Look at 11/15...I think we lost a Blackhawk that day?Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Damn last November was a tough month!
Originally posted by: alchemize
Look at 11/15...I think we lost a Blackhawk that day?Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Damn last November was a tough month!
It should make us think twice about sacrificing our young men on wars based on lies and dodgy intel!Originally posted by: Dari
Is this the future of warfare, where death tolls, as tragic as they may be, are much, much lower than in previous wars? I think the weekly death toll in Vietnam was 500.
Will this make deaths and injuries more personal than statistical?
Will this make America less likely to fight in the future?
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
It should make us think twice about sacrificing our young men on wars based on lies and dodgy intel!Originally posted by: Dari
Is this the future of warfare, where death tolls, as tragic as they may be, are much, much lower than in previous wars? I think the weekly death toll in Vietnam was 500.
Will this make deaths and injuries more personal than statistical?
Will this make America less likely to fight in the future?
Depends how convincing the lie is.Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
It should make us think twice about sacrificing our young men on wars based on lies and dodgy intel!Originally posted by: Dari
Is this the future of warfare, where death tolls, as tragic as they may be, are much, much lower than in previous wars? I think the weekly death toll in Vietnam was 500.
Will this make deaths and injuries more personal than statistical?
Will this make America less likely to fight in the future?
Is that a yes or no?
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Depends how convincing the lie is.Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
It should make us think twice about sacrificing our young men on wars based on lies and dodgy intel!Originally posted by: Dari
Is this the future of warfare, where death tolls, as tragic as they may be, are much, much lower than in previous wars? I think the weekly death toll in Vietnam was 500.
Will this make deaths and injuries more personal than statistical?
Will this make America less likely to fight in the future?
Is that a yes or no?
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Depends how convincing the lie is.Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
It should make us think twice about sacrificing our young men on wars based on lies and dodgy intel!Originally posted by: Dari
Is this the future of warfare, where death tolls, as tragic as they may be, are much, much lower than in previous wars? I think the weekly death toll in Vietnam was 500.
Will this make deaths and injuries more personal than statistical?
Will this make America less likely to fight in the future?
Is that a yes or no?
Lies this, lies that. If you believe that the government lied, then you also believe:
That Desert Storm was to show Saddam who was Boss;
That the Vietnam War was simply to feed the military industrial complex;
That World War II was instigated on lies and our government deliberately turning a blind eye on Japanese activities so that we could enter the fray. You also probably believe that WWII was created by rich and powerful men to scare the world into coming together and forming a one world government in the form of the United Nations;
That World War I was instigated to solidify communist control over Russia. See, the commies were supported by the super-rich in the West. Russia was used by these super-rich as a testing ground for a new communal system originally concocted by Freemasons to enslave the whole world;
That the American Civil War was instigated by Albert Pike, author of Morals and Dogmas and the foremost thinker of American Freemasonry. Pike, who also founded the Ku Klux Klan, used the war for his banker friends to feast on the military. According to you, the war had little to do with keeping the Union together. Oh yeah, Pike controlled the Johnson White House too;
That the American Revolution was a concocted by men in the shadows who were heavily indebted to European bankers. Either that or it was the dream-child of Freemasons to setup a new nation.
Go ahead, keep believing that there are ulterior motives and conspiracy theories behind everything. BTW, for Bush to have lied, then Clinton lied, Gephardt lied, along with many other members of Congress over a long period of time just so that we could come to this point.![]()
Originally posted by: ELP
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Depends how convincing the lie is.Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
It should make us think twice about sacrificing our young men on wars based on lies and dodgy intel!Originally posted by: Dari
Is this the future of warfare, where death tolls, as tragic as they may be, are much, much lower than in previous wars? I think the weekly death toll in Vietnam was 500.
Will this make deaths and injuries more personal than statistical?
Will this make America less likely to fight in the future?
Is that a yes or no?
Lies this, lies that. If you believe that the government lied, then you also believe:
That Desert Storm was to show Saddam who was Boss;
That the Vietnam War was simply to feed the military industrial complex;
That World War II was instigated on lies and our government deliberately turning a blind eye on Japanese activities so that we could enter the fray. You also probably believe that WWII was created by rich and powerful men to scare the world into coming together and forming a one world government in the form of the United Nations;
That World War I was instigated to solidify communist control over Russia. See, the commies were supported by the super-rich in the West. Russia was used by these super-rich as a testing ground for a new communal system originally concocted by Freemasons to enslave the whole world;
That the American Civil War was instigated by Albert Pike, author of Morals and Dogmas and the foremost thinker of American Freemasonry. Pike, who also founded the Ku Klux Klan, used the war for his banker friends to feast on the military. According to you, the war had little to do with keeping the Union together. Oh yeah, Pike controlled the Johnson White House too;
That the American Revolution was a concocted by men in the shadows who were heavily indebted to European bankers. Either that or it was the dream-child of Freemasons to setup a new nation.
Go ahead, keep believing that there are ulterior motives and conspiracy theories behind everything. BTW, for Bush to have lied, then Clinton lied, Gephardt lied, along with many other members of Congress over a long period of time just so that we could come to this point.![]()
Hey, I thought it was only those 'wacky liberals' that spewed gross generalizations. I guess I was wrong.
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Depends how convincing the lie is.Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
It should make us think twice about sacrificing our young men on wars based on lies and dodgy intel!Originally posted by: Dari
Is this the future of warfare, where death tolls, as tragic as they may be, are much, much lower than in previous wars? I think the weekly death toll in Vietnam was 500.
Will this make deaths and injuries more personal than statistical?
Will this make America less likely to fight in the future?
Is that a yes or no?
Lies this, lies that. If you believe that the government lied, then you also believe:
That Desert Storm was to show Saddam who was Boss;
That the Vietnam War was simply to feed the military industrial complex;
That World War II was instigated on lies and our government deliberately turning a blind eye on Japanese activities so that we could enter the fray. You also probably believe that WWII was created by rich and powerful men to scare the world into coming together and forming a one world government in the form of the United Nations;
That World War I was instigated to solidify communist control over Russia. See, the commies were supported by the super-rich in the West. Russia was used by these super-rich as a testing ground for a new communal system originally concocted by Freemasons to enslave the whole world;
That the American Civil War was instigated by Albert Pike, author of Morals and Dogmas and the foremost thinker of American Freemasonry. Pike, who also founded the Ku Klux Klan, used the war for his banker friends to feast on the military. According to you, the war had little to do with keeping the Union together. Oh yeah, Pike controlled the Johnson White House too;
That the American Revolution was a concocted by men in the shadows who were heavily indebted to European bankers. Either that or it was the dream-child of Freemasons to setup a new nation.
Go ahead, keep believing that there are ulterior motives and conspiracy theories behind everything. BTW, for Bush to have lied, then Clinton lied, Gephardt lied, along with many other members of Congress over a long period of time just so that we could come to this point.![]()
Don't get it, do you? The same liberals that believe the gov't lied about Iraqi Freedom also claim the aforementioned conspiracies.
Originally posted by: Dari
Lies this, lies that. If you believe that the government lied, then you also believe:
That Desert Storm was to show Saddam who was Boss;
That the Vietnam War was simply to feed the military industrial complex;
Originally posted by: arsbanned
This Dari person seems to have stumbled upon some special mushrooms.
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: arsbanned
This Dari person seems to have stumbled upon some special mushrooms.
"Dari" seems to be a consortium of several different people and / or an umbrella organization.
Originally posted by: Rogue
Ah! I love when the ultimate sacrifices of our men and women turn into a politically charged diatribe of those barely impacted by the death of a single one of these soldiers. I'm not saying you don't have the right to discuss it, but damn, how about reveling in what they DID do rather than what someone else said or did. It takes a special kind of human to lay their life on the line for the beliefs, statements and actions of others and a whole other type of person to lay their cartoon charicature and username anonymously on the alter of internet freedom and spew a bunch of irrelevant bull$hit in a way almost totally unrelated related to the OP and the information he posted.
No one bothers to mention or even list that a large number of the casualties in this war were preventable accidents. It just doesn't sound as politically charged to say that a soldier died because he was sleeping in the middle of a roadway and got run over by a track or was improperly handing a loaded weapon and killed him/herself. Nope, those deaths won't spark the kind of debates that some of us like to rant on and on about to make ourselves feel like we've done something about anything in the world other than sit at a computer and spew a bunch of BS to those that will listen.
Now, take some time, think long and hard about those that have died and ask yourself if you think they would want someone like yourselves to sit around and use their death as some sort of political pawn in a chess game you can't win on some message board on the internet. I think you'll find they're calling back from the dead and telling you to lay off the politics of the past, remember their sacrifice and actually do something so it won't happen again.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Rogue
Ah! I love when the ultimate sacrifices of our men and women turn into a politically charged diatribe of those barely impacted by the death of a single one of these soldiers. I'm not saying you don't have the right to discuss it, but damn, how about reveling in what they DID do rather than what someone else said or did. It takes a special kind of human to lay their life on the line for the beliefs, statements and actions of others and a whole other type of person to lay their cartoon charicature and username anonymously on the alter of internet freedom and spew a bunch of irrelevant bull$hit in a way almost totally unrelated related to the OP and the information he posted.
No one bothers to mention or even list that a large number of the casualties in this war were preventable accidents. It just doesn't sound as politically charged to say that a soldier died because he was sleeping in the middle of a roadway and got run over by a track or was improperly handing a loaded weapon and killed him/herself. Nope, those deaths won't spark the kind of debates that some of us like to rant on and on about to make ourselves feel like we've done something about anything in the world other than sit at a computer and spew a bunch of BS to those that will listen.
Now, take some time, think long and hard about those that have died and ask yourself if you think they would want someone like yourselves to sit around and use their death as some sort of political pawn in a chess game you can't win on some message board on the internet. I think you'll find they're calling back from the dead and telling you to lay off the politics of the past, remember their sacrifice and actually do something so it won't happen again.
So you would contend they were going to happen anyway? That most of the injuries would happen in Peacetime at the same rate?