at things from a different perspective. When did I ever say I support terrorism? Please quote my post where I said that. You probably misunderstood my post, so I went back and corrected it for you.

Why is it ok for America to go and kill people, but if any other nation tries it, they are evil? Who made America the dictator of the world? Why does every nation have to be just like America? Why is it that everything America does is completely good and if another nation attempts the same exact thing, they are evil? Why is ok for America to have weapons of mass destruction, but if another nation tries to acquire them then they are evil? What is the only country that has every used a nuclear weapon to attack another country? Why should innocent human beings die just because America believes it is right to enforce her beliefs throughout the world? Why should the American people suffer while our leaders pursue ends of which can never conceivably be met?


WHY IS AMERICA ALWAYS RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE ALWAYS WRONG?

I can answer that. It is because your are looking through an AMERICANS perspective. Try looking through a different perspective and maybe you will understand why these people are doing what they are.


im sorry man, but this has to be the lowest post i have seen all day. first of all, WHO CARES IF WE ARE RIGHT, we are fighting for out lives, and may be fighting terrorists on our streets one day. the time to sit in a circle and smoke the peace pipe has passed. terrorists, and many arabs dont care about our point of view, and dont want to try to defuse the situation. they want us DEAD

Starsky
04-07-2004, 10:11 PM
Notice how there is always some AP or New York Times reporter able to take footage of these uprisings, mutiliation, and burning US bodies.

These douchebag reporters are openly helping the insurgents, by photographing and distributing pictures of the mutiliation. If a US soldier was being hacked to bits, would you just stand there and take pictures with smiling Iraqi's dancing on the corpses, and distribute them to insurgents. Or would you keep the pictures private, run to the nearest US base, and let them know whats going on? They are useful idiots for the Sunni Barbarians in distributing propaganda. They openly have a political interest in seeing the US fail. They should be tried for treason.

TranceNRG
04-08-2004, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
Notice how there is always some AP or New York Times reporter able to take footage of these uprisings, mutiliation, and burning US bodies.

These douchebag reporters are openly helping the insurgents, by photographing and distributing pictures of the mutiliation. If a US soldier was being hacked to bits, would you just stand there and take pictures with smiling Iraqi's dancing on the corpses, and distribute them to insurgents. Or would you keep the pictures private, run to the nearest US base, and let them know whats going on? They are useful idiots for the Sunni Barbarians in distributing propaganda. They openly have a political interest in seeing the US fail. They should be tried for treason.


I agree

badbart2000
04-08-2004, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
Notice how there is always some AP or New York Times reporter able to take footage of these uprisings, mutiliation, and burning US bodies.

These douchebag reporters are openly helping the insurgents, by photographing and distributing pictures of the mutiliation. If a US soldier was being hacked to bits, would you just stand there and take pictures with smiling Iraqi's dancing on the corpses, and distribute them to insurgents. Or would you keep the pictures private, run to the nearest US base, and let them know whats going on? They are useful idiots for the Sunni Barbarians in distributing propaganda. They openly have a political interest in seeing the US fail. They should be tried for treason.


I hear ya, kill the reporters also.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
Notice how there is always some AP or New York Times reporter able to take footage of these uprisings, mutiliation, and burning US bodies.

These douchebag reporters are openly helping the insurgents, by photographing and distributing pictures of the mutiliation. If a US soldier was being hacked to bits, would you just stand there and take pictures with smiling Iraqi's dancing on the corpses, and distribute them to insurgents. Or would you keep the pictures private, run to the nearest US base, and let them know whats going on? They are useful idiots for the Sunni Barbarians in distributing propaganda. They openly have a political interest in seeing the US fail. They should be tried for treason.

reporter != soldier

reporters are there to show the world what is going on, they are not on "our" side or "their" side, the are neutral, or at least in a perfect world they are. They are doing their job, recording what is happening.

Distributing propaganda, yea not like when they are embedded with US troops taking pictures of dead arabs, then they are ok.

Do you even read what you post? do you realize how stupid it is? maybe you should take a second to rethink your pro-us kill everyone else ideas. because to be perfectly honest they are really quite rediculous.


oh and BTW while I am somewhat of a socialist, I am not helping the terrorists because I disagree with you and that moron bush. so dont even bother trying to tell me that I am a terrorist or any of that other stupid crap you people are so fond of.

CerealKiller
04-08-2004, 08:39 AM
Iraq weather report: Sunni today, Shiite tomorrow

Doctor Evil
04-08-2004, 09:35 AM
Its like all those dickhead photographers who go for that photo of the year award - half the time, awards go to pictures of people drowning, or being beaten, or being shot or whatever because some **** of a photographer would rather take a photo and benefit himself as opposed to helping out the person in peril, or bringing whats going on to the attention of the relevant authorities. Another reason why I ****ing hate journalists.

Oh yeah, CK - Shiite joke :D

badbart2000
04-08-2004, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Doctor Evil
Its like all those dickhead photographers who go for that photo of the year award - half the time, awards go to pictures of people drowning, or being beaten, or being shot or whatever because some **** of a photographer would rather take a photo and benefit himself as opposed to helping out the person in peril, or bringing whats going on to the attention of the relevant authorities. Another reason why I ****ing hate journalists.

Oh yeah, CK - Shiite joke :D

Me too, they are leaches. I would not be able to sit their and photograph our men getting shoot with out picking up a gun and shooting back.

The Kurgan
04-08-2004, 11:09 AM
What's next? Hospitals? This war isn't over, and it's getting worse.

kingdd
04-08-2004, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
im sorry man, but this has to be the lowest post i have seen all day. first of all, WHO CARES IF WE ARE RIGHT, we are fighting for out lives, and may be fighting terrorists on our streets one day. the time to sit in a circle and smoke the peace pipe has passed. terrorists, and many arabs dont care about our point of view, and dont want to try to defuse the situation. they want us DEAD

So we should just stoop down to their level and continue murdering people for no apparent reason? That makes a ****load of sense. Sooner or later, some nation needs to be the voice of reason.

Like I said, you have no respect for human life.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
im sorry man, but this has to be the lowest post i have seen all day. first of all, WHO CARES IF WE ARE RIGHT, we are fighting for out lives, and may be fighting terrorists on our streets one day. the time to sit in a circle and smoke the peace pipe has passed. terrorists, and many arabs dont care about our point of view, and dont want to try to defuse the situation. they want us DEAD

terrorism is not the problem, it is only a symptom of the problem. we can not stop terrorism through violence, the reality is that to stop terrorism we must cure the underlying social and economic problems of the middle east. Being headstrong adn trying to solve this with force will only get people killed and make the problem worse.

badbart2000
04-08-2004, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
terrorism is not the problem, it is only a symptom of the problem. we can not stop terrorism through violence, the reality is that to stop terrorism we must cure the underlying social and economic problems of the middle east. Being headstrong adn trying to solve this with force will only get people killed and make the problem worse.

The middle east will not be fixed in our life times. Its the arm pit of the world and our only choice is to kill the bad guys.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by badbart2000
The middle east will not be fixed in our life times. Its the arm pit of the world and our only choice is to kill the bad guys.

this is not a comic book it is not as simple as good and bad, anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you some bull****. It always amazes me that the same people who talk a big game about defending USA to the death dont understand why other people would try to kill our soldiers when we invade their country.

the middle east could be fixed if we put the effort in, cause it is more profitable to send our kids to die.

enjoyincubus
04-08-2004, 12:26 PM
it ammuses me how you people speak of the middle east as if they have any logic or reason. THESE PEOPLE WANT US DEAD!!!!!!! that is their logic, thats their reasoning for you. it dosent matter what we do for them, they will always hate us. theres no way around it. saying we should build them schools and give them money will only make us even bigger targets. killing whoever messes with us, however, shows them that we are not afriad.

they are like animals, if they sense weakness, they will attack it. however, if they think their enemy is stronger than them, and their enemy will kill their entire tribe if they attack us, you may see terrorism shrink.

and i have plenty of respect for human life, but you have no logic, but only emotion and this false belief that these people actually want peace.



and on reporters, it pisses me off to see them interview these terrorists, when they know good and well that these terrorists are planning to attack us again. do these reporters not see that if we dont win this war, they will have no place to report to? how do they sit there and watch these terrorists show off their weapons, without any sense of obligation to their homeland and families?

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 12:30 PM
no what most of "these people" want is the samethings you want, the want a good job to provide money for their familys. they want a house, food and clothes. They want to be free from opression from either internal threats or from outsiders. they are not that different from us. what they dont want is the US invading their countries and killing their friends and familys, or proping up dictators who opress the population for our benefit.

AnotherScorpion
04-08-2004, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
it ammuses me how you people speak of the middle east as if they have any logic or reason. THESE PEOPLE WANT US DEAD!!!!!!! that is their logic, thats their reasoning for you. it dosent matter what we do for them, they will always hate us. theres no way around it. saying we should build them schools and give them money will only make us even bigger targets. killing whoever messes with us, however, shows them that we are not afriad.

they are like animals, if they sense weakness, they will attack it. however, if they think their enemy is stronger than them, and their enemy will kill their entire tribe if they attack us, you may see terrorism shrink.

and i have plenty of respect for human life, but you have no logic, but only emotion and this false belief that these people actually want peace.



and on reporters, it pisses me off to see them interview these terrorists, when they know good and well that these terrorists are planning to attack us again. do these reporters not see that if we dont win this war, they will have no place to report to? how do they sit there and watch these terrorists show off their weapons, without any sense of obligation to their homeland and families?


I will say the same thing too...This has to be the lowest post I have seen all week!!!

badbart2000
04-08-2004, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
no what most of "these people" want is the samethings you want, the want a good job to provide money for their familys. they want a house, food and clothes. They want to be free from opression from either internal threats or from outsiders. they are not that different from us. what they dont want is the US invading their countries and killing their friends and familys, or proping up dictators who opress the population for our benefit.

Their religious beliefs prevent them from achieving these things. The Middle East is hopeless until religion us zealots are crushed. The Middle East sits on more wealth then any other place on earth and still can't make their countries prosperous. The Middle East is too busy hating the rest of the world to prosper. The Arabs would rather fight the Jew, the West and if that’s nor possible they fight each other. Its a hopeless arm pit filled with a bunch or religious monkeys.

kingdd
04-08-2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus

and i have plenty of respect for human life, but you have no logic, but only emotion and this false belief that these people actually want peace.


I don't have any logic?

Look at your logic!

"We should kill whoever messes with us!"

You sound like Adolf ****ing Hitler! And NO you most certainly do not have any respect for human life. Any person can see this by reading any of your previous posts. You actually have the nerve to call an entire race of people "animals" Not only do you not respect human life, but you are racist to boot.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 12:46 PM
the wealth of the middle east is in the hands of a few people, the rest are poor. that is the entire problem. The US props up governments like Saudi Arabia, who are bad for the people of that countrie, only because it serves our intrest. the current government in Iran is basically a result of us mucking arond in that country. Saddam, we supported him. The taliban, we supported them. Osama, gave money to him too. Oh and musharaf, yup we support him despite the fact that he is a military dictator who has been selling nuclear weapons, that will bite us on the ass pretty soon to. It is not just the middle east, it happens in South and Centeral america too, that has just not blown up in our face yet. The Arabs are not animals as you suggest they are just angry about how we have acted in the region.

kingdd
04-08-2004, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
the wealth of the middle east is in the hands of a few people, the rest are poor. that is the entire problem. The US props up governments like Saudi Arabia, who are bad for the people of that countrie, only because it serves our intrest. the current government in Iran is basically a result of us mucking arond in that country. Saddam, we supported him. The taliban, we supported them. Osama, gave money to him too. Oh and musharaf, yup we support him despite the fact that he is a military dictator who has been selling nuclear weapons, that will bite us on the ass pretty soon to. It is not just the middle east, it happens in South and Centeral america too, that has just not blown up in our face yet. The Arabs are not animals as you suggest they are just angry about how we have acted in the region.

Agreed. This war is not about Terrorism or freeing the people of Iraq from a ruthless dictatorship. So what are we fighting for?

OIL.

If we wanted to end terrorism, we should be in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia where most of these terrorists are from. If we wanted to free opressed civilians we should be in any one of a handful of other nations which are much worse than Iraq. The sad truth is, if we did anything to piss off Saudi Arabia the U.S. economy would crumble in a matter of hours so Osama has a nice little palace to chill in and we can't do **** about it.

The only reason the U.S. gives a damn at all about Iraq is for their oil. We want to set up a little puppet government and sign contracts to all of their oil commodities. Just my two cents.

dave22
04-08-2004, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
the wealth of the middle east is in the hands of a few people, the rest are poor. that is the entire problem. The US props up governments like Saudi Arabia, who are bad for the people of that countrie, only because it serves our intrest. the current government in Iran is basically a result of us mucking arond in that country. Saddam, we supported him. The taliban, we supported them. Osama, gave money to him too. Oh and musharaf, yup we support him despite the fact that he is a military dictator who has been selling nuclear weapons, that will bite us on the ass pretty soon to. It is not just the middle east, it happens in South and Centeral america too, that has just not blown up in our face yet. The Arabs are not animals as you suggest they are just angry about how we have acted in the region.

And leave it up to the lefties and the peaceniks to defend these animals. Sorry bud, they are animals. I'm not talking about the people of Iran, they have some hope, same with Pakistan, but the rest of them are fukked. BTW, we didn't prop up the govt. of Saudi Arabia, they did that all on their own, and if you want to blame the fukked up situations in the middle east, why don't you blame countries like the UK, and France, they were the ones that divided it up into regions like Kuwait, Iraq, Syria, etc.

Another thing, why don't Muslims fight their own wars?? Because they can't!!!! When Milosevic was "supposedly" causing genocide, why did it have to be "The Great Satan" that came to the rescue in Kosovo?? Why couldn't it have been Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or some other country?? When Iraq invaded Kuwait, why couldn't a muslim country have liberated it?? Why did Saudi Arabia need US troops for their defence, ( which was one of the reasons for 9-11, you know, infidels on the holy land).

Like I said many times now, I'm now against this war with Iraq, because the people of Iraq need someone like Saddam to keep them in line or else you have chaos.

Look what these people did after the war, looting hospitals and muesems, and who got blamed for that?? The US of course, it's bull****!!!

enjoyincubus
04-08-2004, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by kingdd
I don't have any logic?

Look at your logic!

"We should kill whoever messes with us!"

You sound like Adolf ****ing Hitler! And NO you most certainly do not have any respect for human life. Any person can see this by reading any of your previous posts. You actually have the nerve to call an entire race of people "animals" Not only do you not respect human life, but you are racist to boot.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...............


first off let me say that you clearly demonstrate that have no fuking clue about history, and that you like to make stupid comparions like "you sound like hitler". like i said, this statement alone shows that you have no grasp on historical events.

you also show your arrogance and condescending nature by speaking for everyone in this thread by saying "anyone cans see".

then you actually go so far as to call me a racist. this is laughable since I AM HALF SAUDI!!!!!! but i am not arab, i am not saudi, i am an american. and since i am an american i will defend my homeland.

so go to hell, you racist .

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by dave22


Another thing, why don't Muslims fight their own wars?? Because they can't!!!!

they are fighting their own war in Iraq and you call them animals for it.

AnotherScorpion
04-08-2004, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by dave22


Like I said many times now, I'm now against this war with Iraq, because the people of Iraq need someone like Saddam to keep them in line or else you have chaos.



I'm glad to see you for the first time admit that you were wrong! of course you talked sh&&* the whole year and as a reader I was forced to read your nonsense! Glad you came to your senses at least on Iraq!! Actually, all the countries in the middle east didn't support the invasion and warned the US! Bush idiotic may cuz a civil war beyond Iraq! The impact is so large so far, we see more Wahabi Saudi militants continue to travel between Saudi and Iraq, which has come to be seen as a training ground for fighters who may return to Saudi to take on authorities. We will see more problems from the Shi's in Bahrain and Saudi if the Shi'a in Iraq took power, might spurred by the rising power of those in Iraq! And if that not enough, increased Kurdish power in Iraq already created ripples, with unrest among Kurdish minorities in Iran and Syria, next is Turkey!
Nice job Bush!!!

dave22
04-08-2004, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
they are fighting their own war in Iraq and you call them animals for it.

That's amazing, they kill their own policemen, and their own people, and you would be the type of person to call them freedom fighters. "Rolls eyes"

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 01:46 PM
they are killing the police officers for working with us. and we killed their people too, not just soldiers but women and children too. does that make us animals. And to be perfectly honest, yes they are freedom fighters, they are fighting for their freedom from US occupation. How is it any different from any of the european resistance movements from WW2 that everyone would agree were freedom fighters?

enjoyincubus
04-08-2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
they are killing the police officers for working with us. and we killed their people too, not just soldiers but women and children too. does that make us animals. And to be perfectly honest, yes they are freedom fighters, they are fighting for their freedom from US occupation. How is it any different from any of the european resistance movements from WW2 that everyone would agree were freedom fighters?


i think the situation is similar to france after we liberated them from hitler.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 01:50 PM
I dont think we ever occupied france and ran their government.

enjoyincubus
04-08-2004, 01:52 PM
i dont think we did either, that why i said, it is "more similar"


we liberated france from an evil bastard who was practing mass genocide, similar to iraq.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 01:56 PM
ok so both countries had dictators before, thta is where the similarity ends, in france they was freed while in iraq we have had them under occupation for at least 6 months now. they do not have a democratically elected government and we have made it fairly obvious they will only be allowed to have the sort of government we want with the people we want in it.

irpker
04-08-2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
ok so both countries had dictators before, thta is where the similarity ends, in france they was freed while in iraq we have had them under occupation for at least 6 months now. they do not have a democratically elected government and we have made it fairly obvious they will only be allowed to have the sort of government we want with the people we want in it.

America didn't topple a dictatorship just to allow a religious demagogue to rise to power.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 02:12 PM
you are right, we toppled a dictator in order to set up a puppet government who would export cheap oil.

Pericles
04-08-2004, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by kingdd
Agreed. This war is not about Terrorism or freeing the people of Iraq from a ruthless dictatorship. So what are we fighting for?

OIL.

If we wanted to end terrorism, we should be in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia where most of these terrorists are from. If we wanted to free opressed civilians we should be in any one of a handful of other nations which are much worse than Iraq. The sad truth is, if we did anything to piss off Saudi Arabia the U.S. economy would crumble in a matter of hours so Osama has a nice little palace to chill in and we can't do **** about it.

The only reason the U.S. gives a damn at all about Iraq is for their oil. We want to set up a little puppet government and sign contracts to all of their oil commodities. Just my two cents.

You sound like Micheal Moore. You should both move to Iran or North Korea.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Pericles
You sound like Micheal Moore. You should both move to Iran or North Korea.

that was an AWESOME contribution to this thread, I mean your insightful comments really made this thread great. I hope you can come back and let us in on more of you deep thoughts.

enjoyincubus
04-08-2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Pericles
You sound like Micheal Moore. You should both move to Iran or North Korea.


exactly, lets see how receptive these arabs are to you when you go over and try to help them build hospitals and schools. we'll see how long you last on the streets with these people "who want what we we want" in iran.

dave22
04-08-2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
they are killing the police officers for working with us. and we killed their people too, not just soldiers but women and children too. does that make us animals. And to be perfectly honest, yes they are freedom fighters, they are fighting for their freedom from US occupation. How is it any different from any of the european resistance movements from WW2 that everyone would agree were freedom fighters?

They detonate a bomb, where maybe 2 marines, and 60 Iraqis die, and you would call that a freedom fighter?? LMAO!!!!

There's revenge killing going around all over the place, what about when the muesems and hospitals were looted, how do you justify those actions??

You make it sound like the violence would end if the US packed their bags, and went home, but that is so far from the truth, the violence would just escalate further.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by dave22
They detonate a bomb, where maybe 2 marines, and 60 Iraqis die, and you would call that a freedom fighter?? LMAO!!!!

There's revenge killing going around all over the place, what about when the muesems and hospitals were looted, how do you justify those actions??

You make it sound like the violence would end if the US packed their bags, and went home, but that is so far from the truth, the violence would just escalate further.

which confirms my original point that terrorism is a symptom of a larger problem, these people are poor, opressed and angry. that would make me violent too.

Starsky
04-08-2004, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by kingdd
Agreed. This war is not about Terrorism or freeing the people of Iraq from a ruthless dictatorship. So what are we fighting for?

OIL.

If we wanted to end terrorism, we should be in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia where most of these terrorists are from. If we wanted to free opressed civilians we should be in any one of a handful of other nations which are much worse than Iraq. The sad truth is, if we did anything to piss off Saudi Arabia the U.S. economy would crumble in a matter of hours so Osama has a nice little palace to chill in and we can't do **** about it.

The only reason the U.S. gives a damn at all about Iraq is for their oil. We want to set up a little puppet government and sign contracts to all of their oil commodities. Just my two cents.


You don't seem to understand the Pentagons strategy. The war is not about oil, its about regime change in Iraq. This will influence Arab peoples in other countries to free themselves. This is why the US must succeed. It is MUCH more in the US interest to pacify Islamist regimes then to blow $200 billion to secure $20 billion worth of oil.


Yes, we know its easy to say "No Blood For Oil" or "Bush Lied, Men Died". But its also easy to be an ignorant ****.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 02:31 PM
I thought it was about finding WMD. Or possibly because Saddam had links to Al Queda. That is what bush told us a year ago before we attacked.

enjoyincubus
04-08-2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
which confirms my original point that terrorism is a symptom of a larger problem, these people are poor, opressed and angry. that would make me violent too.


so what do you suggest, buying them a nice little home with blue shingles and a white picket fence? giving them money to buy a nice minvan to haul their family in?

dave22
04-08-2004, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
so what do you suggest, buying them a nice little home with blue shingles and a white picket fence? giving them money to buy a nice minvan to haul their family in?

Guy sounds like Chomsky to me. Making it sound like these "Turd World Countries" are in such bad shape because of the US, it doesn't matter how much aid we give them, it's still all our fault, supposedly.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 02:41 PM
well, I don't think that there is a simple solution for 30+ years of bad foreign policy. One of the first things I would do is stop the backing isreal as strongly as we do, no longer vetoing any resolutions by the security council against them, stop alot of the money we give them and generally force them to the table with palistine for an equitable peace treaty, including the removal of the settlements and any parts of that new wall that are in palistine. I would also remove any support for Saudi Arabia, their government seems very corrupt at best. I also do not think that we should be supporting Musharaf, in Packistan. I also think that there is a great need for economic reform in the area, I think that we could avoid alot of problems if we tried to stimulate their economies to produce anything that is not oil. fixing their economies is really the key. For more specific I would need to think more, all I know right now is that the US foreign policy is doing more harm than good.

dave22
04-08-2004, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
well, I don't think that there is a simple solution for 30+ years of bad foreign policy. One of the first things I would do is stop the backing isreal as strongly as we do, no longer vetoing any resolutions by the security council against them, stop alot of the money we give them and generally force them to the table with palistine for an equitable peace treaty, including the removal of the settlements and any parts of that new wall that are in palistine. I would also remove any support for Saudi Arabia, their government seems very corrupt at best. I also do not think that we should be supporting Musharaf, in Packistan. I also think that there is a great need for economic reform in the area, I think that we could avoid alot of problems if we tried to stimulate their economies to produce anything that is not oil. fixing their economies is really the key. For more specific I would need to think more, all I know right now is that the US foreign policy is doing more harm than good.

Keep on dreaming bud, because that's all it is, a dream. As for Saudi Arabia, how is their govt. any different than Kuwait's?? Also, we kind of have to support Musharaf, would you rather some radical Mullah take his place??

That's the way you have to look at it, look what happened when Good old Jimmy Carter ended his support of the Shah, now we have a bunch of guys in Robes and Turbans calling us the "Great Satan, and are determined to rid the world of Israel."

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 02:58 PM
first of all the Shaw of Iran while good for the ol USA was not very good for the people of Iran. second I would rather have a democratically elected leader in packistan. I dont know enough about Kuait's government to say, I told you that this was a rough idea,

dave22
04-08-2004, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
first of all the Shaw of Iran while good for the ol USA was not very good for the people of Iran. second I would rather have a democratically elected leader in packistan. I dont know enough about Kuait's government to say, I told you that this was a rough idea,

Oh yeah, I'm so sure that the Shah of Iran was worse than the Mullahs who are currently in charge. As for Pakistan, they wouldn't know what to do with democracy. To many tribes, and to many factions.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 03:16 PM
Iran actually seems to be doing ok economically, they had a political setback recently when a bunch of the more liberal politicians were not allowed to run in the last elections. as far as packistan, they had a democratic government till musharaf staged a military coup

enjoyincubus
04-08-2004, 03:26 PM
that all sounds well and good, but dropping support for a big ally (israel) in the hopes it will win us points with the arabs is wrong. i have yet to see an israeli anti-american vow death to the "great satan". i didnt see any israelis dancing in the street in jubulation after 9/11.

we have to support our friends. and besides, all this you said is assuming that the terrorists arent already set in their ways and can change. we cannot appease the terrorists. the romans tried to appease attila the hun with greater tributes, but it just made attila hungrier for romes riches.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 03:29 PM
I do not see any good reason to be friends with isreal. and I never said to pay tribute to the arab countries, I said that we need to help them make fundimental changes to their economy before we can every hope to stop Islamic terrorists. I also believe that we have a duty to support democratically elected governments and not support dicatorships.

enjoyincubus
04-08-2004, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
I do not see any good reason to be friends with isreal. and I never said to pay tribute to the arab countries, I said that we need to help them make fundimental changes to their economy before we can every hope to stop Islamic terrorists. I also believe that we have a duty to support democratically elected governments and not support dicatorships.


israel is a democratic government. not only do they elect their leaders, but millions of people in the region want them dead, simply because of their religion.

i thought the left was suppossed to stand for religious freedom and tolerance, not bending to the will of thugs.

Reborn79
04-08-2004, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
israel is a democratic government. not only do they elect their leaders, but millions of people in the region want them dead, simply because of their religion.

i thought the left was suppossed to stand for religious freedom and tolerance, not bending to the will of thugs.

..you know, I find it interesting you have 'Enjoy Incubus' as your name...your politics are essentially totally opposite of theirs, yet you seem to idolize them.


Anyway, to even BEGIN to end the unrest in the Middle East, we need to stop backing Israel. We need to become more neutral in the Israel, Palestine situation, but with these neocons running things in Washington, that'll never happen.


And as long as that doesn't happen, there will NEVER be peace, and there will ALWAYS be terrorists and terrorism...no matter how many god damn troops and missiles we send into that region.

AnotherScorpion
04-08-2004, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
israel is a democratic government. not only do they elect their leaders, but millions of people in the region want them dead, simply because of their religion.

i thought the left was suppossed to stand for religious freedom and tolerance, not bending to the will of thugs.

You are wrong! Jews lived with the Muslim peacefully and protected through time! They don't want them dead cuz of their religion they want them dead cuz they occupied a land that doesn't belong to them!

enjoyincubus
04-08-2004, 04:18 PM
i am wrong, eh? so everytime i hear a arab say down with the jews they are just joking?? they are holding an entire religion accountbale for the acts of a few? sounds like you are defending them for doing the same thing you are bashing us for. hypocrit.


as for my name, well, i practice something that would probably be over your head. you see, i dont listen to music in order to shape my political opinions, i listen to music for the art of it.
i think incubus is a good band, regardless of their political opnions. you see, i am more tolerant of other views than you appear to be.

although i must commend you for dodging the entire point of my thread, i wont allow to play dumb and change the subject to something that is more comfortable for you and wont hurt your fragile ideals.

Reborn79
04-08-2004, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
i am wrong, eh? so everytime i hear a arab say down with the jews they are just joking?? they are holding an entire religion accountbale for the acts of a few? sounds like you are defending them for doing the same thing you are bashing us for. hypocrit.


as for my name, well, i practice something that would probably be over your head. you see, i dont listen to music in order to shape my political opinions, i listen to music for the art of it.
i think incubus is a good band, regardless of their political opnions. you see, i am more tolerant of other views than you appear to be.

although i must commend you for dodging the entire point of my thread, i wont allow to play dumb and change the subject to something that is more comfortable for you and wont hurt your fragile ideals.


Well actually, considering they are a fairly politically active band, it IS a valid question. And I was responding to what you said, so I fail to see how I am 'dodging' a question. So please, RESPOND to what I said before you make any more 'accusations'.

Also, I know this is kind of difficult to understand, but I never 'went off topic'. Respond to what I said and stop attempting to one-up other people by belittling them.

enjoyincubus
04-08-2004, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
Well actually, considering they are a fairly politically active band, it IS a valid question. And I was responding to what you said, so I fail to see how I am 'dodging' a question. So please, RESPOND to what I said before you make any more 'accusations'.

Also, I know this is kind of difficult to understand, but I never 'went off topic'. Respond to what I said and stop attempting to one-up other people by belittling them.


i did respond to what you said. you think its interesting how i am a fan of such a politicaly charged band. i fail to see why you are rallying behind such an insignificant arguement, and frankly, i find it hillarious that you believe you are making such a signifiacnt statement. so in short, i have no reply, other than if youd like i can change my name to "enjoy ted nugent".

Reborn79
04-08-2004, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
i did respond to what you said. you think its interesting how i am a fan of such a politicaly charged band. i fail to see why you are rallying behind such an insignificant arguement, and frankly, i find it hillarious that you believe you are making such a signifiacnt statement. so in short, i have no reply, other than if youd like i can change my name to "enjoy ted nugent".

What argument? I merely asked a friggen question. And when I said respond, I meant to what I said concerning Israel. I don't care to delve any further into your musical preference, I just asked a simple question as I was genuinely curious...don't get so defensive about it.

enjoyincubus
04-08-2004, 05:12 PM
sorry if i seemed defensive, for i went back and read your post, and i didnt see anything other than something about my name.

the only other statemtn i see you making is rather or not we can have peace without stopping the support of israel. earlier today, i said i dont know if we can or not, because a)we dont know if the terrorists will stop on this alone, or if they are just looking for excuses to kill us, or b)if losing the cooperation of such an agency as the mossad, which is said to keep tabs on many terrorists would be beneficial to our war.

but on the other hand, would it be right for us to ditch such a good ally as israel? i mean, i have yet to see an israeli dance in the street upon the news of terror attacks. "i havent seen israelis chant down with the u.s."

they are in the same boat as us, except they have little attacks on their homeland, every day.

dave22
04-08-2004, 09:21 PM
Once again you lefties crack me up, you want us to remain neutral with the Israeli/ Palestine conflict, yet you don't wish us to support dictatorships, yet most Arab nations are dictatorships, you make it sound like it would be so easy to end our relationships with these corrupt leaders like those in Saudi Arabia. Yet ending these relationships could result in war.

If the Palestinians ever achieve thier own country, what kind of govt. do you think it will be?? It will be a dictatorship run by Arafat or some other crackpot.

Alot of you have the attitude of a Jimmy Carter wannabe, and he is considered the worst president we had. The military knew that the operation to rescue the hostages were going to be a failure, because Jimmy Carter wanted as little death as possible when it came to the guards. He ended US support of the Shah, and now we've been on bad terms with Iran after the Shah's overthrow.

You make it sound like the terrorists attacked up because of our support of Israel, but you would never say something like, maybe they're jealous of the West's prosperty and enlightenment, while they haven't done jack**** for the past 700 years. That maybe they hate our way of life, and the fact that our women are free.

Reborn79
04-09-2004, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by dave22
Once again you lefties crack me up, you want us to remain neutral with the Israeli/ Palestine conflict, yet you don't wish us to support dictatorships, yet most Arab nations are dictatorships, you make it sound like it would be so easy to end our relationships with these corrupt leaders like those in Saudi Arabia. Yet ending these relationships could result in war.

If the Palestinians ever achieve thier own country, what kind of govt. do you think it will be?? It will be a dictatorship run by Arafat or some other crackpot.

Alot of you have the attitude of a Jimmy Carter wannabe, and he is considered the worst president we had. The military knew that the operation to rescue the hostages were going to be a failure, because Jimmy Carter wanted as little death as possible when it came to the guards. He ended US support of the Shah, and now we've been on bad terms with Iran after the Shah's overthrow.

You make it sound like the terrorists attacked up because of our support of Israel, but you would never say something like, maybe they're jealous of the West's prosperty and enlightenment, while they haven't done jack**** for the past 700 years. That maybe they hate our way of life, and the fact that our women are free.

All I am saying is that we need to take a more neutral stance. All this 'defending Israel' bull**** is getting tiring and is not helpful in reaching the ultimate goal.
And you think ending our relationship with Saudi Arabia would lead to war? I would figure it would be the exact opposite, as our involvement in Saudi Arabia is another reason why there is such hatred towards the U.S. Ending this 'intimate' relationship would be a huge step in the right direction.


And as for the Palestinians, there will be absolutely no peace until they are recognized as a nation. It's as simple as that. Fighting against allowing Palestine to exist as a nation is essentially fighting for terrorism. There is no reason to not give the Palestinians the right to have a nation. If they choose to have a friggen dictator, who cares? They chose it.

And you're damn right I said they attacked us because we defend Israel. That's a HUGE part of the problem. It is a one-sided issue as far as America is concerned (Israel GOOD, arabs BAD). You don't think this kind of attitude upsets some people? Yes, Western Influence is a part of it, but I believe it is a small part. It is our POLICIES that cause the major disagreements, and there is a lot of room for those to be changed.

nutzo
04-09-2004, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by LethalOnGuitarZ
It's where they use huge numbers of unguided 'gravity' bombs to ensure the destruction of a target.

This war is pointless. If I were those soldiers I'd just boycott the war and tell Bush when he gets angry 'You wanted the war, you go fight it, tit'. :p

Im not in favor of one American dying for these scumbag
Iraq-keys. I know the main reason we're over there is for oil and stabilizing the area. The WMD is somewhat of a concern, and that is a good reason to tell the world why we are over there.

I back our military 110%, thats for sure. But I don't fully trust what our government is telling us.

And to your last paragraph, ......."This war is pointless. If I were those soldiers I'd just boycott the war and tell Bush when he gets angry 'You wanted the war, you go fight it, tit'.".......... I wonder what would've happened to Europe if the US had said the same to you guys during WWII?

Reborn79
04-09-2004, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by nutzo


And to your last paragraph, ......."This war is pointless. If I were those soldiers I'd just boycott the war and tell Bush when he gets angry 'You wanted the war, you go fight it, tit'.".......... I wonder what would've happened to Europe if the US had said the same to you guys during WWII?

Don't compare Iraq to WW2. There is a huge difference, and that is that Germany was a CLEAR and obvious threat to the entire world. It was actively invading other countries and was using highly aggressive tactics to forcibly take over fellow countries.

There is no such damning evidence towards Iraq.

BuckWyld
04-09-2004, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by dave22


If the Palestinians ever achieve thier own country, what kind of govt. do you think it will be?? It will be a dictatorship run by Arafat or some other crackpot.

Alot of you have the attitude of a Jimmy Carter wannabe, and he is considered the worst president we had.

Arafat is not a dictator, and I think Carter was possibly the best presidents in the last 30 years

kingdd
04-09-2004, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...............


first off let me say that you clearly demonstrate that have no fuking clue about history, and that you like to make stupid comparions like "you sound like hitler". like i said, this statement alone shows that you have no grasp on historical events.

you also show your arrogance and condescending nature by speaking for everyone in this thread by saying "anyone cans see".

then you actually go so far as to call me a racist. this is laughable since I AM HALF SAUDI!!!!!! but i am not arab, i am not saudi, i am an american. and since i am an american i will defend my homeland.

so go to hell, you racist .

Whatever you say buddy. Keep living in your peanut sized brain. Its a good thing people like you have no say in what happens in this world or else there would not be an Earth left. Its funny how you say I do not have a grasp of history given that I am a history MAJOR at Michigan. You don't get to that point by "having no ****ing clue about history." How do I have no clue about history? Is it because I said you sound like Hitler? You ****ing do, and anyone can see this. You are racist and have no respect fo human life. Just like Hitler.

Anyway I am tired of bitching with such an idiot so I am not even going to bother replying to your nonsense anymore. Forget it buddy, you have no case anymore as if you had one in the first place. All you are doing now is trying to twist words and accuse people being "racist" with absolutely no evidence. It is actually kind of funny how you have gotten told over an over again. You are done, you might as well cut your losses and try to forget you even posted in this thread because you just look like a complete idiot.



The everlasting words of enjoyincubus......

"We should kill whoever messes with us."

"People in the middle east are animals."

I think I might put those in my quote.........

Willie_Bosket
04-09-2004, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by badbart2000
level the place women and children included.
You are sick.

nutzo
04-09-2004, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by Reborn79
Don't compare Iraq to WW2. There is a huge difference, and that is that Germany was a CLEAR and obvious threat to the entire world. It was actively invading other countries and was using highly aggressive tactics to forcibly take over fellow countries.

There is no such damning evidence towards Iraq.

Did you forget about Kuwait? Remember we were over there in the first Gulf war, remember? Remember how Iraq invaded another country and forcibly took over a fellow country? Remember how Bush backed off and didn't take Sadaam out when we had the chance? We quickly forget ehh?

Well perhaps if we had, "nipped it in the bud", (Germany), in the years prior to WWll then maybe we could've saved thousands and thousands of American lives?

We knew what Hitler was doing years before we got involved in Eruope, we just ignored it. Just like if we had kept ignoring Iraq as only having some weapons, or are only in the early stages of developing nukes, then one day they would be launching a nuke towards another country. Thats my take on it.

kingdd
04-09-2004, 09:36 AM
The fact is you cannot convict someone of a crime they have not commited. For instance, if a person plots to kill someone, you cannot convict them of first degree murder because they didn't do it. You can nap them for conspiracy, but nothing more. There is a big difference between talk and action.

Saddam was a talker.

Hitler was a action'er.

Yes, Saddam went after Kuwait, but he wanted their oil. Hitler wanted to conquer the world and he had the means to do so. I don't think Saddam would have ever built enough power and following to get to where Hitler was. Germans genuinely loved Hitler, Iraqis were forced to love Saddam. You may disagree, but that is just my opinion.

dave22
04-09-2004, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
Arafat is not a dictator, and I think Carter was possibly the best presidents in the last 30 years

You would like Carter, but the rest of America hated him. You see, they didn't like living with inflation, they didn't like the fact that he did jack **** when it came to the Iran hostage situation, and if he didn't end his support of the Shah there would have been no hostage situation.

And how is Araftat not a dictator?? You make it sound like Palestine would be a great democracy if he was in charge.

BuckWyld
04-09-2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by dave22

You would like Carter, but the rest of America hated him.

Yif he didn't end his support of the Shah there would have been no hostage situation.

And how is Araftat not a dictator?? You make it sound like Palestine would be a great democracy if he was in charge.

What makes you think that you can speak for the entire USA?
what did the Shaw do for the Iranian people, nothing good as far as I can tell. And Arafat is not a dictator because as far as I can tell he was elected by the palistinian people. Besides what do you mean "was in charge" he IS in charge.

dave22
04-09-2004, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
What makes you think that you can speak for the entire USA?
what did the Shaw do for the Iranian people, nothing good as far as I can tell. And Arafat is not a dictator because as far as I can tell he was elected by the palistinian people. Besides what do you mean "was in charge" he IS in charge.

Well let's see, under the Shah, women went to co-ed schools and didn't have to completely cover up if they didn't want to. Under the Shah, people had more freedom, than they did under the Mullahs.

Are you trying to tell me that the Mullahs are doing a better job than the Shah did??

And if Carter was so loved, why was his unapproval ratings like 38%?? Why wasn't he reelected?? This is the same guy that trusts N. Korea to not build nukes.

BuckWyld
04-09-2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by dave22

And if Carter was so loved, why was his unapproval ratings like 38%?? Why wasn't he reelected?? This is the same guy that trusts N. Korea to not build nukes.

Bush's current approval ratings are lower than that besides 60% approval is far from no one.

Fender85
04-10-2004, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by LethalOnGuitarZ
If I were those soldiers I'd just boycott the war and tell Bush when he gets angry 'You wanted the war, you go fight it, tit'. :p

You know what the punishment is for abandonment with no intention of returning during wartime? When you're in the military, you play by a different set of laws.

dave22
04-10-2004, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
Bush's current approval ratings are lower than that besides 60% approval is far from no one.

What I meant was Carter's approval rating was 38%, and like I said this was the same guy that thought that N. Korea would keep it's word on not building nuclear weapons. The guy was horrible when it came to foreign policy. It's a hard world, and sometimes you have to ally yourself with monsters like Stalin and Saddam, to survive.

Scar
04-10-2004, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by dave22
What I meant was Carter's approval rating was 38%, and like I said this was the same guy that thought that N. Korea would keep it's word on not building nuclear weapons. The guy was horrible when it came to foreign policy. It's a hard world, and sometimes you have to ally yourself with monsters like Stalin and Saddam, to survive.

Like all the viscious little dictators in South America that Bush feels no need to oust,or regime change becuase all they have to export is a bit of fruit

dave22
04-10-2004, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Scar
Like all the viscious little dictators in South America that Bush feels no need to oust,or regime change becuase all they have to export is a bit of fruit

So what are we supposed to do?? Cease trade with all "Turd World Countries?" Because most of those countries are ruled by dictators. During WW2, should we have not allied ourselves with Stalin??