MUST SEE: Iraq-USA

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: RealityTime

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: RealityTime

Originally posted by: ntdz
why would i want to watch American soldiers dying? Send me some links of insurgent pieces of sh!t getting killed and I'll gladly watch.

what sort of foul conditions does it take to produce such a sorry specimen as the one that said this ? just how debased and devalued an individual do you have to be to think one life is worth more than another. somebody should send this pos to iraq and watch him cower like the heartless bitch that he is.

The foul condition you speak of is war. There is actually one going on now, if you haven't heard. The goal of war, in case you did not know is not to die for what you believe in, but rather to make the enemy die for what he believes in.

Some people that are not directly involved in the physical realm of the battlefield tend to support one side or the other of these opposing beliefs, whatever they might be.

To question the commitment of these people by asking them to position themselves on the battlefield and support their views is a valid method.

Being dramatic and conducting personal attacks is not, :roll: But if that is what it takes to make you feel like your view is valid, and it helps you sleep better at night, then, by all means, carry on....

Thats all fine and dandy[snip the rest of the propaganda]

Ayup...

 

[RealityTime]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RealityTime
well you couldn't really act than as the usa was supplying iraq with weapons and cash :roll: you don't even know your government's history. maybe you should read up on the history of us/iraw relations before you open up and start talking.

HAhahaha - nice try but it seems you are the one that doesn't understand the history of the situation. But it's nice to see you've hit the point of desperation by trotting out that old tired line.

CsG

the truth is never old or tired. just seems to be un-popular these days is all.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RealityTime
the truth is never old or tired. just seems to be un-popular these days is all.

No, the truth is never tired or old, but your line is. Not only is your information intentionally misleading - it's irrelevant. Because you support someone at one point does NOT mean you always have to support them or can't act against them. So again, nice try but it's you who needs to read up on it before yapping.

CsG

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: KidViciou$

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i get no love? what about what i said?

Nope.

What you said would have some merit if their targets weren't their own people and their own infrastructure. Remember, collateral damage is unintended damage - theirs is purposeful destruction and killing. If you liken random bombing and suicide attacks as "collateral damage" then I'm not sure what to say. What was their "intended" target? their goal? To give the terrorist sympathizers something to cheer back here? In that context then - you'd be right.

CsG

like i said, when innocent iraqis are killed, they could chalk it up to collateral damage when their target are american GI's and forces, but when they actually target the iraqis, they could be chalking it up to the attackers as being patriots, or revolutionaries, and the victims as being the british loyalists.

Sure, but is that what they are doing when they blow up oil pipelines or run car bombs into busy streets? No. Is that what they are doing when they fire on us from crowds?

No, their actions are nothing like those of our forefathers and it is disgusting that you or others would insinuate that to be true. We are not Iraq's government they are fighting against. They are fighting against having their own gov't. If these so-called "freedom fighters" were really that - they'd have done so against Saddam(which some tried to do and were destroyed for it - and I'm sad we didn't act at that time)

CsG

how is attacking oil pipelines different from throwing tea overboard? also, the patriots DID sabotage supplies that were being sent to england

as far as shooting at troops from crowds, we had sharpshooters that would pick off officers in the red coat army.

as far as car bombs, this is harder to explain, but it could be likened to patriot attacks on loyalist towns


btw, i'm not defending the insurgents in iraq, i'm posing a different way of thinking about what they are doing, because too many americans just think of it as good (us) vs bad (them)

 

[RealityTime]

theres no point to this. you're sheep. brainwashed media instructed boobs. enjoy your fantasies and enjoy the impossible goal your president has set upon.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RealityTime
the truth is never old or tired. just seems to be un-popular these days is all.

No, the truth is never tired or old, but your line is. Not only is your information intentionally misleading - it's irrelevant. Because you support someone at one point does NOT mean you always have to support them or can't act against them. So again, nice try but it's you who needs to read up on it before yapping.

CsG

I read up, now I'm yapping.

Some tired and misleading truth:

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: KidViciou$

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i get no love? what about what i said?

Nope.

What you said would have some merit if their targets weren't their own people and their own infrastructure. Remember, collateral damage is unintended damage - theirs is purposeful destruction and killing. If you liken random bombing and suicide attacks as "collateral damage" then I'm not sure what to say. What was their "intended" target? their goal? To give the terrorist sympathizers something to cheer back here? In that context then - you'd be right.

CsG

like i said, when innocent iraqis are killed, they could chalk it up to collateral damage when their target are american GI's and forces, but when they actually target the iraqis, they could be chalking it up to the attackers as being patriots, or revolutionaries, and the victims as being the british loyalists.

Sure, but is that what they are doing when they blow up oil pipelines or run car bombs into busy streets? No. Is that what they are doing when they fire on us from crowds?

No, their actions are nothing like those of our forefathers and it is disgusting that you or others would insinuate that to be true. We are not Iraq's government they are fighting against. They are fighting against having their own gov't. If these so-called "freedom fighters" were really that - they'd have done so against Saddam(which some tried to do and were destroyed for it - and I'm sad we didn't act at that time)

CsG

how is attacking oil pipelines different from throwing tea overboard? also, the patriots DID sabotage supplies that were being sent to england

as far as shooting at troops from crowds, we had sharpshooters that would pick off officers in the red coat army.

as far as car bombs, this is harder to explain, but it could be likened to patriot attacks on loyalist towns


btw, i'm not defending the insurgents in iraq, i'm posing a different way of thinking about what they are doing, because too many americans just think of it as good (us) vs bad (them)

For one, do you have any idea what the Boston Tea Party was about or against? Not similar to blowing up oil pipelines.

Yes, we had sharpshooters- did they use innocent civilians to hid behind? sharpshooters!= firing from crowds. Next...

No, you can keep trying to liken the two but the premise is faulty from the start. I understand(albeit disgustedly) your quest to play terrorist apologist but to liken the two things doesn't work. If these people were fighting for their freedom - then why aren't they embracing it? They have a chance to choose their own gov't - yet fight against those that are working towards that goal.

If you really aren't trying to defend the "insurgents" - then stop. The "different way of thinking" you offer is close to defending as you can get without openly stating you agree with them.
Yes, it is us vs those who are opposing the freedom of the Iraqi people. It really is that simple - unless you think their actions are working towards the freedom for Iraqis to choose their own government.

CsG

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: KidViciou$

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i get no love? what about what i said?

Nope.

What you said would have some merit if their targets weren't their own people and their own infrastructure. Remember, collateral damage is unintended damage - theirs is purposeful destruction and killing. If you liken random bombing and suicide attacks as "collateral damage" then I'm not sure what to say. What was their "intended" target? their goal? To give the terrorist sympathizers something to cheer back here? In that context then - you'd be right.

CsG

like i said, when innocent iraqis are killed, they could chalk it up to collateral damage when their target are american GI's and forces, but when they actually target the iraqis, they could be chalking it up to the attackers as being patriots, or revolutionaries, and the victims as being the british loyalists.

Sure, but is that what they are doing when they blow up oil pipelines or run car bombs into busy streets? No. Is that what they are doing when they fire on us from crowds?

No, their actions are nothing like those of our forefathers and it is disgusting that you or others would insinuate that to be true. We are not Iraq's government they are fighting against. They are fighting against having their own gov't. If these so-called "freedom fighters" were really that - they'd have done so against Saddam(which some tried to do and were destroyed for it - and I'm sad we didn't act at that time)

CsG

how is attacking oil pipelines different from throwing tea overboard? also, the patriots DID sabotage supplies that were being sent to england

as far as shooting at troops from crowds, we had sharpshooters that would pick off officers in the red coat army.

as far as car bombs, this is harder to explain, but it could be likened to patriot attacks on loyalist towns


btw, i'm not defending the insurgents in iraq, i'm posing a different way of thinking about what they are doing, because too many americans just think of it as good (us) vs bad (them)

the fact of the matter is that the insurgents are *evil* people with no good intentions. We, on the otherhand, have good intentions, but sometimes things happen that we don't intend. You can keep defending the terrorists, I hope it makes you sleep better at night knowing they are killing fellow Americans and innocent Iraqi civilians for no good reason at all.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RealityTime
theres no point to this. you're sheep. brainwashed media instructed boobs. enjoy your fantasies and enjoy the impossible goal your president has set upon.

HAHAHA - whatever keeps your sheets dry...

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RealityTime
the truth is never old or tired. just seems to be un-popular these days is all.

No, the truth is never tired or old, but your line is. Not only is your information intentionally misleading - it's irrelevant. Because you support someone at one point does NOT mean you always have to support them or can't act against them. So again, nice try but it's you who needs to read up on it before yapping.

CsG

I read up, now I'm yapping.

Some tired and misleading truth:

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

:roll:
Do you have a point? Are you really that naive? Ofcourse we supported him vs Iran. Does that mean we can never take action against him?

Does having diplomatic relations with someone mean you can't act?

Try reading up again...

CsG

 

[BBond]

What it means is this; the USA uses regimes run by despots when it suits their needs, then they attack those same nations when their needs change. The problem is, there is a cynical use of humanitarian excuses to effect regime change when all the while we were supporting those regimes they were doing the same things we attack them for now.

Very hypocritical, especially in light of the fact that the USA was perpetuating the same abuse and torture as Saddam for instance in Abu Ghraib. Or killing tens of thousands of civilians based on an unprovoked invasion or Iraq. But the irony is lost on you because you refuse to believe what is right in front of your eyes. Choosing to believe the Bush propaganda instead.

It was just a few bad apples at Abu Ghraib. The 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians were just collateral damage.

Right. :roll:

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Aimster
If you actually look you will see many dead Iraq pictures and you will see them having guns next to them.

I didn't see any guns next to the dead babies & children. Nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies killing babies & children in my book. That is blasphemy.

Freedom on the march? Compassionate conservatism? Nothing but hypocrisy.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RealityTime
the truth is never old or tired. just seems to be un-popular these days is all.

No, the truth is never tired or old, but your line is. Not only is your information intentionally misleading - it's irrelevant. Because you support someone at one point does NOT mean you always have to support them or can't act against them. So again, nice try but it's you who needs to read up on it before yapping.

CsG

I read up, now I'm yapping.

Some tired and misleading truth:

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

:roll:
Do you have a point? Are you really that naive? Ofcourse we supported him vs Iran. Does that mean we can never take action against him?

Does having diplomatic relations with someone mean you can't act?

Try reading up again...

CsG

I guess by BOBDN logic we should not have retaliatd against Bin laden and Al Quesda after 9/11.

BTW those of you who are spewing on about 100k dead Iraqi civilians need to put up some solid evidence or shut up.

 

[RealityTime]

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RealityTime
the truth is never old or tired. just seems to be un-popular these days is all.

No, the truth is never tired or old, but your line is. Not only is your information intentionally misleading - it's irrelevant. Because you support someone at one point does NOT mean you always have to support them or can't act against them. So again, nice try but it's you who needs to read up on it before yapping.

CsG

I read up, now I'm yapping.

Some tired and misleading truth:

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

:roll:
Do you have a point? Are you really that naive? Ofcourse we supported him vs Iran. Does that mean we can never take action against him?

Does having diplomatic relations with someone mean you can't act?

Try reading up again...

CsG

I guess by BOBDN logic we should not have retaliatd against Bin laden and Al Quesda after 9/11.

BTW those of you who are spewing on about 100k dead Iraqi civilians need to put up some solid evidence or shut up.

another cnn/bush/fox sheep baaaaaaaaaaaaas in
:roll:

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: RealityTime

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RealityTime
the truth is never old or tired. just seems to be un-popular these days is all.

No, the truth is never tired or old, but your line is. Not only is your information intentionally misleading - it's irrelevant. Because you support someone at one point does NOT mean you always have to support them or can't act against them. So again, nice try but it's you who needs to read up on it before yapping.

CsG

I read up, now I'm yapping.

Some tired and misleading truth:

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

:roll:
Do you have a point? Are you really that naive? Ofcourse we supported him vs Iran. Does that mean we can never take action against him?

Does having diplomatic relations with someone mean you can't act?

Try reading up again...

CsG

I guess by BOBDN logic we should not have retaliatd against Bin laden and Al Quesda after 9/11.

BTW those of you who are spewing on about 100k dead Iraqi civilians need to put up some solid evidence or shut up.

another cnn/bush/fox sheep baaaaaaaaaaaaas in
:roll:

another bbc/chirac/new york times liberal sheep. Good luck in 08, maybe you'll manage to not lose seats and the presidency at the same time.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: RealityTime

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RealityTime
the truth is never old or tired. just seems to be un-popular these days is all.

No, the truth is never tired or old, but your line is. Not only is your information intentionally misleading - it's irrelevant. Because you support someone at one point does NOT mean you always have to support them or can't act against them. So again, nice try but it's you who needs to read up on it before yapping.

CsG

I read up, now I'm yapping.

Some tired and misleading truth:

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

:roll:
Do you have a point? Are you really that naive? Ofcourse we supported him vs Iran. Does that mean we can never take action against him?

Does having diplomatic relations with someone mean you can't act?

Try reading up again...

CsG

I guess by BOBDN logic we should not have retaliatd against Bin laden and Al Quesda after 9/11.

BTW those of you who are spewing on about 100k dead Iraqi civilians need to put up some solid evidence or shut up.

another cnn/bush/fox sheep baaaaaaaaaaaaas in
:roll:

another bbc/chirac/new york times liberal sheep. Good luck in 08, maybe you'll manage to not lose seats and the presidency at the same time.

Psstt- he's a Canuck

CsG

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: RealityTime

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RealityTime
the truth is never old or tired. just seems to be un-popular these days is all.

No, the truth is never tired or old, but your line is. Not only is your information intentionally misleading - it's irrelevant. Because you support someone at one point does NOT mean you always have to support them or can't act against them. So again, nice try but it's you who needs to read up on it before yapping.

CsG

I read up, now I'm yapping.

Some tired and misleading truth:

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

:roll:
Do you have a point? Are you really that naive? Ofcourse we supported him vs Iran. Does that mean we can never take action against him?

Does having diplomatic relations with someone mean you can't act?

Try reading up again...

CsG

I guess by BOBDN logic we should not have retaliatd against Bin laden and Al Quesda after 9/11.

BTW those of you who are spewing on about 100k dead Iraqi civilians need to put up some solid evidence or shut up.

another cnn/bush/fox sheep baaaaaaaaaaaaas in
:roll:

another bbc/chirac/new york times liberal sheep. Good luck in 08, maybe you'll manage to not lose seats and the presidency at the same time.

Psstt- he's a Canuck

CsG

I'll make a mental note and not make that mistake next time

 

[RealityTime]

baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... follow that texan sheppard. too bad you don't get in on the profits, just get reefed for your taxes and dignity. btw, I'm flattered you are so lacking in creativity that you continually recycle my posts and repeat them back to me.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: RealityTime
baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... follow that texan sheppard. too bad you don't get in on the profits, just get reefed for your taxes and dignity. btw, I'm flattered you are so lacking in creativity that you continually recycle my posts and repeat them back to me.

Continually? Show me one other time I did that...

 

[RealityTime]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: RealityTime
baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... follow that texan sheppard. too bad you don't get in on the profits, just get reefed for your taxes and dignity. btw, I'm flattered you are so lacking in creativity that you continually recycle my posts and repeat them back to me.

Continually? Show me one other time I did that...

baaaaa :roll:

 

[slyedog]

the lib's are very active tonite. maybe they saw hilliary on the tube today and she got them all fired up.

 

[StageLeft]

It's good, I think, for people to see both sides dead and maimed, because afterall that's what they're doing. Sometimes it's necessary, but it's important for people to keep that close to their heart (the deaths and destruction), think about what if that was a family member, etc. Most of us, myself included, think little of the fact that other people on the planet are being killed all the time.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: slyedog
the lib's are very active tonite. maybe they saw hilliary on the tube today and she got them all fired up.

Stop being a paranoid hillbilly, Chirac or Hillary are not the leaders of some massive worldwide communist network to kill you and all your fellow "true" americans. That goes especially for you ntdz! I can't even see why you mention Chirac...

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's good, I think, for people to see both sides dead and maimed, because afterall that's what they're doing. Sometimes it's necessary, but it's important for people to keep that close to their heart (the deaths and destruction), think about what if that was a family member, etc. Most of us, myself included, think little of the fact that other people on the planet are being killed all the time.

I think that people should be forced to view this. And Bush and people that voted for him should be forced to view the uncleaned corpse of every american soldier. That would help i'm sure.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: RealityTime

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RealityTime
the truth is never old or tired. just seems to be un-popular these days is all.

No, the truth is never tired or old, but your line is. Not only is your information intentionally misleading - it's irrelevant. Because you support someone at one point does NOT mean you always have to support them or can't act against them. So again, nice try but it's you who needs to read up on it before yapping.

CsG

I read up, now I'm yapping.

Some tired and misleading truth:

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

:roll:
Do you have a point? Are you really that naive? Ofcourse we supported him vs Iran. Does that mean we can never take action against him?

Does having diplomatic relations with someone mean you can't act?

Try reading up again...

CsG

I guess by BOBDN logic we should not have retaliatd against Bin laden and Al Quesda after 9/11.

BTW those of you who are spewing on about 100k dead Iraqi civilians need to put up some solid evidence or shut up.

another cnn/bush/fox sheep baaaaaaaaaaaaas in
:roll:

Wow. The depth and breadth of your reply is breathtaking. No really it is really quite astonishing. Especially since later on in the thread she writes, " I'm flattered you are so lacking in creativity . . . ". Talk about your irony.

Care to address the point or are you just going to keep trolling around, baaaaing out your mating call?