Not Ready To End the Fight
Via AP at Hot Air, Marine Cpl. David Thibodeaux's stirring response to MoveOn.org and the Dixie Chicks.
Somehow, I don't think Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (or their supporters) will be big fans.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:56 AM
Comments
1
Stirring anthem for the "1000 Year War"..why no images from Jefferson's war with the Barbary pirates?
Posted by: chris lee at March 20, 2008 02:35 PM (6x0Nb)
2
Do you liberals really think that the Islamo-fascists would play nice if we just left them alone?
How deluded are you people?
How deluded are you people?
Posted by: Conservative CBU at March 20, 2008 03:10 PM (La7YV)
3
Rhetoric for the endless war... A shadowy enemy, nationalist fervor, demonization of dissent, concentration of power in the executive branch ( Kissinger Doctrine ), justified military appropriations, neglect of domestic agendas, masculine martial values, expanded surveilance capacity, suspension of habeas corpus, expansion of necessary "torture" techniques.. etc
Posted by: chris lee at March 20, 2008 04:10 PM (6x0Nb)
4
Yeah about what I thought, completely deluded.
Tell you what, you keep on with your nonsense, and the responsible adults will make sure the Islamo-fascists don't get the chance to chop off your head.
Tell you what, you keep on with your nonsense, and the responsible adults will make sure the Islamo-fascists don't get the chance to chop off your head.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at March 20, 2008 05:22 PM (La7YV)
5
Libtards never "get it". Never will. This one sounds like he needs a diaper change or something. Good singin, good tune, good thought. Thanks for sharing that with us....I appreciate it.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at March 20, 2008 06:11 PM (GAL+4)
6
Chris, it's called "Freedom of Speech," ya know?
The Dixie Chicks are free to say--or sing--whatever they want.
So is Cpl. Thibodeaux.
Apparently, from your comments, it would seem that you accept the first but have a problem with the second.
Oh, and before you drag out the "boycott" bogeyman, remember that as Americans we also have the right to spend our money on what we wish, and therefore if we don't want to buy albums by a certain artist, we're perfectly within our rights.
Have a nice day.
The Dixie Chicks are free to say--or sing--whatever they want.
So is Cpl. Thibodeaux.
Apparently, from your comments, it would seem that you accept the first but have a problem with the second.
Oh, and before you drag out the "boycott" bogeyman, remember that as Americans we also have the right to spend our money on what we wish, and therefore if we don't want to buy albums by a certain artist, we're perfectly within our rights.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 20, 2008 07:30 PM (lueVj)
7
chris is your typical fascist, if you don't agree with him you shouldn't be heard.
It is nice to hear a song from someone who actually loves his country. We've been deluged for so long with anti freedom songs.
It is nice to hear a song from someone who actually loves his country. We've been deluged for so long with anti freedom songs.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at March 20, 2008 07:43 PM (kNqJV)
8
anyway we could get this on the CMT awards show?
Posted by: Rich at March 20, 2008 09:23 PM (siQqy)
9
Chris, I will tell you what. Walk over there, tell an insurgent of whatever faith you are (face to face), tell them that you wish that the US would leave Iraq. Then see how long it takes for them to get your beheading on National T.V.
Until either that happens, or you do something to make this country better than it is. Please show a little frigging respect.
Until either that happens, or you do something to make this country better than it is. Please show a little frigging respect.
Posted by: Matt at March 20, 2008 09:23 PM (9V6Vj)
10
By the way, just an FYI for those who don't know Matt as well as I do... he is an active duty Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. When he talks about doing something for the country, he knows whereof he speaks.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 20, 2008 09:41 PM (lueVj)
11
"A shadowy enemy, nationalist fervor, demonization of dissent, concentration of power in the executive branch ( Kissinger Doctrine ), justified military appropriations, neglect of domestic agendas, masculine martial values, expanded surveilance capacity, suspension of habeas corpus, expansion of necessary "torture" techniques.. etc"
Cripes, when did the lefties become such paranoid, fearfull, freaks? Its sad to see people controled by irrational emotion.
Cripes, when did the lefties become such paranoid, fearfull, freaks? Its sad to see people controled by irrational emotion.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at March 20, 2008 09:43 PM (2wI6h)
12
Did Canada attack us? Did Mexico? Did Trinidad? US foreign interests were attacked . As far as the world trade center goes I am not sure that we have been given the FULL story, although I don't totally believe those who say it was an "inside job" I don't fully believe the OFFICIAL STORY either...Isn't it convenient though , that the altruism of our military action conveniently extends to a country with such significant oil reserves and ignores DARFUR?
Posted by: chris lee at March 20, 2008 10:45 PM (qTV/d)
13
Chris, did you know that Iran is not the nation with the largest oil reserves in the world? That honor belongs to Saudi Arabia.. and given that most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi by nationality, we had a good reason for invading them... if it had just been an excuse to get the oil.
And Canada is #2 in oil reserves... and if we invaded them for their oil, we wouldn't have to worry about flying or sailing our soldiers all the way over to the Middle East.
In short, your assertions about the war for oil fail the laugh test miserably. But we're all used to your assertions causing us to laugh uncontrollably, so please continue.
(FYI: Iraq is 4th. Iran is 3rd. Source here.) Have a nice day.
And Canada is #2 in oil reserves... and if we invaded them for their oil, we wouldn't have to worry about flying or sailing our soldiers all the way over to the Middle East.
In short, your assertions about the war for oil fail the laugh test miserably. But we're all used to your assertions causing us to laugh uncontrollably, so please continue.
(FYI: Iraq is 4th. Iran is 3rd. Source here.) Have a nice day.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 20, 2008 11:06 PM (lueVj)
14
Mr. Lee:
Yes, Iraq has lots and lots of oil. Since you seem to think (sic) 'this war is only about the oil' I only have one question on that score: have you filled up your tank recently (assuming you own a vehicle that uses gasoline)? For the encore follow-up, Why is it you are paying MORE for that gas than in Feb 2003 if the US now controls Iraq's oil?
You have the temerity to scream "DARFUR"...why not "RHOWANDA" under the most blessed Pres. Clinton?
Yes, Iraq has lots and lots of oil. Since you seem to think (sic) 'this war is only about the oil' I only have one question on that score: have you filled up your tank recently (assuming you own a vehicle that uses gasoline)? For the encore follow-up, Why is it you are paying MORE for that gas than in Feb 2003 if the US now controls Iraq's oil?
You have the temerity to scream "DARFUR"...why not "RHOWANDA" under the most blessed Pres. Clinton?
Posted by: Mark at March 20, 2008 11:06 PM (KDHro)
15
Oops, small error... first paragraph should say Iraq, not Iran. That's what I get for typing with an injured hand.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 20, 2008 11:09 PM (lueVj)
16
"I don't fully believe the OFFICIAL STORY either...Isn't"
Some get th guy a tinfoil hat asap. CLs a troofer. That explains a lot!
Some get th guy a tinfoil hat asap. CLs a troofer. That explains a lot!
Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at March 20, 2008 11:39 PM (2wI6h)
17
Global profiteering is supra-nationalistic. They want high demand, and high profits. High oil prices driven by an engineered "scarcity" was the point all along. You should see the movie "Network" and listen to Mr Jensen's speech. GWBUSH is a GREAT President. His TRUE constituents (Energy execs, armament manufacturers) are making out like bandits. Chinese, American, Brittish, Saudi investors are thriving in this climate..and tax breaks, too? Honeeeeey..oh lawdy.
Posted by: chris lee at March 21, 2008 09:25 AM (6x0Nb)
18
At last Mr. Lee reveals himself to be the truther that we suspected he was.
According to this fool, we're to watch hollywood movies to base our understanding of how the world works, and the motivation of our government?
I'd say unbelieveable, but I'd be fooling myself.
According to this fool, we're to watch hollywood movies to base our understanding of how the world works, and the motivation of our government?
I'd say unbelieveable, but I'd be fooling myself.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at March 21, 2008 09:36 AM (La7YV)
19
So brethren, listen not to the heathen's craven rant. I have discounted this sinners heresy and need not address them as they are not worthy of our response. Ye are the faithful, follow the lords of the military, church and international banking system. TINA..there is no alternative.
Posted by: chris lee at March 21, 2008 10:01 AM (6x0Nb)
20
chris lee: Darfur also contains significant oil reserves, though I realize that isn't your point. Exactly what could we be doing in Darfur that we didn't do in Iraq? Are you implying that you would support the same type of military action and occupation that (I'm guessing, here) you oppose in Iraq? If so, why?
mark: Let's not forget the common denominator regarding Darfur and Rwanda: in both places, the "response" is/was led by the UN. The same UN that the left would have us turn our entire foreign policy over to. Something about every imaginable disaster becoming reality must appeal to them.
mark: Let's not forget the common denominator regarding Darfur and Rwanda: in both places, the "response" is/was led by the UN. The same UN that the left would have us turn our entire foreign policy over to. Something about every imaginable disaster becoming reality must appeal to them.
Posted by: Satanam in computatrum at March 21, 2008 10:37 AM (YLs4U)
21
I am not implying or explicating that I would support the same type of action in Darfur. I am only illustrating the motivations of this action as economic not altruistic. The volunteer military is committed (along with an almost equal amount of mercenary contractors) to a conflict that will not result in a proposed "liberal secular democracy". How could it? Why also are WE fighting THEIR fight? Did Canada fight OUR revolutionary war?
Posted by: chris lee at March 21, 2008 11:23 AM (6x0Nb)
22
[[..not result in a proposed "liberal secular democracy". How could it?]]
CL appears to have missed the massive voter turn out that established Iraqs democracy. As to "liberal" and "secular" no one ever clained Iraq would have a liberal, secular democracy; democracy means that the majority of the voters get the government that they want. After 30 or 40 years of prosperous freedom the Iraqis may well move to a more western style, liberal, secular democracy, freedom and capitalism tend to do that to peope, look at US and the Europeans.
CL appears to have missed the massive voter turn out that established Iraqs democracy. As to "liberal" and "secular" no one ever clained Iraq would have a liberal, secular democracy; democracy means that the majority of the voters get the government that they want. After 30 or 40 years of prosperous freedom the Iraqis may well move to a more western style, liberal, secular democracy, freedom and capitalism tend to do that to peope, look at US and the Europeans.
Posted by: grrrr at March 21, 2008 11:38 AM (gkobM)
23
S in c:
I really did think about the wondrous UN and even started including them. However, since they can't even come up with a decent definition of 'terrorism' and are generally ineffective I decided not to include the point. Thank you for doing so
.
One dictatorial regime at a time Chris. Let's not bite of more than we really need.
re Canada: I don't doubt, though have no documentation for the claim, that some Canadians did fight for us in the Revolutionary War (and probably some on the British side). Even if none fought for either, France sure had a pretty big hand in it.
I really did think about the wondrous UN and even started including them. However, since they can't even come up with a decent definition of 'terrorism' and are generally ineffective I decided not to include the point. Thank you for doing so
.
One dictatorial regime at a time Chris. Let's not bite of more than we really need.
re Canada: I don't doubt, though have no documentation for the claim, that some Canadians did fight for us in the Revolutionary War (and probably some on the British side). Even if none fought for either, France sure had a pretty big hand in it.
Posted by: Mark at March 21, 2008 11:47 AM (4od5C)
24
I admit I come to sites like this for the sportive and at times sarcastic banter, but if I may ask , sincerely, to the supporters of this war, do you believe this administration and the version of events and motivations it puts forth. In short do you trust Bush and Cheney?
Posted by: chris lee at March 21, 2008 12:48 PM (6x0Nb)
25
chris lee: "I am not implying or explicating that I would support the same type of action in Darfur. I am only illustrating the motivations of this action as economic not altruistic." Then we have to name you Captain Obvious. Of course our government's course of action had a "what's in it for me?" aspect to it. If that surprises you, then may I ask what exactly you expected, considering the terminally corrupt sleazeballs that occupy Washington at any given time? One has to look no further than the Democrat's unkept promises to curtail corruption by Republicans - supposedly the party of fiscal responsibility and small government - to know that there was at least some self-centered motivation there, or it would have been talked about, but nothing would ever have happened...you know, like Darfur.
BUT...that doesn't meant that my government's motivations are my own. Why did I support the Iraq war? Simply put, because peace in the Middle East was completely impossible so long as Saddam was in power. And destablizing the oppressive regimes surrounding Iraq by placing both a US Military base AND a prospering, relatively free society in their backyards was one of the best possible ways to create peace without paving the place.
Was Saddam's regime brutal? Did they step on human rights? Would he have stymied any efforts at real peace in the Middle East? Unequivcally yes, on all counts, based solely on his history. Now, are you going to tell me that, because Bush, Cheney and some of their friends could have conceivably profited from the Iraq invasion, and that such possible profit could have been a part of their motivation in supporting it, that you would undo the Iraqi invasion? That you would throw away the human rights gains, the removal of one of the many impediments to peace and the increase in value of the human race (by the removal of Saddam and his psychotic sons from the equation) just because some people you don't like might have made a buck? That's shallow, man. Feel free to send a card to Darfur - "Sorry - I realize you're all being killed, but I just found out there's oil there, so I can't risk Bush and Cheney getting richer. Best of luck!"
A "liberal secular democracy" may not be the result of the current conflict - I'll concede that whether or not it happens isn't up to us. But I'll demand a concession from you at the same time - a liberal secular democracy was doggone sure impossible with Saddam in power. Part of the strategy in choosing Iraq was that Iraq has a history of a relatively cosmopolitan society. In other words, there is underpinning there that might give us a chance for success. (The lack of such underpinning is your real answer as to why we don't also go into Darfur militarily). And it is easy to envision what the effect on the neighboring 7th century thugocracies would be if we dropped a prosperous, relatively free society right in the middle of them.
A grand plan? Absolutely. But if it succeeds, we make the world a better place with the minimum possible amounts of conflict and death. Please tell me that counts for something with you.
BUT...that doesn't meant that my government's motivations are my own. Why did I support the Iraq war? Simply put, because peace in the Middle East was completely impossible so long as Saddam was in power. And destablizing the oppressive regimes surrounding Iraq by placing both a US Military base AND a prospering, relatively free society in their backyards was one of the best possible ways to create peace without paving the place.
Was Saddam's regime brutal? Did they step on human rights? Would he have stymied any efforts at real peace in the Middle East? Unequivcally yes, on all counts, based solely on his history. Now, are you going to tell me that, because Bush, Cheney and some of their friends could have conceivably profited from the Iraq invasion, and that such possible profit could have been a part of their motivation in supporting it, that you would undo the Iraqi invasion? That you would throw away the human rights gains, the removal of one of the many impediments to peace and the increase in value of the human race (by the removal of Saddam and his psychotic sons from the equation) just because some people you don't like might have made a buck? That's shallow, man. Feel free to send a card to Darfur - "Sorry - I realize you're all being killed, but I just found out there's oil there, so I can't risk Bush and Cheney getting richer. Best of luck!"
A "liberal secular democracy" may not be the result of the current conflict - I'll concede that whether or not it happens isn't up to us. But I'll demand a concession from you at the same time - a liberal secular democracy was doggone sure impossible with Saddam in power. Part of the strategy in choosing Iraq was that Iraq has a history of a relatively cosmopolitan society. In other words, there is underpinning there that might give us a chance for success. (The lack of such underpinning is your real answer as to why we don't also go into Darfur militarily). And it is easy to envision what the effect on the neighboring 7th century thugocracies would be if we dropped a prosperous, relatively free society right in the middle of them.
A grand plan? Absolutely. But if it succeeds, we make the world a better place with the minimum possible amounts of conflict and death. Please tell me that counts for something with you.
Posted by: Satanam in computatrum at March 21, 2008 03:07 PM (YLs4U)
26
And no, I do not trust Bush and Cheney. I will not trust McCain, Obama or Clinton, either. They are politicians. What more need I say?
Posted by: Satanam in computatrum at March 21, 2008 03:09 PM (YLs4U)
27
Chris: I trust Bush and Cheney a lot more than a member of a political party that cheerleads for foreign military defeat in order to boost domestic political prospects.
Even in the Clinton administration Republicans never burned American flags, nor besieged recruiting offices, nor encouraged desertion or fragging. Your co-religonists? Well... just go to Zombietime or the comment section at Kos or HuffPo and you can see them in all of their glory.
Yes, I trust Bush and Cheney... more than I trust you.
Even in the Clinton administration Republicans never burned American flags, nor besieged recruiting offices, nor encouraged desertion or fragging. Your co-religonists? Well... just go to Zombietime or the comment section at Kos or HuffPo and you can see them in all of their glory.
Yes, I trust Bush and Cheney... more than I trust you.
Posted by: DaveP. at March 21, 2008 03:57 PM (6iy97)
28
Chris, since you seem to believe that movies reflect reality, may I ask when was the last time you put on blue tights and a red cape and attempted to fly?
How often have you been asked to help a friendly extraterrestrial being "phone home"?
Do you have a working lightsaber? (I mean working as in "the blade can cut almost anything," not in the sense of "look, it lights up!"
Has the White House been destroyed by a spaceship in your lifetime?
The fact that you cannot distinguish between fiction and reality explains a lot of your posts, Chris.
How often have you been asked to help a friendly extraterrestrial being "phone home"?
Do you have a working lightsaber? (I mean working as in "the blade can cut almost anything," not in the sense of "look, it lights up!"
Has the White House been destroyed by a spaceship in your lifetime?
The fact that you cannot distinguish between fiction and reality explains a lot of your posts, Chris.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 21, 2008 07:19 PM (lueVj)
29
Oh, and speaking of "engineered oil scarcity," Mr. Lee, which party continually blocks drilling for oil in ANWR? There's somewhere between 10 and 16 billion (yes, billion, with a b) barrels there. That would pretty much end the "engineered oil scarcity," wouldn't it?
So which party is "engineering" the "oil scarcity" by declaring some 10 billion barrels off limits?
I anticipate your spin, Chris.
So which party is "engineering" the "oil scarcity" by declaring some 10 billion barrels off limits?
I anticipate your spin, Chris.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 21, 2008 07:24 PM (lueVj)
30
no spin. I asked a question, your answers were perfect, perfect.
Posted by: chris lee at March 21, 2008 09:01 PM (qTV/d)
31
And you avoided answering my question, Chris. Is it the Bush White House that is stopping the drilling in ANWR in order to keep their "engineered oil scarcity" going, or is it perhaps another party?
Posted by: C-C-G at March 21, 2008 09:25 PM (lueVj)
32
i'm not very familiar with that issue, but my understanding is that it's a preservation issue.
Posted by: chris lee at March 21, 2008 10:00 PM (qTV/d)
33
No, preservation is merely a straw man argument. The Alaska Pipeline hasn't affected the wildlife in the area, there's no reason to believe that oil wells in ANWR (which is 19.2 million--yes, million--acres) would negatively impact wildlife. With 19.2 million acres, there would still be plenty of room for the few critters in the area.
Of course, like most lefties, Chris, you merely accept whatever comes out of any lefty politician's mouth without bothering to verify it yourself. It's sad, really.
Of course, like most lefties, Chris, you merely accept whatever comes out of any lefty politician's mouth without bothering to verify it yourself. It's sad, really.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 22, 2008 08:27 AM (lueVj)
34
"Like most lefties.." When you say things like that so callously and derisively, what kind of effect are you hoping for? Agreement from your partisan compadres? Or are you trying to reach out with understanding and "compassion"..I am not criticising I am just after an honest understanding of certain attitudes.
Posted by: chris lee at March 22, 2008 10:05 AM (qTV/d)
35
Clown nose on, clown nose off.
Posted by: DaveP. at March 22, 2008 01:00 PM (6iy97)
36
Yes Chris Lee ----you figured it out - we haven't been told the FULL story about 9/11 OR about that warm sunny day in Hawaii on December 7, 1941 when planes flew overhead and dropped bombs on Pearl Harbor! We knew the Japanese were coming, we just "conveniently" ignored the information so they'd attack & the US would have a "reason" to go to war.
*grabs tin foil*
Paranoia strikes deep:
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
You step out of line, the man come and take you away.
It's 1968 all over again. The truthers are stuck in a freaking time warp.
"Rhetoric for the endless war... A shadowy enemy, nationalist fervor, demonization of dissent, concentration of power in the executive branch ( Kissinger Doctrine ), justified military appropriations, neglect of domestic agendas, masculine martial values, expanded surveilance capacity, suspension of habeas corpus, expansion of necessary "torture" techniques.. etc"
Way to go Chris - that's the way to reach out to US with compassion and understanding.
So to throw it back at ya: When you say things like that so callously and derisively, what kind of effect are you hoping for?
We give as good as we get.
Try toning down the left wing paranoid rhetoric if you really want an "honest understanding of certain attitudes."
and by certain attitudes you mean: why we refuse to surrender to our enemies & why most of our soldiers and Marines are not ready to give up.
Perhaps you can provide us with an honest understanding of why those on the left ARE.
*grabs tin foil*
Paranoia strikes deep:
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
You step out of line, the man come and take you away.
It's 1968 all over again. The truthers are stuck in a freaking time warp.
"Rhetoric for the endless war... A shadowy enemy, nationalist fervor, demonization of dissent, concentration of power in the executive branch ( Kissinger Doctrine ), justified military appropriations, neglect of domestic agendas, masculine martial values, expanded surveilance capacity, suspension of habeas corpus, expansion of necessary "torture" techniques.. etc"
Way to go Chris - that's the way to reach out to US with compassion and understanding.
So to throw it back at ya: When you say things like that so callously and derisively, what kind of effect are you hoping for?
We give as good as we get.
Try toning down the left wing paranoid rhetoric if you really want an "honest understanding of certain attitudes."
and by certain attitudes you mean: why we refuse to surrender to our enemies & why most of our soldiers and Marines are not ready to give up.
Perhaps you can provide us with an honest understanding of why those on the left ARE.
Posted by: Huntress at March 22, 2008 04:39 PM (Qn9iF)
37
Chris, I tried understanding you once. It didn't take long. Now you're nothing more than a cat-toy that I bat around for my amusement, because with one exception, you've shown yourself to be incapable of coming up with a coherent argument.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 22, 2008 08:42 PM (lueVj)
38
I am not criticising I am just after an honest understanding of certain attitudes.
No, you've clearly demonstrated that you're interested in no such thing. Don't pretend you have an open mind, chris.
No, you've clearly demonstrated that you're interested in no such thing. Don't pretend you have an open mind, chris.
Posted by: Pablo at March 22, 2008 09:38 PM (yTndK)
39
As a proud veteran of 25 years. After being in Iraq, from March 21, 2003 - March 1, 2008, it really annoys me how the young people of today don't care! I am 60 years old and still kicking. In March this year marks my 25th year as a veteran. ''Not Ready to End the Fight'' is a sad example of a publicity song. I have listened to the song. I was not, am not, never will be: proud of it. He does not know how many people have died. 21 people in my family were lost as a result of war. Plus, the writer of this song uses half of the lyric from the Dixie Chicks hit "Not Ready to Make Nice". USE YOUR OWN WORDS, and MUSIC. I 100% support the Dixie Chicks, and their rights, considering I have been fighting for them for 25 years. We should be in Afghanistan, were the real threat lies. Not in Iraq where nothing can be done. After saying this, you need to have experienced war, death, and the heartache of fighting for freedom so young kids can sing songs about not ending a fight that they think they are fighting!
NOW YOU HAVE A NICE DAY!
NOW YOU HAVE A NICE DAY!
Posted by: Seth at March 22, 2008 10:04 PM (FpXbD)
40
Seth: Cpl. Thibodeaux has been in both Afghanistan and Iraq... you should respect his opinions as I am sure he would respect yours. The Military has a Mission... I suppose you want them to fail at it as you don't support it.
You need to recruit the Dixie Chicks to run for President... at least they would be more qualified that your current liberal, raciest bigot, anti-American candidates you now have to choose from.
For you to say Cpl. Thibodeaux opinion isn't relevant is shameful. Get help.
You need to recruit the Dixie Chicks to run for President... at least they would be more qualified that your current liberal, raciest bigot, anti-American candidates you now have to choose from.
For you to say Cpl. Thibodeaux opinion isn't relevant is shameful. Get help.
Posted by: Eric at March 22, 2008 10:19 PM (ajhwA)
41
Seth sounds more like Jesse McBeth....
Posted by: SDN at March 23, 2008 03:16 AM (3e9If)
42
Why did we go?
Ref: (1)http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/08/990802-in.htm
(2)http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm
(3)http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20041011a.html
(4)http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...classified.pdf
(5) FMFRP 3-203 {open source}
(6) FMFRP 4-509 {UNCLASS - FOUO}
(7) UN resolution 1284
(
UN resolution 686
(9) UN resolution 687
1. As per reference (1) and reference (3) there were established long term ties between Iraq and various terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East. These ties were linked to attacks carried out in the U.S. in reference (1). Because of late insertion of SOF forces, we were only able to witness (but not identify) the movement of large numbers of both personnel and unidentified ordinance into Syria, as per reference (6).
2. As reference (4) shows, Iraq did not stay within the confines of UN resolution, because of the findings listed in reference (3). It is because of this, and the unidentified troop and munitions movements listed in reference (6) that gives credence to the ideal that Iraq continued to violate the terms of Reference (7). Per reference (5) Iraq showed the willingness to use CB weapons against unarmed civilians.
3. In keeping with the above paragraphs, it should also be noted that there were continued violations of both reference (8 ) and reference (9). As was stated in both reference (8 ) and reference (9), breaking either of the above references can authorize military intervention to cease the infractions.
This Marine's findings as a plank holder (that means I helped write it) of reference (6) and from the above references, the push on Iraq was justified.
Ref: (1)http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/08/990802-in.htm
(2)http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm
(3)http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20041011a.html
(4)http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...classified.pdf
(5) FMFRP 3-203 {open source}
(6) FMFRP 4-509 {UNCLASS - FOUO}
(7) UN resolution 1284
(
UN resolution 686
(9) UN resolution 687
1. As per reference (1) and reference (3) there were established long term ties between Iraq and various terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East. These ties were linked to attacks carried out in the U.S. in reference (1). Because of late insertion of SOF forces, we were only able to witness (but not identify) the movement of large numbers of both personnel and unidentified ordinance into Syria, as per reference (6).
2. As reference (4) shows, Iraq did not stay within the confines of UN resolution, because of the findings listed in reference (3). It is because of this, and the unidentified troop and munitions movements listed in reference (6) that gives credence to the ideal that Iraq continued to violate the terms of Reference (7). Per reference (5) Iraq showed the willingness to use CB weapons against unarmed civilians.
3. In keeping with the above paragraphs, it should also be noted that there were continued violations of both reference (8 ) and reference (9). As was stated in both reference (8 ) and reference (9), breaking either of the above references can authorize military intervention to cease the infractions.
This Marine's findings as a plank holder (that means I helped write it) of reference (6) and from the above references, the push on Iraq was justified.
Posted by: Matt at March 23, 2008 04:42 PM (9V6Vj)
43
Matt, ya missed one of my favorites: a State Department press release about Bin Laden being indicted.
The interesting part is near the bottom:
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.
Given that the date of this news release is 04 Nov 1998, the "Government of Iraq" is pretty much synonymous with "Saddam Hussein."
By the way, was George W. Bush President in 1998? Or did Karl Rove have plants in the State Department?
The interesting part is near the bottom:
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.
Given that the date of this news release is 04 Nov 1998, the "Government of Iraq" is pretty much synonymous with "Saddam Hussein."
By the way, was George W. Bush President in 1998? Or did Karl Rove have plants in the State Department?
Posted by: C-C-G at March 23, 2008 04:48 PM (lueVj)
44
Seth: You say you're 60 years old and have been a veteran for 25 years? So, you joined the service at 35? Isn't that a bit old? Many career military retire at age 40.
The 60 year old vets I know have been vets for 40 years -since the Vietnam era.
Just wondering about the numbers here,...,
The 60 year old vets I know have been vets for 40 years -since the Vietnam era.
Just wondering about the numbers here,...,
Posted by: Donna at March 24, 2008 06:30 AM (L/5hE)
45
"Seth: You say you're 60 years old and have been a veteran for 25 years? So, you joined the service at 35? Isn't that a bit old? Many career military retire at age 40."
IIRC, the Air Force has the oldest enlistment age, and that is 32.
IIRC, the Air Force has the oldest enlistment age, and that is 32.
Posted by: Matt at March 24, 2008 01:03 PM (9V6Vj)
46
After saying this, you need to have experienced war, death, and the heartache of fighting for freedom so young kids can sing songs about not ending a fight that they think they are fighting!
Hmmmmmmm,....,
Hmmmmmmm,....,
Posted by: Donna at March 24, 2008 08:02 PM (631bb)
Posted by: Emily at March 24, 2008 09:31 PM (FpXbD)
48
Hey, this is the same Seth from above. I am only 14. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I really had you people going didn't I??????????? 25 years my foot. 60 years my foot. Jesus Christ, people really get worked up over a song don't they? I only wanted to see how many people would get offended. All of you did, so my plan worked. I do stick with a small part of that paragraph above. I think that the singer and writer of this song should come up with their own melody. Oh yeah, and even if I was sixty and and served 25 years, and entered the forces when I was 35. That's still would be 25 more years you served. I'm only 14, but if you only served 1 year, I would have respect for you. I completely respect the singer of this song, I only wrote what I wrote that so I could watch all of you squirm, and get all tore up!
NOW HAVE A NICE DAY!
NOW HAVE A NICE DAY!
Posted by: Seth at March 24, 2008 09:41 PM (FpXbD)
49
Emily can't do simple math, and doesn't know much about logic either (whether Matt did service is not the point, dearie, the point is that Seth is clearly a liar, as Seth himself admits. So go hmmmmm yourself, sweetie.)
Seth, you're 14? Sounds about right to me,..., I'm guessing that's Emily's age too.
Seth, you're 14? Sounds about right to me,..., I'm guessing that's Emily's age too.
Posted by: Donna at March 25, 2008 05:47 AM (Y3fvc)
50
"Well, Matt? How many years have you served over seas?"
Why are you asking me? While I am in, I never made any claims to be in this thread. But anyway. I have been in the Corps for just over ten years, I joined at 19, and I am 29. I pumped to Iraq three times, Afghan twice, and a few other places before that.
I think you need to go back and read my posts again, it seems as if you got confused.
Why are you asking me? While I am in, I never made any claims to be in this thread. But anyway. I have been in the Corps for just over ten years, I joined at 19, and I am 29. I pumped to Iraq three times, Afghan twice, and a few other places before that.
I think you need to go back and read my posts again, it seems as if you got confused.
Posted by: Matt at March 25, 2008 02:17 PM (9V6Vj)
51
Well, okay, we've got Seth pinned as a confirmed and admitted liar. Guess that means we don't have to believe--or even listen to--anything he says ever again.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 25, 2008 06:21 PM (lueVj)
52
Yes, a simple act of reporting a story does not make one a proponent of one side or the other. It is being a proponent of one side or the other that makes one a proponent of one side or the other.
Posted by: George Bruce at March 27, 2008 10:48 AM (tj2NC)
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0154 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0065 seconds, 60 records returned.
Page size 37 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.