The Shit is Gonna Hit the Fan!

wacki i doubt if anything impresses you apart from carpet bombings of civillians and mass destruction.

wacki - you forget, i don't have to impress anyone least of all you.

why don't you go to syria and see whats happening? people go there on holiday you know, thats not too scary even for people such as yourself.

if you won't go iraq to fight for your beliefs will you at least go on holiday and stay at some hotels?

 

You do know i was referring to the country, not calling you a name?

Adana, Turkey to be a lil more specific.

OK, i'll try to be as vague "with you" from now on.

Still recruiting i see, how much $ you up ,so far.


Where have YOU ever gone to fight for your beliefs???

surely you believe in something worth fighting for.........

 

obviously my recruiting has failed, i have appealed to the supporters of the war repeatedly yet they steadfastedly refuse on all counts to partake in the whole war thing. i would say my policy of recruiting war supporters to sign up has been a complete failure, not one has said ok i'll stand up for my beliefs.

the war supporters on this site will never go to war because they prefer other people to go. sure, they can "support" the heroes, support the government and shout down everyone who dares to question the war's validity but, it sure is safer and easier to stay at home. it is much better for someone else to come home maimed than for the war supporters. if someone thinks the war is so good and just, why aren't they over there fighting in its name?

at the end of the day they are just very good at finding excuses for never going in harms way as can be evidenced by the volumes they have written in response. personally i don't know how they live with themselves. what do you do when as a war supporter you find your argument and moral / ethical intergity pulled like a rug from under your feet? well - you just keep on writing and supporting the war and doing everything that you did before regardless of the facts and despite that for every moment you keep the war going more people will be killed to satisfy your online ego.

how can you take people who won't go to war yet vigorously defend it to the hilt, seriously? the answer - you don't

 

hhhooo!! very well said ! thank you!!

 

I find your arrogance humorous given the fragility of your argument.

You assume that I support the war just as you assume that I have never been in the military or work/have worked for any government agency.

Your logic is a fallacy.

 

"what do you do when as a war supporter you find your argument and moral / ethical intergity pulled like a rug from under your feet? well - you just keep on writing and supporting the war and doing everything that you did before regardless of the facts and despite that for every moment you keep the war going more people will be killed to satisfy your online ego."

see ...

see if you can muster enough "bravery" and go on holiday

 

I see, so what you're saying is that the treaty is a useful tool of war that we as westerners should utilize to keep control over weaker countries? I also agree with your comparison of George Bush to that of the dictators in Zimbabwe!

 

That is very rude, making fun of mental disorders like that just because you feel threatened, of course it is expected from a racist like yourself.

 

Speak for yourself, you fucking loser.

 

ah ha!

now this is someone with conviction, not necessarily right but conviction nevertheless.

have you read my other posts perchance? i doubt if you will be convinced but for your own safety on the battlefield it will be better if you don't start asking questions. the last thing you need to ask yourself is "are my orders correct?" this kind of soldier is useless on the battlefield. it would be much better to frequent pro war sites than here, this place will only make you angry.

on a similar note, why do you come here? you are only confusing yourself.

was it i that ultimately pushed you to join up? i think not.

 

What can i say , im a rude guy.

Where the fuck did the racist thing come from ?
surely you make a statement like that you could prove it ,unless of course you're just a babbling moron.

 

No, America could certainly win that war. The problem is the American people's backbone and attention span. We are no longer capable of supporting a war effort for more than 2 years because by then some election comes up and the party not in power all of a sudden cannot support the party who is in power. They start a campaign of lies and mudslinging to discredit the party that is in power and attempts to change history. The typical American is too uninformed to know the difference and in some cases winds up boo-hooing for the enemy. It's really sad to watch.

 

We are not fighting the war in Iraq like we could if we really had support for it. Things like the surge last summer could have happened long ago and could have been sustained. We could have been finished there by now.

What lies are you accusing the current administration of? WMD?

 

Well the WMD 'lie' was not started with the Bush administration. It was started with Sandy Berger of Clinton's administration. That's the most popular 'lie' I know of. Not sure what the other ones are.

What do you think our response should have been after 9/11?

 

That's it? Just catch 1 guy? I doubt that would end anything.

 

it is fact Saddam DID have (past tense) WMD's, he used them again Iran and the Kurds after the first gulf war. did he have them as the precursor to the invasion, NO. so fucktard (bush) again used more faulty data to go after Saddam (for personal reasons) and left behind the real war on terror, Afganistan.

as for the war on terrror, fucktard couldn't keep his mouth shut about how the US was tracking bin Laden (cell phone), so bin Laden changed his tactics (stopped using cell phone) and now we can't track him. It wouldn't matter any way because al-Qaeda can operate fine with out him, it would just be a "moral" victory for fucktard not an operational one if binLaden was captured/killed.

 

Which fucktard would this be? bin Laden's use of sat phones for communication was reported at least a half a dozen times, starting first in 1996 from Time magazine. In continued in 1998 with several US and European news outlets.

So the Bush administration is justified in focusing on the network as a whole, rather than just one man?

 

Ok, let's try again. I'm sure if you were in office your response to 9/11 wouldn't be to just nab Bin Ladan and call it even. Forget Iraq for a while. Seriously, what would you do in response to 9/11? If your goal is to get Bin Laden, then obviously that would involve war in Afghanistan like we did, but would you do anything else?

 

Wow... so many inaccuracies here. I guess we'll start at the beginning.

You cannot blame ONLY Bush for the faulty intelligence. It goes back to Clinton's administration. There is a long history of democrats taking action theirselves, and supporting the Bush administration's action against Saddam Hussein. Did Clinton also have personal reasons for attacking Iraq?:

Madeleine Albright, 2/18/98 - "Iraq is a long way from Ohio. But what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rougue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies, is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

Bill Clinton, 2/17/98 - "... or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities, to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction."

Howard Dean, 1/31/98 - "there are such a thing as international outlaws. I'm not sure China is one, but I'm quite sure Iran and Iraq are."

Sandy Berger, 2/18/98 - "He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass distruction. And some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again as he has 10 times since 1983."

Nancy Pelosi, 11/17/02 - "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

Jay Rockefeller, 10/10/02 - "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons, and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam Hussein has made in the development of weapons of mass destruction."

Joe Biden, 8/4/02 - "We know he continues to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."

Harry Reid 9/18/02 - "Saddam Hussein in effect has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think the president is approaching this in the right fashion."

Hillary Clinton 9/15/02 - Meet The Press: "Do you believe we would have disarmament without regeim change?" Hillary Clinton: "I doubt it. I can support the president, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long term interest of our national security."

John Edwards, 1/7/03 - "Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons. He can not be allowed to use those weapons. It's just that simple."

Even Bayh, 3/17/03 - "I support the president's efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. I think he was right on in his speech tonight. The lessons we learned following September 11th were that we can't wait to be attacked again. Particularly when it involves weapons of mass destruction. So regrettably, Saddam has not done the right thing which is to disarm, and we're left with no alternative but to take action."

Oh, so it was Bush who leaked that information? Did he work at the Washington Times in 1998 before he took office? Because U.S. intelligence had been tracking bin Laden by way of his cell phone, but it was the Washington Times who had leaked this information. Bin Laden became aware of it and by late 1998 had stopped using his phone, drying up a way of monitoring bin Laden's activities.

It's this kind of completely false BS from ultra-liberals that shows me that their only real beef with Bush is that they simply hate him, and not necessarily for anything he has done. They will fabricate any lie to try and show that Bush alone screwed up. Do you think people who have a clue about what's going on are going to listen to your arguments when you've already demonstrated that you're full of crap? Arguments like "we shouldn't have gone after Saddam while we were still looking for Bin Laden" are valid arguments. (Some of us feel that a manhunt for one man shouldn't hold up the rest of the war on terror, but at least it's an intelligent argument). Perhaps what really pisses off the ultra-liberals is that the democrats are just as much to blame because they were either the instigators (during Clinton's term) or supporters (in Bush's term) up through 2003. And gee, what happened the year after that? The election. Oh what a surprise.

 

It's easy to criticize when you have no plan of your own.

I wasn't all that thrilled that we were attacking iraq either after Afghanistan. But I knew it couldn't stop with Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is not just limited to one country. They receive support from several countries in addition to Afghanistan - namely Iran and Syria. I never thought Bush's sudden obsession with WMD was the real reason. But knowing that we were going to attack other countries because of the stated (and well supported at the time) goal of not only attacking countries directly responsible but those who lend support to terrorism, then there was rational for going into Iraq. 1 - because Iraq may not have solid ties to Al Qaeda, but they were not exactly squeeky clean either, and 2 - having a foothold in Iraq gives us control of borders on BOTH sides of Iran, and also a border along Syria. Look at a map. Stop obsessing over Iraq for a moment and you'll see this.

Before going into Iraq, Bush could not announce that we would be attacking Iran and Syria next because then we would be taking on the whole mideast at once. I believe that Bush believed, as did politicians on both sides of the isle, that Iraq was making WMD. And that he used that as an excuse to begin the offensive leading up to Iran and Syria starting with Iraq.

The people we are fighting in Iraq are mostly from Al Qaeda, Iran and Syria. Doesn't sound like a waste of time to me.