|
|
Post by PoIsOnDaRt on Feb 25, 2010 18:12:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Feb 25, 2010 23:40:00 GMT -5
It's a reality check though. I can understand that picture not getting more publicity though. That was the complaint by the columnist that it didn't receive more attention but the family of the man probably wasn't looking for more attention.
He is alive though unlike so many others fighting the war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Feb 26, 2010 20:16:27 GMT -5
Its depressing to see images like this, but like Classic said it is the reality of war, and sometimes the price for freedom.
I for 1 have not forgotten about September 11, 2001. And I am not willing to just accept that this war is about oil. That is stupid.
I remember our shift coming to pretty well just end up watching the news for several days.
At that time I was 30 years old had been married a few years and we had only Jason at that time he was only 4. I had to somehow try to explain to a 4 year old what had happened and what the tv stations were discussing.
Some brave men and women have given their lives and also the quality of their life to maintain our way of life back at home.
I am a regular contributor to disables vets funding. I have always had and will always have the fullest degree of respect for them. And this man and others like him did not get part of their body shot away for oil. They did it for freedom and so far we still have it so I thank that man from the bottom of my heart. Also on behalf of my wife and our 3 children.
|
|
|
|
Post by PoIsOnDaRt on Feb 26, 2010 22:29:02 GMT -5
The Iraq war (and that other one) was caused by a soup of problems. Oil, Religious instability, Political instability and America's great quest to make every country democratic. Pandor's box was opened, and hell got out. Plain and simple.
The war would have happened sooner or later, I feel glad it was sooner with what was happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Feb 27, 2010 0:14:30 GMT -5
I don't suggest that this makes it any better that men and wimen are being injured or killed but at least we can say at the present time none of the American military is conscripted. They're all volunteers who joined the armed forces and did so understanding that this is a possibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jersey on Feb 27, 2010 1:30:58 GMT -5
It is heartbreaking to see a picture like that. The sacrifice our soldiers make goes far and above anything that can be rightfully asked of them. This is the reason why I get so furious when people against the war also say f*** the troops. I think they should all be shown this picture so that a message can be sent. It's their sacrifice that enables them the freedom to run their mouths.
As for the wars, I feel that the war in Afghanistan was crucial and necessary for our defense, in response to 9/11. Iraq was foolish and far too soon. Whether it was for oil or national security, it was a bad decision to split the military in half and fight two wars. Besides, the bureaucratic B.S. behind the strategy is a big part of what's getting our soldiers killed. I'm referring to the rules of engagement. I'll highlight the ones hurting our effort.
No night or surprise searches.
Villagers are to be warned prior to searches. (24 hours in advance)
Afghan National Army, or ANA, or Afghan National Police, or ANP, must accompany U.S. units on searches.
U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first.
U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present.
Only women can search women.
Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED but not if insurgents walk away from where the explosives are.
The oil problem could be solved by committing resources to exploration and drilling our own oil, putting 50% of the revenue towards further exploration and drilling and the other 50% towards developing alternative energy. That way, we could seriously reduce our addiction to middle eastern petrol and get ourselves prepared properly for when our own supply dwindles and we have no choice but to move onto something new for fuel.
|
|
|
|
Post by PoIsOnDaRt on Feb 27, 2010 9:29:44 GMT -5
The oil problem could be solved by committing resources to exploration and drilling our own oil, putting 50% of the revenue towards further exploration and drilling and the other 50% towards developing alternative energy. That way, we could seriously reduce our addiction to middle eastern petrol and get ourselves prepared properly for when our own supply dwindles and we have no choice but to move onto something new for fuel. SOCILIST!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Jersey on Feb 27, 2010 13:20:42 GMT -5
The oil problem could be solved by committing resources to exploration and drilling our own oil, putting 50% of the revenue towards further exploration and drilling and the other 50% towards developing alternative energy. That way, we could seriously reduce our addiction to middle eastern petrol and get ourselves prepared properly for when our own supply dwindles and we have no choice but to move onto something new for fuel. SOCILIST!!!!!!!!! You've got to be kidding me right? Branding me a socialist of any kind will not earn you favorable points for me. I would quit while you're ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Feb 27, 2010 19:56:45 GMT -5
Jersey is for sure not a socialist. I usually agree with Jersey except for this time I do feel teh war in Iraq was not a mistake it was a larger point to prove when a known terrorist who was accessable could be removed. That has been done. Yes there's mroe to do in Iraq but mission success ful for defusing a known terrorist. This the war on terror. I do see your point though that spliting the military and fighting on 2 fronts is potentally dangerous becaue forces are divided. That's nothing new though. World war 2 was fought on 2 fronts too.
I'm not saying that it was the same thing there were far more factors in a war involving multiple countries compeared to the current situation.
I do think all known terrorists such as Saddam Hussein and Iraq became fair game on September 11 and the declaration of the war against terror.
|
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Feb 27, 2010 23:25:52 GMT -5
I don't see socialist implications in any of the suggested posts. I reserve socialist for a plan that has government subsidized everything. That's what I dislike about the Obama proposal on health care is it gives the government too much right to discretion.
The plan probably wouldn't start out this way but what worries me is that eventually or maybe sooner than eventually the government would step in and decided who does or doesn't get healthcare. But I didn't read anything that implies socialist in any posts in this topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Feb 28, 2010 17:55:01 GMT -5
As far as not depending on foreign oil goes, all the Bush haters seem to forget that Bush wasnted to drill for untapped oil that is right here at home. Most of congress would hear nothing of that happening.
There are some environmental concerns about drilling at home. And I do understand that endangering animals and possibly ruining the ground does have bad results.
Some of those issues could have been worked out by now and for the last 9 years plans would have been in the works and for about 3 years we could have been using that oil though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Mar 1, 2010 23:47:50 GMT -5
I do think that the United States should have more industry and depend less on other nations. I'd have to agree with you there.
|
|
Kimm
Moderator 
Posts: 2,993
|
Post by Kimm on Mar 5, 2010 21:58:17 GMT -5
The war would have happened sooner or later, I feel glad it was sooner with what was happening. I think so. I cant believe the amount of people who forgot what the Iraq conflict started from in the first part of it. Saddam Hussein was allowed to remain in power in 1991 and given a term of an unconditional surrender. He wanted conditions at first but when that wasnt going to be he agreed. In that agreement was that there would be regular inspectors to keep a watch that more arms were not being built since Saddam showed the world that if he has the arms he would use them not for defense but to invade. Such as Iran and Kuwait. Somewhere along the line Saddam removed the inspectors who were part of the terms. So whether he was building arms or not seems to be that he wasnt he did still give a reason to suspect he could be. And the attack of terror made the possibility of him building arms more of a concern. Nothing had been done previous to 9/11/01 but it was now a cause of alarm to find out just who the potential dangers may be if Saddam is dangerous or not. The only way to find out was to go in and look. And while theyre at it get him out of power since he was a terrorist leader. I do not believe Saddam was part of 9/11/01 any more than the rest of you do but I do agree that the Masterminds of September 11 ended up indirectly being the cause for the demise of Saddam. I dont think the Iraq war would have taken place if the attacks had not taken place. But this is a war against terror. Its not the war against Islam, or a war for oil. It is a war to prevent terror. |
|
|
|
Post by Ordinaryguy on Mar 6, 2010 9:30:49 GMT -5
Not to mention all the moral reasons for removing him, he was truly one of the most horrible dictators of the 20th century along with Hitler, Stalin etc. He committed acts of genocide against the Kurds, the Kuwaitis, the Iranians and the "marsh Arabs" in Iraq, and he regularly used torture and rape against his enemies, threatened to kill children in front of their parents, and a host of other atrocities. Opponents of the war say there are many other bad governments in the world and we can't topple them all. That's true but when you combine these moral outrages with the practical threat he posed, we had to do something. He was a true monster and the world is well rid of him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Mar 7, 2010 1:44:49 GMT -5
I can't believe how many people felt sorry for Saddam were they unaware what he had done?
|
|
|
|
Post by Demona on Mar 7, 2010 4:08:39 GMT -5
You're right. Him being out of power was good. However, the war dragged on and people who once got along don't anymore because of some difference and they're the same religion. Go figure. That and it's not cool some of those people turned against our country and at first sided with us. I can't believe how many people felt sorry for Saddam were they unaware what he had done? He was hung. If you know how that works, it's not a nice way to go. It breaks necks and suffocates people while they're paralyzed. Something like that. Not that he deserved to live, he treated people over there like crap. He was straight up nasty. [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by Demona on Mar 7, 2010 4:21:08 GMT -5
The war would have happened sooner or later, I feel glad it was sooner with what was happening. I think so. I cant believe the amount of people who forgot what the Iraq conflict started from in the first part of it. Saddam Hussein was allowed to remain in power in 1991 and given a term of an unconditional surrender. He wanted conditions at first but when that wasnt going to be he agreed. In that agreement was that there would be regular inspectors to keep a watch that more arms were not being built since Saddam showed the world that if he has the arms he would use them not for defense but to invade. Such as Iran and Kuwait. Somewhere along the line Saddam removed the inspectors who were part of the terms. So whether he was building arms or not seems to be that he wasnt he did still give a reason to suspect he could be. And the attack of terror made the possibility of him building arms more of a concern. Nothing had been done previous to 9/11/01 but it was now a cause of alarm to find out just who the potential dangers may be if Saddam is dangerous or not. The only way to find out was to go in and look. And while theyre at it get him out of power since he was a terrorist leader. I do not believe Saddam was part of 9/11/01 any more than the rest of you do but I do agree that the Masterminds of September 11 ended up indirectly being the cause for the demise of Saddam. I dont think the Iraq war would have taken place if the attacks had not taken place. But this is a war against terror. Its not the war against Islam, or a war for oil. It is a war to prevent terror. That last part you said I understand the idea behind it, but it backfired. Those crazy people are further pissed at us and it's either do nothing and they'll egg things on, or do something and maybe create a bigger risk of being attacked. It's like they want a fight. |
|
Kimm
Moderator
Posts: 2,993
|
Post by Kimm on Mar 7, 2010 7:13:58 GMT -5
He wasnt so tough without his solders and his guards. I think he was made humble by being captured and he knew by then he was defeated though. A guy who lived by the life of war also knows that he could die that way too. He was probably surprised how little he was tortured compared to how he would treat a POW.
|
|
