llabtaem

Okay. Here I am sitting in my kitchen talking with my wife. I was telling her about a story that I had just read at FOXNews regarding a captured American soldier, 20, by the name of Keith M. Maupin of Batvia, OH, USA.

It occured to me that I myself have been having ill feelings towards this 'War' and the fact that my President was sending yet even more people to the Middle East to serve.

I reflected on my Grandfather for a second. I have sat with him, a Veteran (Yes I capitalize Veteran out of respect), countless ours hearing his stories about WWII where he was a communications engineer. He has told me the stories of France & Germany where he served 3 years solid on one tour of duty. He left the United States when my Grandmother was pregnant with my Uncle. He returned when he was almost 2 years old and could say Daddy. It is absolutely unheard of to hear of a serviceman or woman leaving this country to serve for that length of time, yet no one then complained.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that people's concerns are not valid. I just find it very strange how the people of this country (The US where I am writing this from, my home country) stand regarding war issues. I hear it on the news. I read it in the papers. I read it on the boards. President & government bashing.

What happened to spirit and war effort? We are in Iraq simply because we felt it our wordly duty to rid a tyrannical man of power. He is one of the MOST evil people to ever walk this planet. He murders, mames & mutilates without just cause. He starves his people and enjoy his riches however he sees fit. The thought is ridiculous for anyone to see Saddam Hussein as anything more than filth.

Now take his 'legacy' and place that in light of September 11th, 2001. You can remember that day. We all can. It was without a doubt the scariest day I can remember in my 29 years of life. I had NO IDEA what was going on. What do I do? Should I call someone? Who would do this to us, and even more importantly, how were they able to get away with it?

Well, they did it because they are evil. They were able to do it because we had let our guard down. This can not happen again. Will it? Hopefully not, but it may. The US states that we had intel on Weapons of Mass Destruction. Well, as far as we can see thus far, the intel was wrong. Does that make our invasion any less unjust? What if it was correct and we didn't. Would Saddam use it if he could? Damn Skippy!

I guess my whole point is that in just 60 years, my country has changed. We no longer seem to support our President, our government, or our troops the way we used to. 60 years ago there was a war effort that was unfathomable. From textiles, to steel - we did it for the troops, and we did it CHEAP. Advertisements on the radio and in print all made sure we remembered what was important to us. People composed songs dedicated to the troops. Why? Because our country was at war, that's why.

Why were we at war? December 7, 1941. How many killed December 7, 1941? 2,403 Navy, Army, Marine & civilian personell.

Why are we at war now? September 11, 2001. How many killed Sepetember 11th, 2001? 3,030 Men, Women, Children & Military personell.

Same situation, just a different date on the calendar. I think that just typing this out has changed my outlook on the war a bit, and maybe it will you too. Who knows.

Stop and think about where your heart is regarding this war. We are there for the good of the American people as well as the well being of the entire world. We are there to make sure that we retain freedom. Freedom is a hard thing to achieve in the first place, so let's not lose it.

Oil? Well, all I have to say is Spoils Of War. Sorry if I bored you, just figured some of you guys and gals would have some intellectual rebuttals worth a discussion.

Gheenz

I agree with you 100%, but you have to also look at what the war in Iraq has really done. It has undermined the war on terror. Instead of eliminating Al-Qaeda, we let them get bigger, stronger, and more able. So will we see another terrorist attack? More than likely. And we have no one to blame but ourselves. Had Bush attacked Iraq say in another year or two and given all those resources to the war on terror, I think it would be a different story (in terms of the American public's support for our leadership and military roles).

__________________
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

DR_PHIL

with all the press and real time viewings of the killings..war of today is very different than WW2..this brings it all very close to home.

StuartD

the world wars were started by countries trying to enter other countries.

this "war" was started by a country trying to enter another country.

I don't support invasions no matter who does the invading.

__________________
This is me on facebook
This is me on twitter

studio

Hi,

I don't know if you cought the news briefing this morning... But Tony Blair told it like it is... The UK is lucky to have such a great leader... And all the people that are not supporting our troops, are most likely the ones that give their "kids time outs" instead of a gold old fashion spanking...

Great Job with your writing llabtaem...

Denny

__________________

CamChicks

US media crucifies Saddam for killing the same people we're killing now.
Either it's justifiable to kill them or it's not. That debate is complex.
But can we at least kill this hypocritical doublestandard?

__________________

camchicks.com

ItBurnsWhenIpee

You think Saddam deserved anything but getting the shit kicked out of his regime? Should madmen not be invaded and their people be freed, simply because the word "invasion" sounds bad?

I think what you're missing here is the purpose of invasions in respect to the people of the country. If the people are being invaded to be oppressed, that is one thing. But invasion that gets rid of oppresion and murder is different.

StuartD

And that's your choice to make? mine? Bush's?

Who decides who should and shouldn't be allowed to kill people? Which country decides how other countries should be run and what laws or standards they should have to live by?

Obviously the Iraqi people are very grateful. See how they celebrate?

__________________
This is me on facebook
This is me on twitter

Elli

The US didn't object in when they let Saddam kill vast numbers of poor rebels after the US backed out of Iraq the first time. Now all of sudden he's primary objective number one, ten years and more later. I would support a war effort if I agreed with the REAL reasons behind it. But I haven't even been told the real reasons, so how can I support an administration that doesn't trust its own citizens enough to be honest with them?

blah.

nb: I have nothing but gratitude and respect for individuals who have chosen to lay their life on the line for their own country. This isn't about them.

__________________
email: [email protected]

KRL

You have Cliff Notes on this post?

__________________
If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor
from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION!
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

CamChicks

Right. Because calm rational people don't embrace violence.
vs. people who were taught at a very young age that if someone does something you don't like, the solution is to hit them.

__________________

camchicks.com

ItBurnsWhenIpee

Maybe instead of making vague generalizations about the topic, we should look at the specific scenario. A country where the leader could have classes of 12 year old girls come to his palace, and choose which ones to rape. If anyone said anything bad about it, he could just order them and their whole family tortured and murdered. Let's deal with the real world, not hippie-style pontificating.

And yes the majority of Iraqis polled are glad the US has taken out Saddam. If you think rebel groups still fighting us are indicitive of the Iraqi people, wake up.

StuartD

Exactly...

Give me a war with a justified reason... something that the people of the world can stand behind and support... and I'll be in the cheering section myself.

But obviously this isn't a war that the people of the war can stand behind.

Bush supporters would have us believe that the entire world is wrong, and wimpy.

Perhaps it's just that the rest of the world has a different view, a less brainwashed view, a more unbaised view.... a more accurate view.

__________________
This is me on facebook
This is me on twitter

llabtaem

Need you be told the reasons? The terror is in the news daily. What other reasons do you need? I'm not trying to start an argument, just a discussion

And also when you state, "nb: I have nothing but gratitude and respect for individuals who have chosen to lay their life on the line for their own country. This isn't about them. "

Well, everytime you have something negative to say (People in general, not you Elli it effects them. It is about them. ) it effects them. It effects the overal morale of the people involved.

llabtaem

Okay MaksedMan. What would be proper jusification for war in your eyes? I'm curious

Mr.Fiction

Right wingers say they support the war, but they aren't willing to make any sacrifices to pay for it. They want a tax break in the middle of Bush's war. That's not supporting the troops.

__________________
Don't be lazy, protect free speech: ACLU | Free Speech Coalition | EFF | IMPA

StuartD

Oil of course. Viva la Bush!

__________________
This is me on facebook
This is me on twitter

ItBurnsWhenIpee

Touche'. I am selfish in that respect, a tax break in the middle of a war I support does sound nice. But at least I'm not selfish in the way of thinking we should sit idly by when millions could be free from a madman.

Rochard

Finally someone said something smart.

WWII was a different beast, and cost much more in lives - but so much more was at stake. It's a bit different when you have Nazi Germany recklessly attacking and over running dozens of countries vs. Iraq who's problems and wars were mostly internal with the exception of Iran and Kuwait.

The public feared Nazi Germany; No one complained. The US lost how many men? Two million? And yet that was a drop in the bucket compared to what Russia lost.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

Libertine

So you're calling Bush a liar? He said it was about weapons of mass destruction and shit.


The wacky muslim fundamentalists say the exact same thing about Dubya. Does that give them the moral right to attack the US, knowing full well that innocent civilians will get killed?


Actually, a very different situation. The Germans, the Italians and the Japanese were officially allies, the Japanese attacked the US before they got declared on by the US, and the Germans and the Italians declared war on the US before the US declared on them.

Saddam and Al Qaeda, on the other hand, didn't have any real connection apart from both severely disliking the US. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing whatsoever, apart from probably seeing it on tv and having a good laugh.


Yeah, plundering the middle east will really put an end to terrorism. Good thinking, Spanky.

Gheenz

You're partially correct. It was oil, maybe some payback for his dad, but look at it from a positivie standpoint also. We did take out a guy who killed, raped, and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own people for nothing more than his own pleasure. Yeah, we did help him take control, we fucked that up. We should have stayed out of that region and watch it destroy itself in the first place. But we didn't. Just like we didn't present day. But that's reality. And as someone mentioned earlier, Iraqis are more than happy we're there; despite the fighting in three cities (where most people we're loyal to Saddam b/c he didn't rape, torture, and kill them), it can't be taken as indicitive for the rest of the country's feelings. Look at cities in the south, like Basra, where British troops are occupying. How many British troops have you heard killed this past month? So even though we dropped the ball and screwed the pooch on this one, I think people should still get behind their country.

__________________
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

Libertine

Good point, actually; a big difference is that while Nazi Germany, Japan, etc did pose a threat and managed to conquer half the world, Iraq was no threat at all.

ItBurnsWhenIpee

Dubya doesn't rape and murder Americans for fun. Let's cut the "who's to say what's wrong and right in these crazy times?" bullshit.

Elli

Yes, I need to be told the reasons. Ireland has been the victim of terrorism for decades, as has Palestine, Israel, India, lots of Africa, etc etc. The US is not the only country to experience terror attacks by a radical group.

The daily news is a fear mongering machine let by multinationals who are wanting those tax breaks from Bush.

If every time I have something negative to say, it affects their morale, then people should stop asking for opinions. When I ask my man, "Does this dress make me look fatter than I am?" He says, "Yes." I have no right asking for an opinion and not expecting honesty in return.

Now the time has come to liberate Americans from their evil tyrant dictator.

__________________
email: [email protected]

llabtaem

WWII started long before the US got involved. It was Pearl Harbor that incited our participation.

Middle Eastern Muslim Fundamentalism has been around for a LONG time too. It was September 11th that brought us back into the Middle East

ItBurnsWhenIpee

Very cute, but a dictator doesn't go to congress first to approve war, and get bi-partisan support.

Libertine

Actually, the Sunni supporters of Saddam aren't the only ones that pose a problem. The fanatical Shia groups also hate you Americans with a passion. The Kurds, when they find out that they won't get their own country, a big amount of autonomy, or even protection from Turkish raids, will start fighting again as well.

Truth is that most Iraqi people are against the west and the US specifically, and once the dust has settled (it might well settle only after a civil war in which the country is divided in two) it will become clear that they still don't love the US.

Elli

No, a dictator just thumbs his nose at an international diplomatic body designed to keep the world from falling apart at the seams. Oh wait, both Saddam and Bush did that.

__________________
email: [email protected]

Libertine

Nothing to do with "crazy times". People always think that "their" side is right. Most muslims think the US and Israel are in league and want to destroy all muslims.

llabtaem

And Ireland, Palestine, Israel & India have had a staunch revolt for many years, WITH their people backing them. What makes you think that the US should not fight back? I know that the US is not the only country to be terrorized. We were blinded by thousands of miles of oceans and the unrealistic notion that we would be safe. We were wrong. Should we sit on standby and wait for something else to happen? Or should we nip this problem in the butt before it gets way too out of hand and we end up like Ireland, Palestine, India etc.

Because we have the funds, people & resources to protect ourselves shouldn't be a cause for irate or maybe even possibly hard feelings or hatred.

Having some sickos insurge into the US, learn our customs and ways of life (Which are completely different from theirs) is sneaky and dastardly. This is a REAL situation with REAL consequence. One way or the other, it needs to be stopped.

ItBurnsWhenIpee

I understand that. All I'm saying is quit the rhetorical bullshit and deal with what YOU believe in your heart is right. Was Saddam cool? Was what he was doing right? Should that be OK?

YES idiots can be convinced of anything. What have you been convinced of?

Elli

I agree completely. I still maintain that honesty and forthrightness from the administration could have swayed me to support the war effort in the beginning. However, Bush and his administration has shown themselves to be completely untrustworthy and reckless. I can't support that.

__________________
email: [email protected]

ItBurnsWhenIpee

That's the definition of a dictactor, huh? It has nothing to do with whether he runs his own country by a democratic system? Have fun with your definitions

Magnus

Agreed he and his boyz were monsters....

but

Why then when a whole race of people in Rwanda..Women, Men, Children and Babies were being butchered in the streets in their homes in hospitals in schools..machetes bashing their skulls in, cutting V's in their skulls and left to suffer and die. Why were they not "liberated" ? Offered freedom from a mad man performing racial genocide? Where was the Worldy duty?

__________________
Magnus

Doctor Dre

USA probably killed as many ppl then Saddam killed in the past 10 years. .. You are there because you want to save Iraq ??? BULL FUCKING SHIT . Bush want to end up a personal war and get oil . In couple months / years from now you are gonna leave Irak with another dictatorship OR civil war.

__________________

ItBurnsWhenIpee

Good question. Someone should have stepped in. Do two wrongs make a right, though?

Elli

Putting words in my mouth.. I didn't say that was a definition. I said it was one of the signs of a dictator.

Democracy has a lot to do with the definition of a dictator. From Webster's: "Dictator: One invested with absolute authority; especially, a magistrate created in times of exigence and distress, and invested with unlimited power." It sounds like the power Bush assumed when he went ahead with the war effort despite the questions and international protests.

__________________
email: [email protected]

Libertine

You really seem to lack a clue.

#1: The US got involved before Pearl Harbor, by supplying Great Britain with food and other supplies (even though the ships were often attacked by German submarines), which is the sole reason that Great Britain managed to hold on for that long.
Had the US not done that, the Germans would have probably managed to break GB, and the war would have gone entirely different.

#2: The only reason Pearl Harbor happened was because everyone knew the US would get involved in the war sooner or later. There had already been several indications that they were starting to get more involved. Pearl Harbor was just an attempt by the Japanese to knock down the US before they could become a real threat, and basically scare them away from the conflicts in the area.

#3: SADDAM WAS NOT A MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALIST. Really, he wasn't. No, I mean it. He actually fought a big fucking war against the theocracy of Iran. The fundamentalist Shia groups in his own country hated him with a passion.
If anything, his fall will help muslim fundamentalism gain a foothold in Iraq.

#4: Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

#5: It was not 9/11 that brought the US back in the middle east. The US have supported Israel for many years now, they also support Turkey, and remember when the last Gulf War took place?
The US didn't get brought back to the middle east, they never left.

ItBurnsWhenIpee

You seem to be under the assumption that any country that acts without the full support of the entire world is a dictator. How do you decide which countries deserve a vote? France wanted Saddam in power for its own reasons, for instance.

Bush had the support of congress in America, and large countries like England, Spain, and Australia on his side. A dictator would have been able to order war without the support of congress, let alone allies.

Libertine

I am personally convinced that there is no "good" side. Saddam was a crazy, disgusting, almost inhumanly cruel dictator. The muslim fundamentalists are borderline retarded haters of all they don't understand - which is pretty much everything. Western imperialism has destroyed self-sufficient cultures and enslaved people simply because they had a different skin color. Communism has slaughtered millions of people for random reasons. Free market economy and democracy have raised trade barriers that cause millions of children in third world countries to starve each year, and have sacrificed millions of lives for slightly higher profit margins.


I have not "been convinced" of anything. I <b>am</b> convinced of something though, and that is that there is no hope for humanity. We are a race of selfish, cruel, bloodthirsty creatures, that will continue to make this world a living hell until a big fucking meteorite hits this planet and blows it all away.

llabtaem

#1) Britain is and was an ally. What's wrong with helping a brother out? We didn't sucker punch the other guy when we probably should have. We fucked up, hence Pearl Harbor - the rest is history.

#2) Try to knock us down? Well, I guess they hit the wrong target. Before we could become a REAL THREAT? We were the threat. Think about it for a second.

#3) He may not be one per sey - but just because he has an organized version of Al Quaeda doesn't make it any better. Do you think he would have a problem helping out some fellow Muslims with similar ideas and anti West beliefs? There are many reports out there that Atta from the Twin Towers had ties to Iraq and Saddam's inner circle.

#4) Directly? Maybe not. Indirectly? Absolutely. If he could have sunk a 20 megaton ICBM into Manhattan he would have a long time ago. He preaches this anti Western crap, and people listen. Then small sects of idiots like Al Quaeda pop-up. Why? Propaganda from dickwads like Saddam.

#5) They were "Brought Back". Do you think all these troops were there when it started? What about the ones going over now? Were they there too? Read into my statements and don't take everything I hahahahaha so literally. I know there were people there before this started. Just nowhere near the number there are now.

ItBurnsWhenIpee

Sadly, I think we can all agree on that

Libertine

#1: It has nothing to do with something being wrong with "helping a brother out". I said that the US were involved, which you just admitted yourself. Thanks.

#2: They knew the US were the threat, mainly because of it's industrial capabilities. They just made a miscalculation with regards to how the US would react to a first strike. But, once again, you only confirm the point I was making: Pearl Harbor happened *because* the US were a threat. Thanks again.

#3: Al Qaeda were not Saddam's "fellow muslims". Saddam was fiercely opposed to a theocracy, and most fundamentalists were fiercely opposed to Saddam. Saddam even fought the fundamentalists.
Also, there are many reports that Elvis is still alive as well. "Many reports" means fuck all. Give some proof, then we'll talk.

#4: Saddam almost certainly had nothing to do with 9/11, neither directly nor indirectly. Even your own government reported on that. He and the fundamentalists were basically enemies. The only reason they sometimes got along in words is that they both hated the US. Saddam, however, would never have attacked the US, because he knew his reign would end about 12 hours after the attack.
There are many types of "anti-western", and they don't all get along.

#5: 9/11 made the US even more active in the middle east, yes. Your point with that is?
Besides, it doesn't change the fact that the US were already very present, with huge loads of (military) aid to both Israel and Turkey.

Rich

Ok, you say you want intellectual rebuttals. I assume you're not serious, but here it goes. Please, read what I'm about to wr<!f>ite and think about what I'm saying instead of thinking about how you're going to come back to it to continue convincing yourself that you're right and I'm wrong. I promise to give your response the same.

On September 11th, Saudi Citizens trained and paid for by Osama Bin Laden killed 3000 people. After the first plane hit, Bush went into a children's classroom to read a book. After they told him the 2nd plane hit, he sat their with a smile on his face, and read the story. He could have been scrambling planes, or at least been somewhere where he could have done that if need, seeing as he's the ONLY MAN IN AMERICA who is authorized to give the command to shoot down American civilians. Anyone who has worked in an air traffic control tower or been in the air force knows the other 3 planes should have been shot down. When everyone was banned from flying after 9/11, he rounded up all the Bin Laden relatives and Saudi Royals and flew them out of the country, even though the FBI wanted to question them. Turns out Bush has been doing business with them for years. Now, I understand that most republicans are not capable of admitting anything negative about Bush, but these are all facts that the administration does not deny. These are facts everyone should know, and any one of them should be an impeachable offense, but the media would rather talk about gay marriage and other distraction issues. Certainly Republicans will retort with mindless rambling about the Saudi's being good, Osama being the only bad apple in the family, etc. The truth is as recently as last year BOTH were found funding terrorism though a Washington based charity. The terrorist training camps continue to flourish, yet Bush has never mentioned them, and actually pulled troops out of the country.

Now, assuming you haven't yet switched into right wing defense mode and started writing something about a tin foil hat or my post being to long, you'll be asking yourself, why the fuck would they let 9/11 happen and then not catch the killers? Well, for the answer to this I'll refer you to the neo conservative report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses". If you don't know, the Neo Conservatives are a group of people who believe that America should control the entire world, and to do whatever it takes to ensure that no other nation becomes a competing super power. In the Reagan and Bush administrations, they were considered hardliners, they were there with their views but no one planned on following them, people had the common sense to realize that their goals were unattainable and pointless. Then comes Bush and his Vice President, king of the neo cons mr. Dick Cheney. Once they get in power, they fill other key positions with prominent neo cons, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle. They have policies about nearly every foreign policy issue, which always follow the same line of America controlling every nation's economy and natural resources.

You can read all about them on their own website http://www.newamericancentury.org,,,/ (remove 3 commas from url). I suggest starting in "Publications and Reports" - "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century". I'm sorry, but if you're going to vote for Bush, or push your views on the war, you really don't have enough information without having read at least this one report.

Among many other things they talk all about Iraq, how whatever nation gets their oil could become a super power. It also talks about fighting multiple simultaneous "theater wars" to prove American dominance. Notice George Bush referred to Iraq as a "theater in the war on terror" during his speech. The report also talks about creating the ballistic missile defense program, creating new and more powerful nukes, both things Bush has started. They're trying to start another cold war, which is why they don't want to get Bin Laden or any real threats to America.

In this report, they realize that it will take decades to convince the American people to buy this imperialism, unless of corse, they had September 11th to exploit.

"Further, the process of transformation even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".

This administration did nothing to stop the WTC attacks, and have since exploited the sympathy and fear of the American people so they don't question their hardline agenda. They didn't tell you before they went into Iraq that it was to help the Iraqi people or provide stability in the middle east or whatever shit they're saying now, no, they say Iraq was responsible for 9/11, and that Iraq has WMD. If you think Bush and Cheney care about middle east democracy, tell me what dictator is ruling Iraq 5 years from now.

Their plan is to have never ending war and poverty. Their plan is to start the draft in June 2005. Their plan is to use fear and religion as tools to exploit the goodness of the American people, so they can fulfill their insane plot and give huge no bid war contracts to themselves and their friends.

Please stop allowing Fox and other news stations to summarize the news for you. Do a little reading a research for yourself. When TV tells you about something that you find interesting, something that will be affecting your opinions, go online and read the full story. You're comparing this war to WWII, which is laughable to most rational thinking people. The comparisons end at the # of people killed on US soil. Unfortunetly because of Bush's lack of doing anything to fight the real terrorists, more likely than not there will be another tragic event in the US, which Cheney will then use to go into Iran, Syria, or one of the other countries on his hit list. Everything I've said in this post comes directly from the mouths of Dick Cheney and the neo cons, or from the Sept 11 hearings. The full hearings, not the 8 minute clips they show on TV.

Now, logically, looking at all this should raise an eyebrow. The truth is, we're going to have people like 12clicks and netrodent in this thread with half ass responses tha Fox and talk radio have trained them to say when they here something that proves them wrong. "You're lying", "You're a moron", and "it was all Clinton's fault" are three that I'm predicting. They argue because they don't believe anything besides the official whitehouse story... to look at reality would be to admit they were wrong. I understand not wanting to admit mistakes, I understand years if not decades of believing one thing, I understand pressure to not disappoint parents, I understand all the reasons people make up excuses not to even try to look for the truth. It's a lot nicer to live in a world where you're always right, always doing the right thing, and always safe. Too bad that isn't reality.

You're being told that to be a conservative is to support Bush and the war machine, but that's simply not true. You're being told that to question it is to be unpatriotic and means you don't support the troops, that couldn't be further from the truth. Anyone who looks at the situation without bias can easily see what's going on. Why continue to belive and support an administration that has been proven to have lied to you over and over again?

Tex Willer

there's no sense for one to go to war
whichever side you're fighting for you're fool and being used
it's age of slavery again it's just some of you are not seeing it yet

if you'd go to war you'd find yourself having more respect for a poor guy on the other side than for people that've put you in trench

there are rich and poor
and there are good and bad
and that's all

God bless you all

__________________

Rich

I agree with you about the backwards way the US is supporting their troops, but it's not the peoples fault. The government is cutting taxes, which has never been done during wartime by any country in recorded history, and has been saying shit like "don't change your lifestyle or buying habits, or else the terrorists win". Meanwhile they pull restrictions off gas consumption so every redneck with a small penis is driving a god damn Hemi, an engine common sense made illegal in the 70's. This is the exact opposite of what to do during a war, as I'm sure your Grandfather has told you.

I guess so is invading the wrong country, so everything's about on par with these clowns.

Centurion

The only problem I really have with your post is the premise for it:

"We are in Iraq simply because we felt it our wordly duty to rid a tyrannical man of power."


1)No we're not. Remember the wmds, terrorists, etc we were told about that existed there?

2)That's not what the Prez told the world and the U.S. citizens before the war started as the reason FOR going to war.

Rich

It's as if people try to forget everything that's not on TV right now.

Cyborg 2.0

bush claimed to go war to fight the war on terror and Al-Qaeda
when Sadam was in power there was no Al-Qaeda in iraq he hated Al-Qaeda now there are breed of every terror organization in Iraq

__________________
Need custom scripting?
Need mutli category tgp script with thumb previews?
Contact me 19671897

12clicks

No, I prefer to laugh at liberal halfwits like yourself who don't have a clue.
Yes child, when someone points out your bullshit, they were "trained by FOX and talk radio"

Simple statements from simple fucks like yourself are only worthy of half ass responses.
The intellect behind the above post, while being small, is laughable.

__________________