donc

Quote V4Vendetta

P.S. Those people of victims of the Iraq war who lost family members or friends from the war who say their son or daughter died for nothing....GO TO HELL as you discrace the integrity and honor of your own. Hope that that died in honor to protect possibly millions in the future.



As a proud member of the USMC, from June 1966,July 1970,(heh, heh, had to make up a little time there,) M/3/11/1st Mar., Div, and on my second tour the 2nd Battalion, Battery D /11. You can got to hell, but before you go might be a good idea as Iriemon suggested, learn to break up your post a little so you lame *** post can be read by older eyes.

ashurbanipal

Nonsense. You say later in your post that soldiers die to defend the right to free expression--yet your opening sentence makes a mockery of the same idea.

As if the onlypeople affected by the war are people in our military.

A service I have never, and will never, ask. Frankly, I think militaries in general, not just ours, tend to stir up a lot of trouble. I'm not sure I understand why someone thinks donning a uniform and being willing to kill others they don't know while simultaneously risking their own lives bestowed upon someone some superior view of moral and ethical issues.

In any case, as a citizen, I want our military to come home from all assignments abroad, and only ask for protection in the case of an invasion of our territory, or a clear and gross violation of humanity elsewhere. And I am willing to fight and risk death in such a case. I am not willing to fight or risk death for wars as they are normally fought.

....because prior to the invasions of Iraq, Afganistan, Vietnam, Grenada, Bosnia, or so on, my ability to think for myself was greatly hindered. Without the military blowing away so many people abroad, my ability to say what I think was utterly shackled.

None. Then again, it's fairly clear that there were many years before the first attack on the WTC that we didn't occupy Iraq and there weren't any attacks either. So the correlation is not very clear.

History certainly seems to be on your side in this...then again, it seems undeniable that if no one went to war, there wouldn't be any wars, and if no one murdered, there wouldn't be any murder.

This line of reasoning is really quite sad. It's like saying that because it's inevitable there will be heart attacks, we ought to just live with it and pray that they happen to others. It seems the proper course of action is instead to understand why heart attacks happen and work to prevent as many as possible, seeking continuously to improve. Similarly, it seems we ought to work to understand violence and why it happens, and work continuously to make it more and more rare.

And as a human being and a servant of God, I would hope it doesn't happen at all to anyone, and if it does, regardless of where, I know it is better to forgive and to work so that violence is diminished. Sometimes violence is inevitable, but it ought to be kept at the absolute minimum possible--anything else is by definition wanton.

To whom are you praying? Anyway...you seem to be saying that hopefully these attacks won't happen here because people will panic. I hope they won't happen anywhere because I think it's bad when people are blown up.

Oh, I believe you. It seems to me that was also the tactic of such people as Joseph Stalin, Vlad the Impaler, Heinrich Himmler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and their kind. It also seems to me that you're stating this as if we're to be proud of this fact.

The things that make me proud of America are getting fewer and farther between lately. But I am proud of a few things America has done. None of them have anything to do with scaring our potential enemies, though.

Your handle-sake appreciated literature enough to have actually read a few books. Your lack of ability to spell or to string together a coherent passage of prose leads me to think maybe you should follow in his footsteps before you get it in your head to spew forth such a screed again.

No doubt we are succeeding admirably. That's my impression from the news reports, but of course the media has been known to selectively shape reality for their audience.

Wait a minute...I thought we were making sure no terror attacks happen on American soil. Not that this isn't an admirable enough goal, but is it really any of our business?

Strange that most of them are not. Either you're abnormal, or the situation you describe doesn't exist.

I'm not sure it did prior to Saddam taking power...and just who supported Saddam, anyway?

Thanks.

Apparently you're not done after all...

It seems to me that Iraqis have done the majority of the dying and losing family members, however you slice it. So you want to go to their country, kill people, and then tell those who are in mourning on either side and who may be a little disillusioned about things to GO TO HELL? It seems likely they're already in hell. The only thing your harangue does is indicate just how full of darkness you are.

And what if they did die for nothing except making a few already rich men a bit richer? When facing the cold reality that your child, spouse, brother/sister, or best friend is dead, hope that they might have died in honor and just possibly saved people in the future seems like a pretty underpriced recompense.

Just suppose we woke up tomorrow and found Manhattan had been vaporized. How will we know whether the Iraq war stopped an even worse attack, or motivated that one? We will never achieve certainty, but we can make some decent enough guesses, I would think. Generally, it's my experience in life that the more people one angers, the less safe one is. Sometimes it's necessary and sometimes its unavoidable, but in the case of the wars we are currently fighting, neither is the case. We're making a lot of people angry right now for far less noble purposes than you suggest.

Bergslagstroll

Ecpecially sens it can be hundred times more killed Iraqies then American soldiers.

Lerxst

I served this nation for many, many years. V, I completely disagree with your standpoint. I think it's both arrogant and ignorant.

First and foremost, we are NOT in Iraq fighting for American freedom. We are in Iraq fighting for American influence in a resource rich region. Let's be clear about that.

Second, freedom of speech. Read up on it.

Third, your comment about those family members who have lost some of their own being a disgrace because of their protests...you sir, just insulted those people more than any protest they could have made.

Fourth, the war in Iraq has shown no parallel to our lack of homeland attacks since 9/11. Massive improvements in local, state, and federal law enforcement practices and our cooperation with other nations on pursuing known terrorists and either killing or capturing them has made the difference. Show me one piece of evidence that show Iraq has anything to do with our homeland being safer please.

Fifth, the attack on the Cole was not an attack on our homeland. The Oklahoma City bombing was not committed by international terrorists, it was committed by domestic terrorists and in retaliation for the Waco abortion. Completely irrelevant in the realm of this discussion. Other than the 93 WTC bomb, please list one other U.S. based terrorist attack.

I would also ask you to read up on the history of Bill Clinton, terrorism, and the Pentagon. Tell me after reading "Against All Enemies" how it was Bill Clinton was going to get much more done than he did.

Thanks for your service to our nation.

__________________
I was so right. And you? Well you were so wrong. You lost. Ha. Ha.

Awesome!

Getting rid of Saddam is evidence that our homeland security has improved by going to Iraq, and all of the R&D we are gaining learning how to fight an enemy that hides in cities and kills innocents. I think we probably have many technological advances, new methods, and a better understanding of how to wage war that could only be gained by an invasion. Were writing the book and securing oil too. All by products of a great strategy.

Lerxst

Please substantiate this claim by any measure. How is getting rid of Saddam "evidence" of our homeland security improving? Can you provide any evidence of Saddam being an imminent or even somewhat medium to high risk threat to the U.S. homeland?
As opposed to an enemy who kills the guilty? How is that evidence of improving our homeland? Are we are at war in the streets of our cities?
I won't dispute this. However it's not a benefit that was worth the price of all the innocent Iraqi's that have died.
We are writing what book? The book of how to **** up an occupation? The book of how to go war without a sound strategy? The book of how to invade a nation without having any idea how to plan for it? The book of how to completely disregard your generals advice and then go to war and completely **** it up? Yeah we are writing those books.

Great strategy? Yeah, if your a dummy.

danarhea

1) I believe the real crime is a government that throws our soldiers and vets away like garbage one they have no more use for them.

2) A look at the demographic backgrounds of many who ended up joining the military and went to Iraq, and how the government used them, courtesy of Mad Magazine.

__________________
Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2012

Awesome!

I just think that our government realized there was a lot that they didn't know after 911 and being absolutely sure of WMD's being in Saddam's hands by invading was a good call because what if he did?

I don't Saddam was going to live forever either, and after he died his country may of got worse with his retarded sons in power, maybe leading to Iran taking over Iraq, and then us losing control of the oil.

I think Saddam could of attacked Israel anytime baiting them into war leading to a holy war that would destabilize the region.

I think due to the reason's above Saddam was a threat to our national security directly or indirectly by attacking us with a WMD or threatening our economy by uniting the oil rich countries against the U.S.


No, we are not fighting terrorists in the streets of the US, but fighting their pantshi**ing ideology head on I believe helps thwart their determination as they may of thought we were a paper tiger and unwilling to shed blood.

More sacrifices will have to be made to protect our interests, and that is the reality due to a people in the middle east that still want to live in the stone age. It has to change.

Your quarrel about the methods of invasion would be completely different if we found a WMD, or if any of the issues mentioned above happened. You would be pissed at the administration because they refused to act. There is no perfect solution or waiting years to have an ideal plan. Take any real world situation. World War 2, thousands and thousands of men died rushing beaches. Alot of innocent civilians died too due to us invading Europe. Was is worth it?

John1234

The inspectors, our allies, and the entire world knew that he did not have WMD.
Our government also knew.

And if he did?
Of all the Muslim nations, a Saddam controlled Iraq being the one to have nuclear weapons would have been the safest.
He had tight control.
Their society was one of the more advanced in areas such as woman's rights compared to other Muslim nations.
They were much more moderate than even some of our "ally" Muslim nations.
The point being that they were the most likely candidate of all the Muslim nations including even our allies, for mutual assured destruction to work.

I would be 100x time more worried if Saudi Arabia had nukes than i would of been with Saddam having them.

Awesome!

No matter how you spin it, we are going to have to deal with that part of the world either sooner or later. I say it's better to do it now.