TO ALL: Marines, Soldiers, Airman, and Seamen

[Botellines 0]

Quote

I've never met a person that does not want to be free or wants to live in fear. Have you?

I´ve never meet a person that would sacrify his family for the right to vote. Have you?

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

I´ve never meet a person that would sacrify his family for the right to vote. Have you?

I have met many and are related to others that would/have sacrifice(d) themselves so their family would be free. Some of us understand valor, courage and duty.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

I will be heading back for tour 3 in the fall.

thank you for your stand for freedom.

Quote

I will gladly stand on the wall or in the sand and defend the freedoms of all men and women in this country and others, it is your right as a human to be able to live and speak free.

It's men like you that make the world a truly better place.
A heart felt "garry owen". to you sir.

[crozby 0]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I´ve never meet a person that would sacrify his family for the right to vote. Have you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have met many and are related to others that would/have sacrifice(d) themselves so their family would be free. Some of us understand valor, courage and duty.

In case you missed the point he is making:

Would you sacrafice the rest of your family so that you could obtain the right to vote?

Would you sacrafice your neigbours so that you could live in a democracy instead of in a dictatorship?

There is a difference between volunteering to lose one's own life for a cause and having the loss of ones friends and family inflicted on one for a cause imposed on you by a foreign country far away, isn't there?

That is the point he is trying to make. I think.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

There is a difference between volunteering to lose one's own life for a cause and having the loss of ones friends and family inflicted on one for a cause imposed on you by a foreign country far away, isn't there?

I guess you have forgot how many were killed by sh on a daily basis.

[billvon 2,991]

>I guess you have forgot how many were killed by sh on a daily basis

True, Saddam did kill more Iraqis than we did. But Bush is no slacker, and is working hard to make up the difference.

[dorbie 0]

My sincere thanks to all allied servicemen who lay everything on the line for us in this conflict. Even those that return physically unscathed make huge sacrifices for us and risk everything in the process.

I like to focus on the primary goals here despite unfounded and frankly insane claims of irrational extremists on the left. The casualties in Iraq did not die in vain, they did not die for Halliburton or Exxon or any of the other disgraceful claims made by confused leftists who don't know the meaning of the word "support". We live in a democracy (no hair splitting please) and it has been explained to everyone why we're in Iraq, the people have decided this is the right course of action, and the reasons are on the table for everyone to see.

The goal of bringing democracy to Iraq and the broader geopolitical consequences will have immeasurable benefits for America, for the people of Iraq and for the people in that region in general if we are successful.

Diminishing the sacrifice of brave servicemen who have given everything in this cause for fickle political interests is beneath contempt. Most don't sign up to fight in a particular conflict, the noblest of them sign up to defend our freedom and democracy and that means exercising our will through our elected and executive branches of government.

This cause is a noble and just one with profound implications for our world and a very significant chance of success. The long term alternative may have been death by a thousand cuts for democracy and freedom throughout the world, or perhaps a degeneration of the situation to the point where we'd be forced to deal with it using currently unimaginable options.

[Botellines 0]

Yeap, that was what i was trying to say.

[Botellines 0]

I don´t have the data at hand, but my guess is that Bush is killing more Iraquies per day than Saddam. At least the U.S military is inflicting more terror than the dictator. There wasn´t that many people willing to kill the dictator as they are willing to kill americans.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

I like to focus on the primary goals here despite unfounded and frankly insane claims of irrational extremists on the left.

please, do not call us irrational, we have lay our reason on the table and are there to be discussed. The problem is that we have to keep changing them as the reasons for this war changes. I know it makes us look confused, but hell, we are.

Quote

The casualties in Iraq did not die in vain, they did not die for Halliburton or Exxon or any of the other disgraceful claims made by confused leftists who don't know the meaning of the word "support".

As a matter of fact, no one knows why they died. Some people said that this was for oil, some other that it was to keep a country from switching to Euro when dealing with oil. Some others think it is Bush´s personal vendetta, etc. What we know for sure is that those soldiers died thinking they were defending america from a threat, and they were lied to. They died in vain. (no disrespect meant for them)

Quote

We live in a democracy (no hair splitting please) and it has been explained to everyone why we're in Iraq, the people have decided this is the right course of action, and the reasons are on the table for everyone to see.

No, the people has not decided that. That Bush was reelected, only means that 52% of U.S population is scared to death of terrorist threats, and thinks that the other option was much worse. All the polls show that a majority of U.S citizens are against the war. So if you were in a real democracy, you would pull out your troops.

Quote

The goal of bringing democracy to Iraq and the broader geopolitical consequences will have immeasurable benefits for America, for the people of Iraq and for the people in that region in general if we are successful.

Exactly, you just said the reason for this war, it will benefit america. Now, do you want to tell the troops that they are dieing, and loosing limbs at greater rate than vietnam only because in the long term it will benefit america? you can also tell them that in the short term it will benefi some already rich individuals.

Quote

Diminishing the sacrifice of brave servicemen who have given everything in this cause for fickle political interests is beneath contempt.

Nowadays everybody likes to say how much they apreciate their servicemen, how cool they are, how much they love them, etc, etc. that is bullshit, it seems that it is the politically correct thing to do. You love them? bring them home, and save their willingness to sacrify their lifes for defending your rights, when they can actually defend your rights.

Quote

This cause is a noble and just one

That is bullshit, whatever this war is, is far from noble. 48% of the U.S population (at least) and 98% of the rest of the world cannot be wrong.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

True, Saddam did kill more Iraqis than we did. But Bush is no slacker, and is working hard to make up the difference.

that's just bullshit Bill I guess trolling dosn't aplly to greenies? I know you can look the numbers up.

[bodypilot90 0]

once again you are wrong

Quote

Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.

and that number dosn't include what died because of the oil for food scam

[dorbie 0]

Irrational is the most generous description I have for people who stand behind conjecture, conspiracy theories and clearly refuted rubbish in the face of facts at everyone's disposal. I actually think most of the posturing is a lot worse, politically contrived to attack Bush and undermine the effort of our troops in doing so. In arguing that their lives are squandered you seek to throw away any gains they have made and would advocate a disastrous course like withdrawal even now. We all know how our democracy works even those in the armed services, you should get used to the process instead of railing against it when it suits you (i.e. every time you're in the minority, you have no problem when leaders you like cut military funding without so much as a a plurality). The fact is that w.r.t. Bush's endorsement it's about as good as it gets in the U.S. You have about 4 years to work on your next attempt to change the leadership but don't pretend the choice hasn't been made by the people. There wasn't even a candidate on the left who opposed the war and the reason for that is the left knew it would be a losing issue even with their own base.

My support for our servicemen on the front lines isn't a fashion statement, it has always been there. Long before 9-11 I was disgusted by the Jane Fonda's of the world just as todays back biters disgust me. As a child I opposed ignorant Marxists who lived in the free West yet looked to oppressive murdering regimes and found allegiance. Few things change over the years, there are always those who find fault within (even inventing it) instead of opposing evil on our doorstep.

I oppose bringing our troops home too soon because I believe that the campaign in Iraq is vitally important to our interests and exiting too soon would court utter catastrophe. I support them and I support the cause they're fighting for. Saying they died for Halliburton, oil or other unfounded rubbish in an attempt to get them home or to attack Bush is promoting already discredited lies and pure conjecture for cynical political motives. Before the war several reasons were given, one is being focused on now but even beyond the WMD there were concerns over illegal weapons posession and manufacture and the ability to reconstitute WMD programs at some time in the future, and from the beginning freedom in Iraq and the geopolitical strategy to bring some semblance of sanity to the region was on the table. Saying these men were lied to (with the implication that they were tricked into this) implies there was some choice they made, that choice was made when they signed up, not on the basis of the details of the Iraqi campaign, nobody lied to them to get them into this.

[crozby 0]

Quote

Irrational is the most generous description I have for people who stand behind conjecture, conspiracy theories and clearly refuted rubbish in the face of facts at everyone's disposal.

Well said. It really is utterly unimaginably irrational in light of the seemingly endless evidence to the contrary that people still think SH had any WMD or that Iraq was a terrorist threat to the USA (or anyone else for that matter) and that the coallition has any legal right to be there whatsoever.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Irrational is the most generous description I have for people who stand behind conjecture, conspiracy theories and clearly refuted rubbish in the face of facts at everyone's disposal.

Well said. It really is utterly unimaginably irrational in light of the seemingly endless evidence to the contrary that people still think SH had any WMD or that Iraq was a terrorist threat to the USA (or anyone else for that matter) and that the coallition has any legal right to be there whatsoever.

Skip to the end of my post to see why the focus on WMD is bogus anyway, I'll recap anyway, there were a multitude of issues surrounding the war and I for one was thinking about them. Some of the WMD focus arose w.r.t. the UN security council. There is proof positive that Saddam had WMD in the past and no doubt that he could have reconstituted a WMD program. There is proof that he had illegal weapons and continued to procure, manufacture and hide illegal weapons and was flouting UN resolutions. Moreover it turns out there was widespread misappropriation of oil for food money funding illegal purchases. There is also irrefutable evidence that Iraq was paying funds to terrorist organizations in the palestinian territories and was harboring terrorists and nurturing some terrorist organisations in Iraq.

P.S. as a Brit you should have been paying more attention to Tony Blair during question time and you'd be less confused about the reasons going in. He was very articulate about the reasons for the war before the conflict began.

[sangiro 25]

Quote

Be my guest to empower yourself! (Your rigorous logical reasoning, or fallacy thereof, would perfectly fall in line with those non-existing WMDs, terrorism ties, etc.)

He didn't empower himself. I did.

I'm at the end of may patience with the amount of verbal abuse that the people who volunteer their time to help me here has to endure - some on here but mostly via PM. Feel free to disagree with them on the merits of the argument like and adult and feel free to post it but if you choose to "let loose" on my moderators then you're simple not welcome here.

Take a month off to think about that...

Safe swoops
Sangiro

[crozby 0]

Quote

and was harboring terrorists and nurturing some terrorist organisations in Iraq

Got any evidence for that?

Quote

P.S. as a Brit you should have been paying more attention to Tony Blair during question time and you'd be less confused about the reasons going in. He was very articulate about the reasons for the war before the conflict began.

I did listen to the turd on many occassions. If you actually paid some attention to TB before and after the war you'd be a whole lot more confused about the reason for the war, and for good reason.

Here are some of the key statements made by the prime minister about Saddam Hussein's weapons - before and after the war.

10 April 2002, House of Commons
"Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked.

"He is a threat to his own people and to the region and, if allowed to develop these weapons, a threat to us also."

24 September 2002, House of Commons
"It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability..."

25 February 2003, House of Commons
"The intelligence is clear: (Saddam) continues to believe his WMD programme is essential both for internal repression and for external aggression.

"The biological agents we believe Iraq can produce include anthrax, botulinum, toxin, aflatoxin and ricin. All eventually result in excruciatingly painful death."

11 March 2003, MTV debate
"If we don't act now, then we will go back to what has happened before and then of course the whole thing begins again and he carries on developing these weapons and these are dangerous weapons, particularly if they fall into the hands of terrorists who we know want to use these weapons if they can get them."

18 March 2003, House of Commons
"We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years-contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence-Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd."

4 June 2003, House of Commons
"There are literally thousands of sites. As I was told in Iraq, information is coming in the entire time, but it is only now that the Iraq survey group has been put together that a dedicated team of people, which includes former UN inspectors, scientists and experts, will be able to go in and do the job properly.

"As I have said throughout, I have no doubt that they will find the clearest possible evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction."

8 July 2003, Evidence to Commons liaison committee
"I don't concede it at all that the intelligence at the time was wrong.

"I have absolutely no doubt at all that we will find evidence of weapons of mass destruction programmes."

16 December 2003, Interview with British Forces Broadcasting Service

"The Iraq Survey Group has already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories, workings by scientists, plans to develop long range ballistic missiles."

16 December 2003, Interview with BBC Arabic Service
"I don't think it's surprising we will have to look for them. I'm confident that when the Iraq Survey Group has done its work we will find what's happened to those weapons because he had them."

4 January, 2004, Speech to British forces near Basra, Iraq
"Repressive states are developing weapons that could cause destruction on a massive scale."

11 January 2004 , Interview with BBC Breakfast with Frost

What you can say is that we received that intelligence about Saddam's programmes and about his weapons that we acted on that, it's the case throughout the whole of the conflict.

I remember having conversations with the chief of defence staff and other people were saying well, we think we might have potential WMD find here or there.

Now these things didn't actually come to anything in the end, but I don't know is the answer. And what I do know is that the group of people that are in there now, this Iraq survey group, they produced an interim report."

25 January 2004, Interview with the Observer newspaper
"I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the intelligence was genuine.

"It is absurd to say in respect of any intelligence that it is infallible, but if you ask me what I believe, I believe the intelligence was correct, and I think in the end we will have an explanation."

3 February, 2004, evidence to Commons liaison committee
"What is true about (ex-Iraq Survey Group head) David Kay's evidence, and this is something I have to accept, and is one of the reasons why I think we now need a new inquiry - it is true David Kay is saying we have not found large stockpiles of actual weapons."

6 June, 2004, BBC Radio 4 Today programme
"What we also know is we haven't found them [weapons of mass destruction] in Iraq - now let the survey group complete its work and give us the report... They will not report that there was no threat from Saddam, I don't believe."

6 July, 2004, evidence to Commons Liaison Committee
"I have to accept we haven't found them (WMD) and we may never find them, We don't know what has happened to them. "They could have been removed. They could have been hidden. They could have been destroyed."

14 July, 2004, statement on the Butler report
"We expected, I expected to find actual usable, chemical or biological weapons after we entered Iraq.

"But I have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy."

28 September, 2004, keynote Labour conference speeech
"The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it. I simply point out, such evidence was agreed by the whole international community, not least because Saddam had used such weapons against his own people and neighbouring countries.

"And the problem is, I can apologise for the information that turned out to be wrong, but I can't, sincerely at least, apologise for removing Saddam.

"The world is a better place with Saddam in prison not in power."

"I can apologise for the information being wrong but I can never apologise, sincerely at least, for removing Saddam. The world is a better place with Saddam in prison."


29 September speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme
The prime minister was asked about UN secretary general Kofi Annan's assertion that the war with Iraq was illegal.

"That is his view - it is not our view," Mr Blair said.

"The view we took at the time and we take it now is that the war was justified legally because he [Saddam Hussein] remained in breach of UN resolutions."

[dorbie 0]

Lifted verbatim from the highly selective BBC piece.

I never said WMD wasn't a reason but it wasn't the only reason, everyone knows this, some choose to ignore it. Some of your quotes even make clear that reconstituting WMD was a key issue.

There's evidence for funding of terrorists abroad, specifically palestinians, individual named terrorists who resided in Iraq and at least one terrorist organization formed in the north.

You have applied your filter yet again, you don't apparently dispute Saddam's illegal weapons posession, purchases and manufacture, including potential delivery systems for WMD.

[juanesky 0]

But, but Dorbie, don't you know it is an injustice to Saddam, after all he was just a great guy, who deserves a fair chance!. Never knew of such a loving and caring human being, and great family!

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[crozby 0]

Quote

But, but Dorbie, don't you know it is an injustice to Saddam, after all he was just a great guy, who deserves a fair chance!. Never knew of such a loving and caring human being, and great family!

Juanesky if I thought you would argue the point in the spirit of SC i would respond to that, but I've watched the way you repeatedly go after Botellines and Chistelabine and I just don't want to play that kind of game thanks all the same.

[juanesky 0]

LMAO, what, when they state "it's a given fact" on something they know nothing about? Such as training, rules of engagment, SOP's and 98% of the world against the war? I wonder where they get such figures....

Your post comes accross, that is a gross negligence for those who stood up to him and told him to cut the BS, and come clean. Perhaps you forger about 12 years of UN resolutions violations, as well as constant firing to US and British planes enforcing these resolutions, but you care not to talk about those things either. Certainly IMHO, you sound pretty much as saying he was just a great guy, hence the reason of my post....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[LouDiamond 1]

Again, I don't care to discuss the ins and outs of this with everyone but I will say this. This thread was started in an effort to say thanks to people serving overseas. As if you didn't have enough threads in this forum to spew your rhetoric in, you turned what was basically a "thank you" to service men and women into a political debate.

If you don't want to say thank you to the people serving, fine, thats your right. If you want to voice your dislike of the troops being anywhere start your own thread and have your say. Attacking servicemen and women who are doing their job will not change or influence politics in any way. How would you like it if someone attacked you for doing your job be it flipping burgers or programming computers? Step back and just think about that for a few seconds before you respond. We're talking about fellow human beings here. I stand by firmly that you shouldn't say anything online that you wouldn't say to that person if you were in the same room with them. Try doing that from now on when you post.



Of all the threads that are in SC on this topic the one thing that always amazes me is that each side stands devoutely behind their stance based on what they either read or see on the TV. And we all know that depending on whose paper or show you watch to include in what country, a particular flavor is always present.

Before you say or repeat what you hear or see in the media and or decide to take a stance or view on anything ask yourself.

SELF: Have you been on the ground or in that situation before? Do you really have the averages joes view or just what the tele tells you?


I have yet to have a father tell me to get out of his country when I am medevacing his daughter to an American hospital for free treatment or had a village elder tell me to leave and not bring him back food,water,building materials, security, etc.

Here is the universal truth or bottom line around the globe: The average joe on the ground wants what every man on this planet wants. He wants a better life for himself and his family and they could care less about politics.

If you firmly don't believe that isn't happening then I say to you, prove me wrong. buy a ticket and go to these countries(Iraq,Afghanistan) and see for yourself...then say your peace.


I am done with this.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[bodypilot90 0]

thanks Lou. I want to say thanks not just for your help in spreading freedom. Also for being ambassadors of hope.

[crozby 0]

If this was simply a 'Thankyou' thread why wasn't it posted in, or subsequently moved to Bonfire?

Are you aware that your own post does exactly what you are criticising other people for?

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

If this was simply a 'Thankyou' thread why wasn't it posted in, or subsequently moved to Bonfire?

Are you aware that your own post does exactly what you are criticising other people for?

You would have to ask the poster that to realy know but I would guess because he knew that it had the potential for thread drift ,which it did.


As far as my post goes. I am in Afghanistan and I wanted to read what I thought was people saying thank you and showing their appreciation.Unfortunately, some felt the need to spread their politics.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING