Orlandomon wrote:huh? now this turns into personal attacks? thats pretty pathetic. but anyway, i have never supported the war in iraq, and never will. ill support american troops when they actually have a good cause for war. this is solely my opinion, and im not changing my mind anytime soon, so theres no point in trying to argue. but as of current events, lets just say im not very happy with americans, even if i myself am an american.

whats pretty pathetic is you cant support at least our @!#$ troops over there, people like your should be sterilized.

and no your not american just cause you live or were born here doesnt make you american if u hate america and the government so much then leave its as simple as that.


your a Piece of sh*t. go die in a fire


-Borsty

I can't believe you bastards, why the hell did you put sacrifices in parentheses? Do you not think our soldiers sacrifice? I never knew we had people like this on jbo.

Should we have went in when and how we did? - No.

Can you blame the soldiers for that? - No.

Should we have went in eventually with other countries? - I don't know, Saddam is a horrible person and he deserves what he got and more. However there are bigger threats to America than him. We need to stop policing the world and just get in wars for our own security. Sad but true.

Are there ulterior motives for the war? - Yes, I believe so.

Are we making mistakes and are some bad thing happening? Yes, the decision makers are making mistakes and bad @!#$ is happening.

Can you blame the soldiers for that? - No.

If a soldier witnesses our troops doing bad things, does he have an obligation to tell others and refuse to participate? Yes, anybody who helps or covers it up is just as bad as the person doing the @!#$.

Did soldiers have a choice to go to war? Yes, they could have set on there asses like the rest of us, or claimed that they "would" die for their country. Instead, when duty called, THEY STEPPED THE @!#$ UP!

I support the troops to the fullest, from the bottom of my heart thank you for your efforts and SACRIFICES, see no parentheses hahaha. I have NO respect for those who do not support our troops, including those who sent them to war without proper armor, training and CAUSE while cutting VA benefits and "combat pay". I do not however support the war, yes I CAN do both!

bigj480 wrote:Should we have went in eventually with other countries? - I don't know, Saddam is a horrible person and he deserves what he got and more. However there are bigger threats to America than him. We need to stop policing the world and just get in wars for our own security. Sad but true.

The initial thrust of the war was for security against terrorists...

Quote:


Are we making mistakes and are some bad thing happening? Yes, the decision makers are making mistakes and bad @!#$ is happening.

Can you blame the soldiers for that? - No.

You most certainly CAN blame the soldiers that are committing criminal acts of their own accord. They give the rest of them a bad name. Politicians aren't responsible for that.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

This whole war sucks, and the worst part is that Bush is keeping it going to intimidate Iran into weapons inspections. Isn't that exactly how he started in Iraq?

As far as the actions of a few soldiers, if what they did was kill people in retalliation for an attack on them, then I would be supportive. Because the word "rape" was added, I can't support that. If they are to stand trial for their actions, I hope they find an impartial court to hear the case.

We need to bring our troops home and let Iraq run their own affairs. Actually, we need to bring ALL our troops home and let the rest of the world deal with their own issues, we've got enough problems stateside to worry about without spending uncounted billions on a country that no one here cares about.



.


John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Quote:

huh? now this turns into personal attacks? thats pretty pathetic. but anyway, i have never supported the war in iraq, and never will. ill support american troops when they actually have a good cause for war. this is solely my opinion, and im not changing my mind anytime soon, so theres no point in trying to argue. but as of current events, lets just say im not very happy with americans, even if i myself am an american.

Then why dont you explaom why you do not agree with going into Iraq. Or do you even have a argument?? Just wondering.

John Wilken wrote:This whole war sucks, and the worst part is that Bush is keeping it going to intimidate Iran into weapons inspections. Isn't that exactly how he started in Iraq?

I don't think the US is going to make Iran budge. The current administration isn't in much of any position to leverage the international community any more, and Iran hasn't made nuclear weapons. Even if they did, there's no way, short of mobilising all the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Russians, Europeans and several dozen other militaries, that you'd have an invasion with any chance of success, and by that point, you'd have the mid-east turn into even WORSE a war-zone.

Quote:


As far as the actions of a few soldiers, if what they did was kill people in retalliation for an attack on them, then I would be supportive. Because the word "rape" was added, I can't support that. If they are to stand trial for their actions, I hope they find an impartial court to hear the case.

From what I've read, the murder and rapes were "extra-curricular." I haven't seen anything suggesting that the acts of the soldiers in question were justifiable in the context of OIF. From what I've read, these were acts on civillians, not terrorists.

Quote:


We need to bring our troops home and let Iraq run their own affairs. Actually, we need to bring ALL our troops home and let the rest of the world deal with their own issues, we've got enough problems stateside to worry about without spending uncounted billions on a country that no one here cares about.

Here, I have to disagree with you.

The only way that you can possibly stop Iraq from turning into another Afghanistan in 20 years is to hold fast, and stay the course. At this point, everyone is pretty much agreed that is was a serious mistake to go into Iraq without a battle-plan, and at this point, the withdrawal of troops is the single biggest mistake that can be made.

I can honestly say that if there is any kind of seriousness in the current administration about bringing Iraq into some semblance of peace, they would first lean HEAVILY on the current Iraqi government to at least Convene to draw up a constitution. Then, I would think they should start to hire more former military personnel as contractors and use Iraq based construction companies for the rebuilding of the infrastructure (ie, power, WATER, SEWAGE, communications, to start). After that, the only way I'd start to seriously consider bringing back troops is when the Iraqi military and police were outfitted, trained and given marching orders to protect the country and it's people.

Some parts of this are being done (ie, the water, power and sewage is beginning to be brought back up, but power is still only available for about 20-22 hours a day, water and sewage still get mixed because the potable water mains are broken into in poorer areas because of poor pressure, and sewage infiltrates in), but not enough to justify the reduction of personel numbers.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Gam, water electricity and other core functions will be restored with or without our military involvement. If anything, our presence there causes more bombings and slows the rebuilding from people being afraid to live their lives as they did before the invasion.

Let's fast-forward to a time when Iraq has established a central government, elected leaders and begins to form it's own military. There will come a point when their forces will be organized and in greater numbers than our own. If an Iraqi general decides to attack our troops (without approval of the Iraqi government), we will be left with 2 choices: start this mess all over again or send "sorry your kid is dead" letters to their parents. They don't want us there anymore, as is obvious by the consistant attacks against troops since we've been there, that feeling will only grow stronger once they have a leader to rally behind.

We could withdraw from Iraq but declair them "protected by the US" until such time as they finish rebuilding. In doing so, we prevent other countries from taking them over, and allow them the chance to self-govern.

And I agree with you about Iran, they're a lot tougher than Iraq. It'd be like the Russians trying to take over Afghanistan all over again.


.


John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

I wasn't talking specifically about the Military but the US oversight in Iraq hasn't made the repair and upkeep of infrastructure a major priority, IIRC 3 of Baghdad's 4 main potable water filtration facilities are still off line and really have no hope of getting back on in the next year; as a consequence of the embargo and trade sanctions with Iraq they couldn't get any water filtering systems over (because they're "dual use" for chem weapons), and the european & Canadian filtration companies are being kept out for one reason or another. Power, again, the main nuclear power station in Iraq is well north of Baghdad in Tikrit, and is still off line. The buildings that were bombed could have been cleared away for the most part by now, but they haven't by and large.

I realise it's going to take a lot of time, and I'm not expecting things to get done tomorrow, but things aren't moving as expediciously as originally forecast. It might be a better idea to keep the same troops number in the country, but rotate them out, and also solicit help from within Iraq, as well as from the EU and other countries. If the mission is at all humanitarian, or rebuilding, the US won't be able to do it all alone, at least, not at the speed of the need.

Back on topic, would anyone with better knowledge than I about the UCMJ know if the soldiers that are accused of the crimes are going to be courts martialled, or are they going to be tried by a civillian court?




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

DAMN I miss having you around Dan....... I cant wait to have you back in town, telling me how much Cavaliers suck...... We'll have to have a bigass party for our kids b-days next summer.

Stay strong.





SPD RCR Z - '02 Z24 420whp
SLO GOAT - '04 GTO 305whp
W41 BOI - '78 Buick Opel Isuzu W41 Swap

Gam, TIME OUT !! We're not the only country who has an issue with Iran having nukes, damn near the whole world does ! The US is tring the diplomatic way like the rest of the world is.


So if these soldiers ( and believe me I use that term very loosly here ) shouldn't be charged with the other soldiers murder for them being killed in revenge do you think they should be charged with man slaughter ? Because these 2 guys are dead as a result of this woman being raped and her family shot and burned. I think they should be.





Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

i support Dan (railS), and jackalope, and borsty and all his gay love

stay strong Dan
i appreciate what you do everday

We all love gay Borsty!





Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Actually, Orlando, in the context of the .org, is right.

According to 4xchamp, apparenly i'm "Satan Made Flesh". I also happen to be an american (yes, it was an accident ). Ergo, the devil is american.

However, i'm not Orlando's tunnelboss. Let's face it, any place that has that much heat, humidity, and a populace that *actually* elected Jeb Bush as governor has to suck like a 12 year old girl at a hillbilly bachelor party. Hence i was never there, will never be there, and my penis isn't the 2000 plus miles long in order to have buttsex with someone across the country. Sorry Orlando .

And on this topic, yes, the soldiers that did rape and murder the family in iraq should be castrated with a rusty fishook then thrown screaming into the blades of a helicopter, but no, they shouldn't be held acountable for the murders of their platoon members. And hahaha is correct, this isn't a new thing. But it doesn't justify it in any way shape or form.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

bigj480 wrote:Should we have went in eventually with other countries? - I don't know, Saddam is a horrible person and he deserves what he got and more. However there are bigger threats to America than him. We need to stop policing the world and just get in wars for our own security. Sad but true.

The initial thrust of the war was for security against terrorists...

That initial thrust was for "security against terrorists" because they said Saddam had ties to al qaeda and that he had WMDs, both proved to be false. Saddam disliked the al qaeda and saw them as a threat and the only thing he had that was even close to WMDs was some mustard gas that could not have been fired as designed because they have already been degraded. We should have went after Osama, north Korea and Saudi Arabia before worrying about Iraq.

Proof that there was no WMDs ignored before the war.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

bigj480 wrote:Are we making mistakes and are some bad thing happening? Yes, the decision makers are making mistakes and bad @!#$ is happening.

Can you blame the soldiers for that? - No.

You most certainly CAN blame the soldiers that are committing criminal acts of their own accord. They give the rest of them a bad name. Politicians aren't responsible for that.

I was talking about how bad the war is going over there, not any crimes. That is why I support our troops and not the war.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:The only way that you can possibly stop Iraq from turning into another Afghanistan in 20 years is to hold fast, and stay the course. At this point, everyone is pretty much agreed that is was a serious mistake to go into Iraq without a battle-plan, and at this point, the withdrawal of troops is the single biggest mistake that can be made.

I don't think everyone is in agreement at all, maybe the republicans are. Many people that think the "War will not be won militarily".

US army chief there are plenty more military or ex-military officers that feel the same, I don't feel like looking for the links.
72% of the troops want out in a year
The majority of Americans want us out
The majority of the Iraqis want us out.

Orlandomon wrote:ive said it once and ill say it again........

i dont believe that theres a devil... but if there is one, he is american. thats my take, and no one can make me think differently

Hahahaha wrote:As far as all the "sacrifices" that US troops are making there now, I can only say one thing. Remember that they had a choice, the Iraqi citizens did not.

Jackalope wrote:Gam, TIME OUT !! We're not the only country who has an issue with Iran having nukes, damn near the whole world does ! The US is tring the diplomatic way like the rest of the world is.

Only our leadership has a problem with Iran having nukes, I sure don't. My next door neighbor owns hunting rifles, does that mean that I should invade his house and take them from him because someday he may try to shoot me?

Why is it that a country whose founding principals are freedom and democracy consistantly try to take away the rights of other countries? Maybe Iran will have nukes, maybe not. Is it not our business to dictate what other countries do with their military, did we learn nothing from invading Iraq?

Jackalope wrote:So if these soldiers ( and believe me I use that term very loosly here ) shouldn't be charged with the other soldiers murder for them being killed in revenge do you think they should be charged with man slaughter ? Because these 2 guys are dead as a result of this woman being raped and her family shot and burned. I think they should be.

Glad we agree about charges here, it's not like those kids who threw rocks. These soldiers need to be held accountable for their actions.



.


John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Rails, I like your attitude. Most of these members on the war forum, they could care less about Iraqi people needing freedom at the hands of a dictator, who they themselves would rather have Saddam as their president of the United States. Every word these people say only serve one thing, to each his own agenda. They talk a good talk, but they are just merely words. They think they know you after something you have said, but that is to the extent they want to know you, so they can hold it against you later. They bad mouth pretty much every sense in every circumstance God might work, and act as if its serving us for the better. I wonder if anybody in here would be proud to say they are American. Not to many from this bs redirick have come someone like you putting the realities of action into perspective.
God bless you Rails <><


Smile, Jesus loves you!!!!! <><
Manchild-ProPain, out now, Sphereofhiphop.com

John, Please watch the evening news or any of the news channels or pick up a news paper and read it and you will se how its not just our leadership that has a problem with Iran its the leadership of damn near the whole world! And yes I do have a problem with them having nukes! Your neighbor and his guns can only take out a couple people at a time where as these nukes have been known to be able to cause a little more damage. And for a country who has had and still does have a govt. thats hostile to most of the free world and its neighbors and has been involved with terroism so closly in the past I would wonder why any sane person would say its ok!


BigJ480, So now the WMD's must meet your criteria to be deemed dangorous ? They didn't just find mustard gas ya know! They also found Serin gas too, both are very nasty and very deadly! Mustard gas too old to still be leathel you say ? Old weapons not as good ? How bout you got shot with a muzzel loaded musket and see if you don't die just the same! Just cause weapons are old DOES NOT MEAN they are no less deadly ! Old does not = nothing to worry about ! Oh they just found some old mustard gas no biggie. Dude dead is dead! AND Saddam most certainly DID have ties to terrorits! Look at how many of those training camps were found, or the fact that the media has reported money transfers to known terrorits from Saddam! AND how about the fact that he even gave some terrorists a place to live in and a monthly allowence and safe harbour from the US who was seeking them for the murdering of US citizens! But I guess you forgot about that huh ?



Now that said STAY ON TOPIC!!! The topic is NOT should we be in Iraq. NO NO its should the soldiers that commited crimes be held responcible for the deaths of the soldiers killed in retaleation for the crimes commited by these 2. Now if you'd like to start your own thread about should we be there I'd welcome it gladly but please unless you have a serious reading comprehension problem I'd ask you to STAY ON TOPIC !!!




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Jackalope wrote:John, Please watch the evening news or any of the news channels or pick up a news paper and read it and you will se how its not just our leadership that has a problem with Iran its the leadership of damn near the whole world! And yes I do have a problem with them having nukes! Your neighbor and his guns can only take out a couple people at a time where as these nukes have been known to be able to cause a little more damage. And for a country who has had and still does have a govt. thats hostile to most of the free world and its neighbors and has been involved with terroism so closly in the past I would wonder why any sane person would say it's ok!

Would I be any less dead after being shot in the head with a deer slug or in the blast area of a nuke? My point is that I have a good relationship with my neighbor because we both have mutual respect, so I am not afraid that he has guns. You don't get mutual respect when you try to dictate what your neighbors can and can't do. That applies for my neighbor and for countries in the world community. Other countries wouldn't want to cause us harm (either through war, nukes or terrorism) if we didn't try to dictate how they are allowed to run their country. Simply put, we started all the problems by trying to bully smaller countries. If I tried to tell my neighbor how to cut his lawn or what to have for dinner, he'd get mad at me and then his weapons become a concern.

As far as other countries leaders having an issue with Iran having nukes, same story. England has nukes, but we don't get our hackels up because we have mutual respect for eachother. Iran is now in a position to be considered an equal, and not bow down to the demands of other countries or the UN. That scares people because we are used to being able to bully them.


.


John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

John Wilken wrote:

Jackalope wrote:John, Please watch the evening news or any of the news channels or pick up a news paper and read it and you will se how its not just our leadership that has a problem with Iran its the leadership of damn near the whole world! And yes I do have a problem with them having nukes! Your neighbor and his guns can only take out a couple people at a time where as these nukes have been known to be able to cause a little more damage. And for a country who has had and still does have a govt. thats hostile to most of the free world and its neighbors and has been involved with terroism so closly in the past I would wonder why any sane person would say it's ok!

Would I be any less dead after being shot in the head with a deer slug or in the blast area of a nuke? My point is that I have a good relationship with my neighbor because we both have mutual respect, so I am not afraid that he has guns. You don't get mutual respect when you try to dictate what your neighbors can and can't do. That applies for my neighbor and for countries in the world community. Other countries wouldn't want to cause us harm (either through war, nukes or terrorism) if we didn't try to dictate how they are allowed to run their country. Simply put, we started all the problems by trying to bully smaller countries. If I tried to tell my neighbor how to cut his lawn or what to have for dinner, he'd get mad at me and then his weapons become a concern.

As far as other countries leaders having an issue with Iran having nukes, same story. England has nukes, but we don't get our hackels up because we have mutual respect for eachother. Iran is now in a position to be considered an equal, and not bow down to the demands of other countries or the UN. That scares people because we are used to being able to bully them.


.

this guy took the words right outta my mouth, enough said. its true, the US doesnt get its panties in a bunch because england has nukes... but if iran has nukes.... ooooh... its a world threat.

Jackalope wrote:
What do you guys think, should these rapists and murders be held countable for the deaths of other soldiers when its their actions that lead to them being killed?

Well, trying them or not for the other soldier's deaths may not be relevant if the death penalty is already the option. I say execute the soldier, but for real justice, let the Iraqi's do it.


---

Ok so how likely is England to throw a nuke our way ? How about sell one to the highest bidder ? So I guess by your logic you wouldn't have an issue letting a convicted killer have a gun and walk around with it. I mean hey he never did nothing to you right? Take off your blinders and realize that these countries that are unstable and suffer form military coup's every few years should not be allowed to have weapons that could kill billions of people in a single stroke !

You guys live in a wonderful fantacy world filled with rainbows and butterflies and ferries froliking in the words.
While here in the real world we worry about such things like some wack job buying a discount nuke from Iran !




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

AGuSTiN wrote:

Jackalope wrote:
What do you guys think, should these rapists and murders be held countable for the deaths of other soldiers when its their actions that lead to them being killed?

Well, trying them or not for the other soldier's deaths may not be relevant if the death penalty is already the option. I say execute the soldier, but for real justice, let the Iraqi's do it.

Oh now THATS a great idea! I like that, let the Iraqi's handle them! No I'm not kidding that is a great idea.






Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Jackalope wrote:Ok so how likely is England to throw a nuke our way ?

Just as likely as the US would be to tell England they can't have nukes.

Jackalope wrote:How about sell one to the highest bidder?

During Reagan's presidency, the US SOLD WEAPONS TO IRAQ, and used the profits to pay for weapons to GIVE to the IRANIAN rebels. Remember the Oliver North trial? WE'VE already sold weapons to this "unstable" part of the world.

Jackalope wrote:So I guess by your logic you wouldn't have an issue letting a convicted killer have a gun and walk around with it. I mean hey he never did nothing to you right?

It's easy to get a gun illegally, which is why I have them legally. It's also illegal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, but crimanals do that too. If I had a pistol in a holster displayed in plain sight, that criminal would not try to rob me with a gun, as I am also armed. That makes me safer without firing a shot. I don't see Iran having nukes as anything more than a deterrant to keep other countries from trying to attack.

Jackalope wrote:Take off your blinders and realize that these countries that are unstable and suffer form military coup's every few years should not be allowed to have weapons that could kill billions of people in a single stroke !

OUR country goes through a coup every 4 years, it's called an election. Depending on your opinion of how exactly Dubya got elected, it could be called a "coup". We didn't have a war monger with Clinton, but Bush likes to fight. No difference between us and them as far as changing tides of leadership.

Jackalope wrote:You guys live in a wonderful fantacy world filled with rainbows and butterflies and ferries froliking in the words.
While here in the real world we worry about such things like some wack job buying a discount nuke from Iran !

I live in a world where alarmists try to cause panic and start wars where there is no reason.

I live in a world where fear of attack, not an actual attack, is justification to go to war.

I live in a world where paranoid behavior is considered acceptable and
non-paranoid behavior is condsidered "weird".

I live in a world where taking over a country and imprisioning it's leader on a rumor is considerded a just cause.

What world do you live in?


.



John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Yes and we all live in a post 9/11 world so get used to it. Has England taken any of our people hostage anytime lately ? Didn't think so.








Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.