im so tired of these dam iraqis

[P49Y-CY]

isn't attack without provocation morally wrong?

 

[Unoid]

we definitely had less at stake in nam as we do now in Iraq....but in both cases, it's hard and frustrating for our troops to fight when we have military blunders by their higher-ups and when they're fighting for a people who don't seem to want to stand up and fight themselves.

I don't agree with your definition of a blunder. SMall mistakes perhaps like disbanding the former military. But if Gore had been president I doubt he'd of done a better job so don't fault bush's administration so harshly.

Also you do realize that vietnam lasted 11 years and had 47,413 casualties to the US military.
In iraq we've been there for roughly 3 years and we have 2,500 casualties. And those casualties are all mostly from non uniformed terrorists who don't abide by the geneva conventions at all. The vietcong were at least identifiable usually.

And the difference? We've completely overthrown the Iraqi gov and the iraqi's have created their own government and constitution in 3 years. all with much much less casualties. Can't you agree the war and then further occupation of Iraq has been a great success compared to the past wars of this nature? Its not even arguably bad like vietnam. Its the most successful US war and occupation in history I'd say.

 

[BetterthanU]

I know all this because my father was one of the lead scientists for the WMD disposal team in iraq 2003-2004.

Really? Cause we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq......ask David Kay, the head of the investigation, and your dad's boss (if he was involved). If you honestly believe we found WMDs in Iraq, you sir, have your head buried in the ground.

 

[BetterthanU]

Its the most successful US war and occupation in history I'd say.

Really.....the American Revolution wasn't a bigger US war success? oke: (so are the war and sbusequent occupation, where the mojority of our troops have been killed, two seperate things....or are they part of the same general conflict?)

 

[Unoid]

isn't attack without provocation morally wrong?

without provocation?
Read this quote exerpt from a Paper I Wrote on the matter: Resolution 1441

"What most people do not know is what was exactly demanded upon Iraq in 1441. The most solidified statement of 1441 against Iraq provided by the UN Security Council is, “that Iraq has been, and remains, in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions” and “in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with the UN inspectors and the IAEA.” This is what gives the Security Council basis for the threats and ultimatums that the US coalition side pushed for. The Resolution called for immediate meetings of the UN to determine the serious consequences it was required to enforce. "
--
"The inspectors discovered hundreds of banned missiles that were not declared on a list Iraq was forced to submit in compliance with 1441. "

And most important:
"Saddam was clearly in non compliance based on leaving out banned missiles and by detaining inspectors for 30 minutes when they surprised Saddam’s forces by visiting a location. It was clear that Saddam was moving weapons in those 30 minutes. It was clear that the opposing side in the UN Security Council was not going to act, so Bush wrote a new resolution that stated an ultimatum or military force was going to be used. "

Lets not also forget the fact that saddam shot at US airplanes on the no fly zones almost daily. That is an act of war and is all the provocation that the US needs in any Legal hindsight to engage in combat.

After knowing this information I don't think you can claim it was unprovoked.

 

[Unoid]

Really? Cause we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq......ask David Kay, the head of the investigation, and your dad's boss (if he was involved). If you honestly believe we found WMDs in Iraq, you sir, have your head buried in the ground.

SO are you trying to argue that the FACT that saddam had all the materials for a WMD doens't constitute any main "reason" for going into Iraq?

Are you also trying and failing miserably at arguing that saddam wasn't trying to enrich uranium for weapon purposes?

Why don't you google up all the wonderful uses of yellowcake. haha

Stop being such a pacifist, you're obviously an idealist (most liberals like you are) so back up your ideals of freedom and human rights in Iraq. :read:

 

[203Cree]

Really? Cause we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq......ask David Kay, the head of the investigation, and your dad's boss (if he was involved). If you honestly believe we found WMDs in Iraq, you sir, have your head buried in the ground.

Another Media fed moron. Do you believe everything everyone tells you?

Tell you what. Let me go ask my buddies that were in my POL section about the cache of Blood agents they were running over with their fuel trucks. Something like 8 or 10 55 gallon drums. That's enough to wipe out a small city, maybe larger. I'd say that qualifies as a WMD. But have you heard about that before?


Now, that's quite a bit, and that was just one of several stashes that were found. How much more shit is buried in the sand that we don't know about? Just because a lot of it hasn't been found doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[BetterthanU]

....or you could just ask someone with a political science degree, who is not affiliated with any political party, like me. What did david kay, the head of the team hunting for WMDs say?

Two days after resigning as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said Sunday that his group "found no evidence Iraq had built unconventional wmd-style weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.

He said U.S. intelligence services owe President Bush an explanation for having concluded that Iraq had.

"My summary view, based on what I've seen, is we're very unlikely to find stockpiles of the weapons," he said on National Public Radio's "Weekend Edition." "I don't think they exist."

I'm not disputing that iraq had intent, or would eventually build them if they had the technology.....but there were no WMD caches......if the above, from the horse's mouth, isn't enough to convice you, nothing will.

 

[203Cree]

I'm not disputing that iraq had intent, or would eventually build them if they had the technology.....but there were no WMD caches......if the above, from the horse's mouth, isn't enough to convice you, nothing will.

And I shall refer you back to my previous post. You know, the one right above yours that proves the last sentence wrong.

 

[BetterthanU]

Man, i guess Bush should have sent you over there instead of David kay, since you know where all the wmds are :sleeping:

 

[203Cree]

Man, i guess Bush should have sent you over there instead of David kay, since you know where all the wmds are :sleeping:

Never claimed to know where all of them are, did I? Just gave an instance where some were found, thereby disproving Mr. Kay and his asessment that none existed. That's why I asked you if you believe everything you read and hear. Until you have first hand knowledge, you shouldn't make a conclusion one way or another. :bored:

 

[BetterthanU]

yea, you should probably write pres Bush and let him know you're more knowledgable, and have more information than the experts he personally sent over....because some kid in a POL class told you some completely accurate info. :rollseyes

If they found any significant amounts of wmds....why don't any reports mention it? Why Does Colin Powell say they did not? Why does david kay say they did not? Why has Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc... never said they did? Read up a bit. You're seriously off base if you believe there were wmds found. Great logic, "David Kay, etc... was wrong...I proved it." lol.

"...Dr. Kay added that there was now a consensus within the United States intelligence community that mobile trailers and other potential evidence found in Iraq and initially thought to be laboratories for biological weapons, or weapons themselves, were actually designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons, or perhaps to produce rocket fuel. While using the trailers for such purposes seems bizarre, Dr. Kay said, 'Iraq was doing a lot of nonsensical things' under Mr. Hussein."

Kay goes on to slam the Administration's argument that there are, or were, biological, nuclear, or other weapons of mass destruction in Iraq anytime in the last five or ten years:

"I'm personally convinced that there were not stockpiles of newly produced, ready to use, weapons of mass destruction," Dr. Kay said. "We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on. ...I think they gradually reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990's. Somewhere in the mid-1990's, the chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated."



Keep in mind, that's Bush's main man, the man handpicked to investigate, much more knowledgable than you or I, saying that.

-Don't argue with me, argue with him, Bush, Powell, and others who have admitted publicly we didn't find what we suspected them to have....a rusty drum from 1980 here and there, possbily....but no stockpiles of wmds, and no active programs to create them.

 

[203Cree]

yea, you should probably write pres Bush and let him know you're more knowledgable, and have more information than the experts he personally sent over....because some kid in a POL class told you some completely accurate info. :rollseyes

Actually, you dolt, I saw these things with my own eyes. I was in Iraq from Mar 03 to May 04. The guys that found it were in my company, just a different platoon. Research who you're talking too next time, maybe you'll look like less of an ass. :bored:

If they found any significant amounts of wmds....why don't any reports mention it? Why Does Colin Powell say they did not? Why does david kay say they did not? Why has Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc... never said they did? Read up a bit. You're seriously off base if you believe there were wmds found. Great logic, "David Kay, etc... was wrong...I proved it." lol.

:rollseyes

Only thing I can figure is maybe they didn't find it in large enough quantities to feel they needed to let everyone know. The public is expecting to hear about ton's of this shit found at a time, not little cache's here and there.

How do you know for sure what was found and what wasn't? Do you have access to all the reports? I'm betting you don't. You know what the gov't wants you to know. Period.

As for your Mr. Kay, I will refer you back to his quote that you posted.

"My summary view, based on what I've seen, is we're very unlikely to find stockpiles of the weapons," he said on National Public Radio's "Weekend Edition." "I don't think they exist."

Notice he didn't say it was impossible or that they don't exist, just that he thought they didn't. Opinons and speculation, no hard facts.

 

[BetterthanU]

welp, we haven't found jimmy hoffa, is he still alive, you dolt? I'll refer you back to one of my quotes, as well

"I'm personally convinced that there were not stockpiles of newly produced, ready to use, weapons of mass destruction," Dr. Kay said. "We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on. ...I think they gradually reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990's. Somewhere in the mid-1990's, the chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated." ---that is from the man who has done more investigation, and seen more information, reports and (lack of) evidence than anyone else out there.

Maybe you should have reported what you saw, I've seen alot of things in Iraq, too....you could have blown the cover off the whole real wmd story that's obviously being surpressed for unknown reasons. :rollseyes
I realize I'm not convincing you...like many things, all you can do is look at all the available info, and reports (and our government's official stance), and make your own decision based on that. One day we may come upon some crazy stuff buried out in al-anbar......you never can say never....but it's very unlikely.

 

[203Cree]

welp, we haven't found jimmy hoffa, is he still alive, you dolt? I'll refer you back to one of my quotes, as well

"I'm personally convinced that there were not stockpiles of newly produced, ready to use, weapons of mass destruction," Dr. Kay said. "We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on. ...I think they gradually reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990's. Somewhere in the mid-1990's, the chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated." ---that is from the man who has done more investigation, and seen more information, reports and (lack of) evidence than anyone else out there.

Maybe you should have reported what you saw, I've seen alot of things in Iraq, too....you could have blown the cover off the whole real wmd story that's obviously being surpressed for unknown reasons. :rollseyes

We did report it, and I'm sure it's noted somewhere. As to where specifically or why it wasn't publically released, I cannot give you an answer for that.

And you edited after as I was posting. I didn't see that quote.

I realize I'm not convincing you...like many things, all you can do is look at all the available info, and reports (and our government's official stance), and make your own decision based on that. One day we may come upon some crazy stuff buried out in al-anbar......you never can say never....but it's very unlikely.

And that is my point. It seems we are now seeing things the same. I wasn't saying that the big shit exists, as I don't know for sure. But, what I am saying is exactly what you just said. You can never say never. It's out there, just maybe not in the quantities originally thought.

 

[esqeddy]

So you're saying we're murdering innocent people needlessly over there? Why don't you just take off the gloves and call all soldiers "Baby Killers". I mean, if you're going to say it, have the balls to say exactly what you mean. :bored:

I have pleanty of balls. Fortunately, I have the brains to go with them. Are we murdering innocent people needlessly over there? Well.... considering some soldiers are now facing murder charges for that very thing, I would have to say that it appears that is EXACTLY what a FEW troops have done.

Did they kill babies? I don't have a clue. Do you?

Are you not aware that we have offered to leave anytime they want us to and that the gov't there has requested our presence? That's the only reason we're still over there. I think they should be on their own. But, that's not what you said in your original statement. You implied that it'd be better for us if someone else would step in to clean up the mess. Sorry Eddy, but that's not how this country operates.

Do you know how stupid and ingenuine that looks? That's like a Castro winning an election in Cuba. What does the world think the country we put into power is going to say? And even if they could make the choice, what have we done to provide them an alternative? Its us or no one, isn't it?

Yeah, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks, esp when most of the people crying the loudest are people that supplied Iraq and the region with weapons and intel for years. They're just pissed cause their money teat has been milked dry all of a sudden, and now they're getting thirsty again. Do not compare me to a Nazi. There's a huge difference btwn us and them. And if anyone is elitest, I say it's you, you pompus assbag.

Why am I even wasting my breath on you? How can you proclaim not to care what the world thinks, and then claim you aren't elitest?

This is a very important point. YOU DON'T CARE WHAT THE MAJORITY WANTS, YET YOU PROCLAIM TO BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY. A bit of a contradiction, isn't it? And for your information, it was but a fraction of the world that was involved. And how many times has the US been involved in similar scandals?

And yes, you don't rise to the level of a true Nazi. They were just as misguided as you, but you apparently lack the intelligence and singularity of direction they held. Without that, you just aren't a same threat they were.

Yeah, I read it, but what you typed made absolutely no sense. Lemme break it down for you.

I'm sorry your reading comprehension skills are so lacking.
Or was the logic a few layers too deep for you?

How did you come to the conclusion that another country would be able to restore order any better than us?

As I suspected, it was a failure of your ability to reason.

So let's go back to the basics of generalities.

Arabs don't like non-Arabs.
Arabs don't like non-Arabic speaking people.
Arabs don't like non-Arabic armies occuppying their lands.
Arabs don't like non-Arabic armies killing Arabic people.

Arabs perfer other Arabs.
Other Arabs speak the same language.
Other Arabs pray to the same God.
Other Arabs look more like they do.
Other Arabs have customs more similar to their customs.

Having Arabic militaries providing the security would likely be much more effective than the security we provide.

If some of the locals are upset because they lost Saddam, they won't so harshly blame the Arabic militaries since they did not so directly participate in the over throw as did we.

If the locals are upset because the are being occupied, they won't be as upset by having other arabs doing the occupying.

Now here is where you might get lost:

One of the insurgents & terrorists biggest ideological tools is that "they are fighting a Holy war against the unholy non-Islamic infedel occupiers of Arab lands." With arabic militaries doing the job, and us back home, that argument is GONE. Plain and simple. This would reduce the ability to recruit terrorists, be tolerated by the communities wherein they are now hiding, and would lead to a dramatic reduction insurgent violence.

So we go in there, stir shit up, piss everyone off, then leave and let someone else come in, spend their money and let their people die to fix a mess that we made. Boy, I'm glad I'm not in your family.

First, had it been left to me instead of you and your boy W, we would NOT have gone in and stirred up the sh!t to begin with. You get the credit for Bush's blunder, not me. So the mess we are cleaning up is really YOUR mess, not mine.

However, being the good american that I am, I'll gladly help bail your misguided (but well meaning) butt out of this mess. However, I can only lead the horse to the water. I can't make it drink.

And what I'm suggesting is that we let the league of arab nations take a leading role. WE FOOT THE TAB. (I made that clear in my analogy... You really don't read very well.)

But now let's make one damm thing VERY clear that I AM saying: Yes, let arabs die instead of Americans. Saddam was more of their problem than he was ours. Didn't he invade Kuwait? Didn't he war with Iran? Didn't he threaten the Saudis? Are you suggesting that you would rather see American troops killed?

:nonono:

I think you better back up and rethink your position on that one.

Your reply had better have something good in it. If it's just more hot air, supposition and spin on what other's have said, don't even bother typing it out and quoting me.

Each and every one of my posts contains far more suggestions, logic, and explanation than yours. I'll tell you what. Why don't you try thinking for a change and making a solid debate instead of just tossing out insults. I don't mind the insults, in fact, they humor me. But I like to mix them with something more intellectually stimulating when I can.

Otherwise.... you'll simply make another of this threads most worthless posts. And if you try real hard, you might even be able to make one more worthless than this:

Eddy, you are the single most shallow individual I have ever come across. You simply do not understand anything. I don't know how people on this earth get so mixed up. Your credibility is zero and every time you post in this thread, you somehow manage to drop even further in every one's opinions. No one takes you seriously and I am thankful for that.

Since I am going to just walk away from this retarded conversation, you will go on and call me a coward or an intellectual ineffectual. I don't care. I know that I posess intellegence. So does everyone else on this board. They might not appreciate my opinions, but thats ok, they are free to call me an asshat without recourse.

You are a very sorry individual eddy. I feel sorry for the people who surround you in your life.

BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAA..........

* Gasp *

BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAA..........

 

[notfastenuf]

Stay safe bro - kill 'em all.

 

[203Cree]

I have pleanty of balls. Fortunately, I have the brains to go with them. Are we murdering innocent people needlessly over there? Well.... considering some soldiers are now facing murder charges for that very thing, I would have to say that it appears that is EXACTLY what a FEW troops have done.

Did they kill babies? I don't have a clue. Do you?

Yep. Just as I thought. You're backpeddling. Way to go bro.

Do you know how stupid and ingenuine that looks? That's like a Castro winning an election in Cuba. What does the world think the country we put into power is going to say? And even if they could make the choice, what have we done to provide them an alternative? Its us or no one, isn't it?

Regardless of how "stupid and ingenuine" it looks, that's how it is. Take it, leave it or just STFU. Those are your options. I can promise you there's nothing you can do to change the way it is, so why bitch about it?

Why am I even wasting my breath on you? How can you proclaim not to care what the world thinks, and then claim you aren't elitest?

Yeah, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks. Unlike some people, I believe we're doing a good thing over there. We could've gone about it differently, I'll give you that. But as far as everyone saying "Get out" or "You're wrong", to them I will say the very same thing that I said to you in my previous paragraph.

This is a very important point. YOU DON'T CARE WHAT THE MAJORITY WANTS, YET YOU PROCLAIM TO BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY.

Who says you're the majority? Are you gonna listen to exit polls and popularity contests? Believe everything you read. I, on the other hand, will stick with what I see.

A bit of a contradiction, isn't it? And for your information, it was but a fraction of the world that was involved. And how many times has the US been involved in similar scandals?

Everyone does dirty shit. That's how the world works. We didn't turn around and cry like little babies when we didn't get our way. That's the difference btwn us and them.

And yes, you don't rise to the level of a true Nazi. They were just as misguided as you, but you apparently lack the intelligence and singularity of direction they held. Without that, you just aren't a same threat they were.

:nonono:

I'm sorry your reading comprehension skills are so lacking.
Or was the logic a few layers too deep for you?



As I suspected, it was a failure of your ability to reason.

So let's go back to the basics of generalities.

Arabs don't like non-Arabs.
Arabs don't like non-Arabic speaking people.
Arabs don't like non-Arabic armies occuppying their lands.
Arabs don't like non-Arabic armies killing Arabic people.

Arabs perfer other Arabs.
Other Arabs speak the same language.
Other Arabs pray to the same God.
Other Arabs look more like they do.
Other Arabs have customs more similar to their customs.

Having Arabic militaries providing the security would likely be much more effective than the security we provide.

If some of the locals are upset because they lost Saddam, they won't so harshly blame the Arabic militaries since they did not so directly participate in the over throw as did we.

:rollseyes

I believe I've asked you this before, and I find my asking you once again. Do you read the shit you type?

What the hell do you think they'd do if it was "Arabic" soldiers trying to enforce peace? I'll tell you. The exact same thing they're doing now. All those people have ever known is fear and violence. The thought of a peacefull democracy scares the living shit out of them. As long as they can still instill fear into the hearts of the people, it's not gonna matter who's defending or enforcing what. It's going to happen. Study the history from that region. They've been killing each other in high numbers for decades.

If the locals are upset because the are being occupied, they won't be as upset by having other arabs doing the occupying.

Thanks, I needed a laugh after reading your drivel.

Now here is where you might get lost:

One of the insurgents & terrorists biggest ideological tools is that "they are fighting a Holy war against the unholy non-Islamic infedel occupiers of Arab lands." With arabic militaries doing the job, and us back home, that argument is GONE. Plain and simple. This would reduce the ability to recruit terrorists, be tolerated by the communities wherein they are now hiding, and would lead to a dramatic reduction insurgent violence.

You can't honestly believe that.

First, had it been left to me instead of you and your boy W, we would NOT have gone in and stirred up the sh!t to begin with. You get the credit for Bush's blunder, not me. So the mess we are cleaning up is really YOUR mess, not mine.

1. Why do you assume I'm a republican? Just because I disagree with you? Because I'm a Soldier? Point out where I've stated my political preference, please.

2. You live in this country right? You pay taxes, right? Guess that means it's just as much your mess as mine. It's this type of attitude that will be the downfall of the US.

However, I can only lead the horse to the water. I can't make it drink.

Maybe you should work on leading your own head out of your ass first. Then we can worry about horses and water. :bored:

And what I'm suggesting is that we let the league of arab nations take a leading role. WE FOOT THE TAB. (I made that clear in my analogy... You really don't read very well.)

And so you did. I missed it. Oh well.

But now let's make one damm thing VERY clear that I AM saying: Yes, let arabs die instead of Americans. Saddam was more of their problem than he was ours. Didn't he invade Kuwait? Didn't he war with Iran? Didn't he threaten the Saudis? Are you suggesting that you would rather see American troops killed?

:nonono:

I think you better back up and rethink your position on that one.

Who had to go in and clean up the mess the first time? Us. Why? Because Kuwait was scared and didn't have the forces to defend themselves. What makes you think things would be different now?

Each and every one of my posts contains far more suggestions, logic, and explanation than yours. I'll tell you what. Why don't you try thinking for a change and making a solid debate instead of just tossing out insults. I don't mind the insults, in fact, they humor me. But I like to mix them with something more intellectually stimulating when I can.

That's a matter of opinion my friend. You sound more like you have no idea what you're talking about eveytime you post. And yet, you keep posting. Why? Didn't anyone ever tell you that it's better to keep your mouth (or in this case, you fingers on the keyboard) shut and let people think you a fool than to open your mouth (or again, in your case, post) and prove it?

Otherwise.... you'll simply make another of this threads most worthless posts. And if you try real hard, you might even be able to make one more worthless than this:

Why Eddy, I don't think I could out do you for that honor if I tried. Really, I don't.

 

[svt32v99]

sir while reading through this thread you are the one i don't take seriously. it doesn't make any sense to talk as much as you do without making a point.

You see, you come to that conclusion because you disagree with me. In regard to eddy, he uses pure emotion to develop his comments (notice the lack of the use of the word "thoughts"). Thought is something liberals do not do very well. Knee jerk reactionism is a trait of the disease known as liberalism. You are guilty.

 

[esqeddy]

* Yawn *

This post was even more boring than the last. Though you did at least try and address the issues on occasion.... as best you could.

Yep. Just as I thought. You're backpeddling. Way to go bro.

How you get to me not agreeing with the words that you tried to put into my mouth to back peddling as beyond the largest leap of deductive reasoning known to man. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

Regardless of how "stupid and ingenuine" it looks, that's how it is. Take it, leave it or just STFU. Those are your options. I can promise you there's nothing you can do to change the way it is, so why bitch about it?

Oh, now this is good. "The world according to Garth." Sorry, pal but you are not god, you do not have the power to proclaim and "Let their be 'that's how it is' " and have it instantly be truth.

Guess what. That ISN'T how it has to be. I've shown you a viable alternative. PERIOD. And most of the advantages you haven't even challanged. Let's examine the few you have:

Yeah, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks. Unlike some people, I believe we're doing a good thing over there. We could've gone about it differently, I'll give you that. But as far as everyone saying "Get out" or "You're wrong", to them I will say the very same thing that I said to you in my previous paragraph.

No wonder the world hates Americans.

Who says you're the majority? Are you gonna listen to exit polls and popularity contests? Believe everything you read. I, on the other hand, will stick with what I see.

You missed it again. Its all of America that isn't the Majority I'm refering to. Its the rest of the world that is the majority of humanity out of which American's are a small minority.

What the hell do you think they'd do if it was "Arabic" soldiers trying to enforce peace? I'll tell you. The exact same thing they're doing now. All those people have ever known is fear and violence. The thought of a peacefull democracy scares the living shit out of them. As long as they can still instill fear into the hearts of the people, it's not gonna matter who's defending or enforcing what. It's going to happen. Study the history from that region. They've been killing each other in high numbers for decades.

Let's all bow... he has made another proclamation. Although I don't agree, Let's assume, for thw sake of argument that you are right and the arabs kill each other. SO WHAT?! AT LEAST THEY WON'T BE KILLING US!!!

GET IT?

DUH!!! Can you get any denser?!

1. Why do you assume I'm a republican? Just because I disagree with you? Because I'm a Soldier? Point out where I've stated my political preference, please.

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flys like a duck, swims like a duck, and looks like a duck.... its usually a duck.

2. You live in this country right? You pay taxes, right? Guess that means it's just as much your mess as mine. It's this type of attitude that will be the downfall of the US.

WRONG!!! Its attitudes like yours that has cost us international credibility and has us pissing away money and American lives in a wasted effort you support. Keep doing that and it will be the downfall of the US.

And so you did. I missed it. Oh well.

Oh well.... you seem to making a habit out of it. You've missed darn near every point I've made. You are so busy arguing, you've forgotten to think.

Who had to go in and clean up the mess the first time? Us. Why? Because Kuwait was scared and didn't have the forces to defend themselves. What makes you think things would be different now?

You are comparing oranges to apples. The first mess was caused by Iraq defying the UN and invading Kuwait. The second mess was caused by the US defying the UN and invading Iraq. Well gee.... maybe these messes have something in common after all. However, Iraq was the bad guy when the did it, and now we are the good guy when we do it? How does that sound?

That's a matter of opinion my friend. You sound more like you have no idea what you're talking about eveytime you post. And yet, you keep posting. Why? Didn't anyone ever tell you that it's better to keep your mouth (or in this case, you fingers on the keyboard) shut and let people think you a fool than to open your mouth (or again, in your case, post) and prove it?

Its funny how some people can't even follow their own advise!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!