ForumGarden

Scrat;670446 wrote: Typical. Had no clue about life and no clue about what he was getting into.


Rather than being so disparaging of someone who joined the army for reasons you disagree with why don't you save your ire for the politicians that take advantage of the situation for their own ends and don't see it as part of their responsibility to do anything to make things better for people like Kube.

posted by scrat

At the age of 17 I knew I either had to go to college or join the military. I decided to join the military as I felt I was young and wanted to see a little of the world and it was a good way to do it. While I was in I saved enough to get some schooling too which helped immensely. I graduated from high school, I had people in my family to give me a little advice too here and there.


Typical. Had no clue about life and no clue about what he was getting into.


Sounds like you and had a lot in common. If you had died in combat do you think you should have had the same comments made about you? Stupid kid didn't know any better is not much of an argument and does you little credit.

In the UK and Europe we also honour and respect the fallen in wars Every small town you go to there is a column with lists of the fallen-the cities just have bigger ones and more of them. But there not a glorification of war like there seems to be in the states but rather sadness at the futility of it all and a tacit promise not to let it happen again and not to be fooled by politicians.

About the same time this guy died two teenage soldiers of the black watch were being buried. Hundreds lined the streets in silence to pay their respects nobody thought they were stupid kids or if they did had the sense to keep that opinion to themselves.

There is a lot of anger about this war but it is not directed at the troops. True he didn't have to go just as the teenagers in the Black Watch didn't but i don't think you can detract from their motives even if you think them wrong.

posted bt Scrat

Eygpt is using terror tactics on it's own civilian population to keep the dictator Mubarrak in power.


I trust that was a slip up and you really don't think Mubarrak is president of Egypt.

Iran is not the problem. Pakistan is, they have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Saudi is where all the money comes from.

gmc;672805 wrote: I trust that was a slip up and you really don't think Mubarrak is president of Egypt. Hosni Mubarak? He might not be for much longer but he is at the moment. What had you in mind when you wrote that?

Slip-up debate aside, good post gmc.

spot;672809 wrote: Hosni Mubarak? He might not be for much longer but he is at the moment. What had you in mind when you wrote that?


Musharraf/ Mubarak:-5:-5:-5:-5

My apologies, I can't tell my masharraf from my mubarak. Or as the spell checker would have it my razor-sharp from subarctic.

I reckon Pakistan is a good candidate to become the next fundamentalist state. Egypt might but they don't have nuclear weapons. Musharraf has already shown a disposition to hang on to power regardless.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 159249.ece

Actually this maybe says things better than I can. Transcends the cultural divide I think.

spot;670243 wrote: It's not often one sees as precise and accurate a summary of the last few years as this. I congratulate you.



Yes, Iraq is the main front of AQ's war on the US. That's because it's where you sent your troops. If you'd sent them to Sweden then Sweden would be the main front of AQ's war on the US. They fight you where they find you by the look of it.
congratulations accepted.



So spottt, if we had attacked Mexico they would have shown up there too?????

RIGHT!!!!!!

NOT.......



How bout this????????

They attacked (SUCKEr PUNCHED) the USA (Sept 11th, 2001) before we attacked ANYONE.......



Can I ask you, oh MR. SWAMIE........, WHY did they (al qaeda) attack the USA and start this whole mess????

(Me thinks it is religious)



And about Iraq and the liberation of the millions of suppressed citizens.....

Please do not make me show you for the 5th time how most the world was SO sure Saddam was a loose cannon that needed to be addressed prior to the liberation of Iraq............

(Remember "POST and PRE 9/11?")



HOW many UN resolutions were there? 2? 5? 12?

Or do you care?



Remember "FOOD 4 OIL?"



Could this ("FOOD 4 OIL?") be WHY NATO/UN did not support the LIBERATION and cause the death of thousands?

See link below from wikipedia:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme



Then try this link......



http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/13456.htm



You may ask, how could the lack of support to enforce their (UN) resolutions cause the death of thousands?



I say this:



If the UN, NATO and the REST of the free world would have been with us (as they postured prior to the liberation) HAND and HAND, then this stinkin war would have ENDED YEARS ago.....



Remember the Kosovo/Serbian invasions? Was that not a NATO/UN supported invasion of a suppressed country? What are the requirements to invade?

Sadaams crap was not???

posted bts BTS

How bout this????????

They attacked (SUCKEr PUNCHED) the USA (Sept 11th, 2001) before we attacked ANYONE.......




I know you weren't addressing me but pardon my tuppence worth. I'm curious. Why do you believe Iraq had anything to do with 911 and Al Queda?

posted by BTS

Can I ask you, oh MR. SWAMIE........, WHY did they (al qaeda) attack the USA and start this whole mess????

(Me thinks it is religious)


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/ ... index.html

No al Qaeda, Iraq cooperation

The panel said it found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The Bush administration has said the terrorist network and Iraq were linked.

In response, a senior administration official traveling with President Bush in Tampa, Florida, said, "We stand by what Powell and Tenet have said," referring to previous statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet that described such links.

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that Iraq was harboring Abu Musab Zarqawi, a "collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," and he said Iraq's denials of ties to al Qaeda "are simply not credible."

In September, Cheney said Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bush, responding to criticism of Cheney's comment, said there was no evidence Saddam's government was linked to the September 11 attacks.


I won't bother posting a link to the 911 commission report as I assume you have read it-hence the question why do you believe Iraq was involved in 911.

For all the countries involved in the middle east it has always been about oil. If there was none do you really think anyone outside of those countries would care what happens within them?

Scrat;673721 wrote: No point in offending sensibilities further.
or even so much

gmc;673243 wrote: I know you weren't addressing me but pardon my tuppence worth. I'm curious. Why do you believe Iraq had anything to do with 911 and Al Queda?




Don't take my quote out of context............Did I say they (Iraq) did?

No........... I said Saddam was a LOOSE cannon that refused to yield to the UN sanctions that were imposed on him and I believe after 9/11 his actions warranted his ass spankin............. and HANGIN

BTS;676003 wrote: Don't take my quote out of context............Did I say they (Iraq) did?

No........... I said Saddam was a LOOSE cannon that refused to yield to the UN sanctions that were imposed on him and I believe after 9/11 his actions warranted his ass spankin............. and HANGIN


Perhaps I misunderstood your posts-you are the one who seemed to equate alqueda with Iraq in some great middle east conspiracy against America when in fact the two had nothing to do with each other until after the invasion. Since Saudi financed Al queda invading them or at least stopping the cash flow would have made some sense. Going after alqueda in afghanistan might have made some sense and would have had a lot of international support, invading Iraq just made things worse.



from one one your earlier posts

If you say this is so then I say you are spittin on their graves..........

many Americans are STILL PISSED about the sucker punch we took Sept. 11th 2001 and feel that Iraq was a strategic move to control the middle east threat we were experiencing at the time.


What middle east threat? You seem to have bought in to this idea that there is some great plot to bring about radical change in America by force. The whole notion is ridiculous. 911 was a terrorist attack not one by a major nation state bent on conquest. It was more to do with the internal politics of Saudi Arabia than anything else. Democracies are brought down from within not by outside attack.

why does al qaeda state that Iraq is the main front of their war on us(infidels)?

If this is so as THEY say, then they are HOOKED up and TOO busy to attack us again.

If so (AND IT IS SO) then this is one reason why we have not been attacked since the first SUCKER PUNCH. The other is our tightened security that the ACLU loaths......


There is no way you can stop terrorist attacks except by good intelligence and eventually removing their finance and support base. Arrest and imprisonment without trial-they've already got you to remove one of the essential planks of a free society. Score one to those who want to destroy freedom in the US.

How bout this????????

They attacked (SUCKEr PUNCHED) the USA (Sept 11th, 2001) before we attacked ANYONE.......

Can I ask you, oh MR. SWAMIE........, WHY did they (al qaeda) attack the USA and start this whole mess????

(Me thinks it is religious)

And about Iraq and the liberation of the millions of suppressed citizens.....

Please do not make me show you for the 5th time how most the world was SO sure Saddam was a loose cannon that needed to be addressed prior to the liberation of Iraq............

(Remember "POST and PRE 9/11?")


How about Pakistan? loose cannon with nuclear weapons run by a military dictatorship-is it only democracy if it suits america.

You can't impose democracy by force-it won't happen unless the people accept it.

I will speak only from my experience, when I joined the military I was 17, tall skinny unsure of my place in all of this. I felt I would get all I was missing. I did feel I should be willing to die in defense of my beliefs. Several years later it was my turn to "go to war", in the movies it seems glamorous- in real life it's just too real. Then things were being fired in in my general direction and exploding and the pettiness of the commonplace BS vaporized and well nothing has been just right since. I feel for the young mans family, for his life not lived , for the stupidity and arrogance and 3 year-old mentality that we seem to use to justify killing one another. Now I' m a civilian just trying to get my head right. So I get up every day and if my children and wife and animals have what they need, I am thankful.