Army bonuses may double.

[tec699]

let the poor fight the war. I have a very wealthy rich (think millionaire) who votes republican so I don't need to go to war.

Thanks for voting Republican.

 

[Engineer]

Another new poll. Support sinks even further for the war. I guess a few more people woke up.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Engineer
The ends don't justify the means!

I rob a convenience store...

I give $5,000 to a church which saves it from forclosure...

therefore, the crime is forgiven because it did something good in the end....


Same analogy except in a much larger context....and over 1,700 lives and $200,000,000,000 plus and rising quickly have paid for it.

Watch the numbers rise....

With the approval rating of the war at a 29% rate now, I wonder how far it would fall if there were a special appropriations envelope sent to everyone with a bill to pay for their share of the war (since the war money is kept separate from the general US budget, it should be separately paid for by the people).

:roll:

Your analogy is flawed to say the least. By your logic, we should have never entered WWII, because it cost us 400,000 american lifes and whatver the $$$ amount was.

And Iraq compares to Germany and Japan (of that time)? Not even in the ballpark. Talk about bad analogies.

Bad analogy? I beg to differ.

Invades neighboring countries.
An opressive minority rules majority with an iron fist.
No signs of political, religious, or cultural freedoms. Everything hss to be just so, as ruled by the dictator.
Defy international community.


Sounds familiar?

Pearl Harbor? Sound familiar?

And don't even relate the WTC / 9-11 to Pearl Harbor. Saudi Arabia had more to do with it than Iraq. Why, again, didn't we attack SA?

Osama is still loose, is he not?

Saddam was a shadow of his former self when we attacked in 2003. He was basically no threat to anyone but his own people.

Saddam was a bad man, but he was absolutely no Adolph Hitler.

You're right, 9/11 doesn't compare to Pearl Harbor. It was far worse.

Saddam was no threat to anyone? Really? A man with the largest military in the Middle East who has known not only threaten his neighbors, support terrorists, and invade other countries is no threat? :roll:

I guess that's what FDR was saying about Hitler before December 1941.

Bush I kicked Saddam's ass and reduced his military to peanuts. Saddam was a threat in 91....but was little, if any, after then to anyone, especially the US. Take your partisan blinders off....if you can get you head out of Bush's butt.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's a good thing we got class warfare on the poor and middle class in this country or we wouldn't have anybody to kill for our SUVs.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey
Do they give you two flags when they ship you home in a box?

Do you feel twice as good when your loved one dies in a war based entirely on lies? :|

psst. Here's a secret for you:

If people in the military don't want to potentially die in a war then they shouldn't have signed up in the first place.

There is some truth to your statement, but we all know that many are coerced into it. Maybe not by "kidnapping" like that one thread a few days ago, but the recruiters study market research and know what lies to tell to take advantage of the disadvantaged.
The reason Bush used the whole WMD thing to start his war was that his daddy had the receipt for the WMDs in his file cabinent. Never trust the CIA director, or his wayward cokehead children.

 

[BDawg]

IMHO, our position in Iraq is hurt because we don't have enough people. We don't have enough people because they're not wanting to sign up for Iraq. Therefore, we need a draft to improve our position in Iraq. However, Bush is too bullheaded to impose a draft because it's too unpopular and will cost Republicans votes.

Thank you for trading votes for the safety of our kids in Iraq.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Engineer
The ends don't justify the means!

I rob a convenience store...

I give $5,000 to a church which saves it from forclosure...

therefore, the crime is forgiven because it did something good in the end....


Same analogy except in a much larger context....and over 1,700 lives and $200,000,000,000 plus and rising quickly have paid for it.

Watch the numbers rise....

With the approval rating of the war at a 29% rate now, I wonder how far it would fall if there were a special appropriations envelope sent to everyone with a bill to pay for their share of the war (since the war money is kept separate from the general US budget, it should be separately paid for by the people).

:roll:

Your analogy is flawed to say the least. By your logic, we should have never entered WWII, because it cost us 400,000 american lifes and whatver the $$$ amount was.

And Iraq compares to Germany and Japan (of that time)? Not even in the ballpark. Talk about bad analogies.

Bad analogy? I beg to differ.

Invades neighboring countries.
An opressive minority rules majority with an iron fist.
No signs of political, religious, or cultural freedoms. Everything hss to be just so, as ruled by the dictator.
Defy international community.


Sounds familiar?

Pearl Harbor? Sound familiar?

And don't even relate the WTC / 9-11 to Pearl Harbor. Saudi Arabia had more to do with it than Iraq. Why, again, didn't we attack SA?

Osama is still loose, is he not?

Saddam was a shadow of his former self when we attacked in 2003. He was basically no threat to anyone but his own people.

Saddam was a bad man, but he was absolutely no Adolph Hitler.

You're right, 9/11 doesn't compare to Pearl Harbor. It was far worse.

Saddam was no threat to anyone? Really? A man with the largest military in the Middle East who has known not only threaten his neighbors, support terrorists, and invade other countries is no threat? :roll:

I guess that's what FDR was saying about Hitler before December 1941.

Bush I kicked Saddam's ass and reduced his military to peanuts. Saddam was a threat in 91....but was little, if any, after then to anyone, especially the US. Take your partisan blinders off....if you can get you head out of Bush's butt.

Yes, Bush Sr did a good job. I only wish he pushed for UN mandate to go all the way to Bagdad, but oh well. Back on topic. I would hardly call this peanuts.

 

[BBond]

How can you read Bush Sr's comments and still wish he went to Baghdad??? Don't you get it?

And your link proves what? That Bush and his neocon buddies did everything exactly wrong???

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: BBond
How can you read Bush Sr's comments and still wish he went to Baghdad??? Don't you get it?

And your link proves what? That Bush and his neocon buddies did everything exactly wrong???

Yes, I still wish he went all the way to Bagdad in '91, it would've saved thousands of live's down the road. Yes, I get it. My link was in response to Engineer's claim that Iraqi military was reduced to "peanuts" post-1991 war.

You may be surprised to learn that some people don't see things the same way you do. I hope it's not too much of a shock for you. Look on the bright side - we can agree to disagree. Argument is a zero-sum game.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: BBond
How can you read Bush Sr's comments and still wish he went to Baghdad??? Don't you get it?

And your link proves what? That Bush and his neocon buddies did everything exactly wrong???

Yes, I still wish he went all the way to Bagdad in '91, it would've saved thousands of live's down the road. Yes, I get it. My link was in response to Engineer's claim that Iraqi military was reduced to "peanuts" post-1991 war.

You may be surprised to learn that some people don't see things the same way you do. I hope it's not too much of a shock for you. Look on the bright side - we can agree to disagree. Argument is a zero-sum game.

I know you don't see things the way I do. I just marvel at the idea you'd actually choose to be wrong.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
Yes, Bush Sr did a good job. I only wish he pushed for UN mandate to go all the way to Bagdad, but oh well. Back on topic. I would hardly call this peanuts.

In his memoirs, A World Transformed (1998), written with Brent Scowcroft, on pp. 489 - 490, George H.W. Bush wrote:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

If only his idiot son could read!

For that matter, if only YOU could read.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: BBond
How can you read Bush Sr's comments and still wish he went to Baghdad??? Don't you get it?

And your link proves what? That Bush and his neocon buddies did everything exactly wrong???

Yes, I still wish he went all the way to Bagdad in '91, it would've saved thousands of live's down the road. Yes, I get it. My link was in response to Engineer's claim that Iraqi military was reduced to "peanuts" post-1991 war.

You may be surprised to learn that some people don't see things the same way you do. I hope it's not too much of a shock for you. Look on the bright side - we can agree to disagree. Argument is a zero-sum game.

I know you don't see things the way I do. I just marvel at the idea you'd actually choose to be wrong.

Write/wrong is a matter of opinion, which, in turn, is purely arbitrery.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: AnyMal
Yes, Bush Sr did a good job. I only wish he pushed for UN mandate to go all the way to Bagdad, but oh well. Back on topic. I would hardly call this peanuts.

In his memoirs, A World Transformed (1998), written with Brent Scowcroft, on pp. 489 - 490, George H.W. Bush wrote:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

If only his idiot son could read!

For that matter, if only YOU could read.

I can read it just fine. That's why I said Bush Sr he should have pushed for the UN mandate allowing colaition forces to occupy Iraq.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: BBond
How can you read Bush Sr's comments and still wish he went to Baghdad??? Don't you get it?

And your link proves what? That Bush and his neocon buddies did everything exactly wrong???

Yes, I still wish he went all the way to Bagdad in '91, it would've saved thousands of live's down the road. Yes, I get it. My link was in response to Engineer's claim that Iraqi military was reduced to "peanuts" post-1991 war.

You may be surprised to learn that some people don't see things the same way you do. I hope it's not too much of a shock for you. Look on the bright side - we can agree to disagree. Argument is a zero-sum game.

I know you don't see things the way I do. I just marvel at the idea you'd actually choose to be wrong.

Write/wrong is a matter of opinion, which, in turn, is purely arbitrery.

There is right and wrong. There is opinion. It's not arbitrary. Your opinion can be one hundred percent wrong. For example, George W. Bush and WMD. Although he really didn't state Iraq's WMD threat as an opinion. He made it sound like fact. But all the really good liars are able to make opinions sound like facts as long as their audience is willing to ingore the truth.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: BBond
How can you read Bush Sr's comments and still wish he went to Baghdad??? Don't you get it?

And your link proves what? That Bush and his neocon buddies did everything exactly wrong???

Yes, I still wish he went all the way to Bagdad in '91, it would've saved thousands of live's down the road. Yes, I get it. My link was in response to Engineer's claim that Iraqi military was reduced to "peanuts" post-1991 war.

You may be surprised to learn that some people don't see things the same way you do. I hope it's not too much of a shock for you. Look on the bright side - we can agree to disagree. Argument is a zero-sum game.

I know you don't see things the way I do. I just marvel at the idea you'd actually choose to be wrong.

Write/wrong is a matter of opinion, which, in turn, is purely arbitrery.

There is right and wrong. There is opinion. It's not arbitrary. Your opinion can be one hundred percent wrong. For example, George W. Bush and WMD. Although he really didn't state Iraq's WMD threat as an opinion. He made it sound like fact. But all the really good liars are able to make opinions sound like facts as long as their audience is willing to ingore the truth.

An opinion is not a fact, therefore can't be right or wrong. You may base your opinion on the fact, but it's still makes it neither right or wrong. Like the fact that is very well known that Saddam did posses WMD. Since UN weapons inspectors had virtually zero access to the suspected weapons sites Saddam had years to cover his tracks. I am sure you did hear about UN weapons inspectors vain attempts to keep tabs on Iraqi WMD's. I am sure you'll agree that it's reasonable to assume that 10+ years is plenty to cover any tracks while remaining a viable threat.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
An opinion is not a fact, therefore can't be right or wrong. You may base your opinion on the fact, but it's still makes it neither right or wrong. Like the fact that is very well known that Saddam did posses WMD. Since UN weapons inspectors had virtually zero access to the suspected weapons sites Saddam had years to cover his tracks. I am sure you did hear about UN weapons inspectors vain attempts to keep tabs on Iraqi WMD's. I am sure you'll agree that it's reasonable to assume that 10+ years is plenty to cover any tracks while remaining a viable threat.

Funny, you don't look gibberish. :roll:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Looney
Any recruit that's joining now knows exactly what they're getting into.

Which is why the military is now missing its recruitment targets so badly. Even those originally taken in by Bushwhacko's lies are finally waking up.

I'm just sad that so many died for the lies before they did.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: AnyMal
An opinion is not a fact, therefore can't be right or wrong. You may base your opinion on the fact, but it's still makes it neither right or wrong. Like the fact that is very well known that Saddam did posses WMD. Since UN weapons inspectors had virtually zero access to the suspected weapons sites Saddam had years to cover his tracks. I am sure you did hear about UN weapons inspectors vain attempts to keep tabs on Iraqi WMD's. I am sure you'll agree that it's reasonable to assume that 10+ years is plenty to cover any tracks while remaining a viable threat.

Funny, you don't look gibberish. :roll:

What's the matter Harvey? Is that the best reply you could come up with? Don't you just hate it when your opponent makes sense?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: Ferocious
$40k for certain positions.

Not surprising really.

I wouldn't my son or daughter dying for oil.

But I also don't like my taxes being used to lure the poor so they can die for my gas prices.

I would much rather that the military pays a more competitive salary to attract more recruits than have a draft instituted.

Actually i'd rather have a draft, so that in the future, 'pre-emptive' wars will be so unpopular, no president will ever think about doing it again.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
What's the matter Harvey? Is that the best reply you could come up with? Don't you just hate it when your opponent makes sense?

Based only on your posts, I'd have no way of knowing.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: AnyMal
What's the matter Harvey? Is that the best reply you could come up with? Don't you just hate it when your opponent makes sense?

Based only on your posts, I'd have no way of knowing.

ziiing, hehe

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: AnyMal
What's the matter Harvey? Is that the best reply you could come up with? Don't you just hate it when your opponent makes sense?

Based only on your posts, I'd have no way of knowing.

It's a good thing we're not basing it on your posts. There's enough hate and bigotry in this world without you.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: BBond
How can you read Bush Sr's comments and still wish he went to Baghdad??? Don't you get it?

And your link proves what? That Bush and his neocon buddies did everything exactly wrong???

Yes, I still wish he went all the way to Bagdad in '91, it would've saved thousands of live's down the road. Yes, I get it. My link was in response to Engineer's claim that Iraqi military was reduced to "peanuts" post-1991 war.

You may be surprised to learn that some people don't see things the same way you do. I hope it's not too much of a shock for you. Look on the bright side - we can agree to disagree. Argument is a zero-sum game.

I know you don't see things the way I do. I just marvel at the idea you'd actually choose to be wrong.

Write/wrong is a matter of opinion, which, in turn, is purely arbitrery.

There is right and wrong. There is opinion. It's not arbitrary. Your opinion can be one hundred percent wrong. For example, George W. Bush and WMD. Although he really didn't state Iraq's WMD threat as an opinion. He made it sound like fact. But all the really good liars are able to make opinions sound like facts as long as their audience is willing to ingore the truth.

An opinion is not a fact, therefore can't be right or wrong. You may base your opinion on the fact, but it's still makes it neither right or wrong. Like the fact that is very well known that Saddam did posses WMD. Since UN weapons inspectors had virtually zero access to the suspected weapons sites Saddam had years to cover his tracks. I am sure you did hear about UN weapons inspectors vain attempts to keep tabs on Iraqi WMD's. I am sure you'll agree that it's reasonable to assume that 10+ years is plenty to cover any tracks while remaining a viable threat.

d00d

Please WTFU. There was no WMD. The UN inspectors were THERE IN IRAQ telling everyone so.

There is no WMD. It was all a lie. WTFU, please.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
There's enough hate and bigotry in this world without you.

Or even with me. Nice way to duck any issues I've posted, especially since you haven't managed to refute any of them.

That's what you did with Engineer's posts and others, too. It seems to be your MO. You can't face the issues so you pick a couple of words in a post and cry about them instead of owning up to your total lack of any coherent thought. :laugh:

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: AnyMal
There's enough hate and bigotry in this world without you.

Or even with me. Nice way to duck any issues I've posted, especially since you haven't managed to refute any of them.

That's what you did with Engineer's posts and others, too. It seems to be your MO. You can't face the issues so you pick a couple of words in a post and cry about them instead of owning up to your total lack of any coherent thought. :laugh:

What issues did I duck? None. I am sorry for not following your trend of personal attacks, it never occured to me that it's considered to be "issues", besides, arguing with retarded statements like you made is pointless. Truth is, your lack of intelligence which you substitute with insults speaks volumes of you. I can certainly understand that you are frustrated and depressed, but try to be nice to people, they may actually try to see things from your perspective.

Good luck.