Why is Everyone so Against the War?

ozmar

Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
I didn't say you back peddled, I was talking about Grouper.
Ozmar the ... should have read the post a little more carefully (doesn't seem to fit).
Oh, I see. When you said "Just in the spirit of Ozmar... Grouper the back-peddler." I thought you meant that as "the spirit of Ozmar is to be a back-peddler". I guess you meant "the spirit of Ozmar is to write 'someone the something'." Is that right?
Ozmar the Understanding
 

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by Ozmar
Oh, I see. When you said "Just in the spirit of Ozmar... Grouper the back-peddler." I thought you meant that as "the spirit of Ozmar is to be a back-peddler". I guess you meant "the spirit of Ozmar is to write 'someone the something'." Is that right?
Ozmar the Understanding
You got it.
Crimzy and Ozmar the.... the no longer miscommunicating.
 

groupergenius

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
I didn't say you back peddled, I was talking about Grouper.
Ozmar the ... should have read the post a little more carefully (doesn't seem to fit).
Where did I ...back peddle??? Your Blue--- I'm Red
I don't see how you can attribute this to the war in Iraq. Have you forgotten that 6 years ago there was this minor thing here in New York and Washington D.C.? Do you think that the events of 9-11 changed our security measures on suspected terrorist targets slightly? Take a look at the events around the globe... terrorist attacks are on the rise. We haven't had any here because security has increased many times over again. How can you overlook something so obvious? Maybe because it helps your argument to suggest that the Iraqi war is wiping out terrorism. Helps your argument but completely untrue....
There I go using color again.
Now, you have made our point. Now we have a Prez who takes the stuff serious. Now we have a Prez who is not afraid to do something about it.
So the war is a response to the 9-11 attacks, according to your post, right? But 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, along with Bin Laden himself. But none of the hijackers were Iraqi and there was no Al Queda in Iraq at that time. Makes a lot of sense to me
Huh?? Is that what I said?? Show me where I said that.
Look at the quote I used of yours-and the quote you used on that post.
It was about attacks on US soil. I never said anything about war response for 9-11. But I realize that the talking point tactics you are using is very typical. Put words in other mouths to try to validate your ideaology.
Sounds very MoveOn to me
Wait a minute here... I was talking about the increased security as a result of 9-11 and not the war on Iraq. And you quoted me and stated, "Now we have a Prez who takes the stuff serious. Now we have a Prez who is not afraid to do something about it." Sounds to me like you were talking about a response to 9-11.
Just in the spirit of Ozmar... Grouper the back-peddler.
 

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Where did I ...back peddle??? Your Blue--- I'm Red
I don't see how you can attribute this to the war in Iraq. Have you forgotten that 6 years ago there was this minor thing here in New York and Washington D.C.? Do you think that the events of 9-11 changed our security measures on suspected terrorist targets slightly? Take a look at the events around the globe... terrorist attacks are on the rise. We haven't had any here because security has increased many times over again. How can you overlook something so obvious? Maybe because it helps your argument to suggest that the Iraqi war is wiping out terrorism. Helps your argument but completely untrue....
There I go using color again.
Now, you have made our point. Now we have a Prez who takes the stuff serious. Now we have a Prez who is not afraid to do something about it.
So the war is a response to the 9-11 attacks, according to your post, right? But 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, along with Bin Laden himself. But none of the hijackers were Iraqi and there was no Al Queda in Iraq at that time. Makes a lot of sense to me
Huh?? Is that what I said?? Show me where I said that.
Look at the quote I used of yours-and the quote you used on that post.
It was about attacks on US soil. I never said anything about war response for 9-11. But I realize that the talking point tactics you are using is very typical. Put words in other mouths to try to validate your ideaology.
Sounds very MoveOn to me
Wait a minute here... I was talking about the increased security as a result of 9-11 and not the war on Iraq. And you quoted me and stated, "Now we have a Prez who takes the stuff serious. Now we have a Prez who is not afraid to do something about it." Sounds to me like you were talking about a response to 9-11.
Just in the spirit of Ozmar... Grouper the back-peddler.
Oh don't get your panties in a bunch. At this point, I don't have the time to get into a long, drawn out argument over whether or not you back-peddled. Maybe later. Regardless, it has little to do with the topic of the thread.
Again, nice use of color.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Didnt these mass killings happen in the 80's? which was a long time ago... why now overthrow his gov't... We should have completed the job in 1990 if this was our reasoning for going after him...
And I hear everyday about mass killings in Iraq... 75 dead, 12 dead, recent mass graves found, 36 dead, 45 dead, etc...etc...
Then I hear the police are not doing the job,
Government is dysfuntional
Gov't on vacation for 30 days
Leaders assinanted
Police station bombed
etc..
Look you aren't going to hear positive things from the Media, they clearly have an agenda, and it isn't to have a kumbaya camp out with Bush at the ranch.
As for the Govt on Vacation, you know they are just copying your glorious leaders in congress from the left who were also on vacation till this week, while our "troops were dying for nothing."
 

ozmar

Member
Woo hoo! Check out President Bush's speech last night. Good stuff here.
I think we can all rally behind this:
"Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists."
And this:
"Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win. "
Ozmar the Happy
 

ozmar

Member
For some great analysis on Bush's speech, Petraeus' report, and the current war situation, look here.
Best is from Michael Yon, an independent reporter who is certainly worth your time and attention if you want to know what is going on in Iraq.
"During this week’s congressional hearings on progress in Iraq, General David Petraeus sat side-by-side with Ambassador Ryan Crocker and delivered some of the most candid-yet-informed talk I have heard about the war since it began. Despite that some elected officials raised questions about the veracity of the report, or sought to advance alternative policy adjustments in response it, I didn’t have to take their words on faith or support their recommendations on ideological grounds or for political agendas. I’ve been on the ground in Iraq long enough, and have seen enough of the country, to know that everything said by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker was an accurate reflection of my own direct experience. Things are different in Iraq. And they are better."
"The indicators were going in the wrong direction, and sharply, for most of 2006. I have been a vocal critic of the bad policy decisions and clumsy executions that combined to put us in a virtual freefall in Iraq. Chief among these was a near constant failure on the part of policymakers, elected or appointed, to listen to the recommendations of military and diplomatic officials on the ground. Putting ideology before reality and political survival before national security got us into dire straits. Petraeus and Crocker offered sober, seasoned, and narrow way forward out of the mire. My only question watching the hearings, and listening to the president’s address Thursday night, was whether Congress and the administration had learned from their many mistakes. From Bush’s speech, it’s clear the president had heard and listened to his two top officials in Iraq. Petraeus and Crocker told the truth, as did the president."
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Many of the ones we are fighting are teenagers and children...
Do you have any evidence that we are fighting children in Iraq?
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
The Presidential Address.... didn't listen... but heard critiques...
Sounds like Bush is trying to pass/authorize new orders in regards to this conflict that would place our military in Iraq just like we are in Korea and Germany... so that any president afterward can not bring them home... We've been in those places for 40-60 years. Do we want our soilders and the goverenment commited to Iraq for the next 40 years?
We still have troops in Germany from WW2. We still have trpops in Italy from WW2. We still have troops in Cuba (Spanish American war?). We still have troops in Japan from WW2. We still have troops in Korea. We still have troops in Kuwait.
Does it surprise you we are partnering with a country we liberated to have a military presence there?
 

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
We still have troops in Germany from WW2. We still have trpops in Italy from WW2. We still have troops in Cuba (Spanish American war?). We still have troops in Japan from WW2. We still have troops in Korea. We still have troops in Kuwait.
Does it surprise you we are partnering with a country we liberated to have a military presence there?
We have had a presence in all of these countries for various reasons. However, one key difference is that by and large, they are freindly towards our troops and our troops lives are not in danger every day. Don't you think that many in the middle-east will see our presence there as a slap in the face and will continue to mount attacks against them? Can you say with confidence that if we are still there in 20 years that our troops will be accepted and relatively safe or will they be seen as an occupying force?
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
We have had a presence in all of these countries for various reasons. However, one key difference is that by and large, they are freindly towards our troops and our troops lives are not in danger every day. Don't you think that many in the middle-east will see our presence there as a slap in the face and will continue to mount attacks against them? Can you say with confidence that if we are still there in 20 years that our troops will be accepted and relatively safe or will they be seen as an occupying force?
Well Japan and Germany were hardly friendly immediately after WW2.
Some in the Middle East will see it as a slap, but then again if we sneeze in public those same people we see THAT as a slap in the face.
We have troops in Saudi Arabia (remember that became one of Bin Laden's rallying cries) Quatar, and Kuwait already. Unless we withdraw completely I don't see how one more base will offend anyone other than Iran. A permanent US base in Iraq assures the region that Iran won't be marching west anytime soon.
 

groupergenius

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
Oh don't get your panties in a bunch.
Classy response.
Originally Posted by crimzy
At this point, I don't have the time to get into a long, drawn out argument over whether or not you back-peddled. Maybe later. Regardless, it has little to do with the topic of the thread.
Typical drive by media trick. Throw out an accusation without proof.
Originally Posted by crimzy

Again, nice use of color.
Thanks. I aim to please.
Oh BTW, thanks for the Ozmar compliment. Now that I know who Ozmar is, I would have to say I agree with alot of what Ozmar says.
 

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Classy response.
Typical drive by media trick. Throw out an accusation without proof.
Thanks. I aim to please.
Oh BTW, thanks for the Ozmar compliment. Now that I know who Ozmar is, I would have to say I agree with alot of what Ozmar says.
You took the time to do all that??????? Do we really need to argue over the minutia of every obscure detail. I really don't care whether you back-peddled or not. From the discussion it definitely seemed so. However if you meant something different from the way it sounded then so be it. Is this really good reading for everybody following this thread???
If you don't like "don't get your panties in a bunch", how about "don't sweat the small stuff"? Is that classy enough to live up to your standards?

BTW, your above post was boring and uncolorful. I expect more from you at this point.
 

deltablack22

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Many of the ones we are fighting are teenagers and children...
Teenager, child, pregnant woman... I dont care who it is. If one of them poses a direct threat to the lives of my Marines or myself I wont think twice about letting loose rounds down range...
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
Teenager, child, pregnant woman... I dont care who it is. If one of them poses a direct threat to the lives of my Marines or myself I wont think twice about letting loose rounds down range...
While it's true that children have been used by various militias and militaries recently, I have seen nothing about children fighting in Iraq. I really want Ryan to discuss this statement more fully.
 

deltablack22

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
While it's true that children have been used by various militias and militaries recently, I have seen nothing about children fighting in Iraq. I really want Ryan to discuss this statement more fully.
I havent seen it as being a "common" trend, but recently I have been hearing reports of women being used in the suicide bomber role. Children on the other hand is not something that I personally have heard anything about.
 

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
Teenager, child, pregnant woman... I dont care who it is. If one of them poses a direct threat to the lives of my Marines or myself I wont think twice about letting loose rounds down range...
Thankfully, I have not heard of children being used. I would hope that you if you ever had to shot a child you'd think long and hard about it after the fact...they are innocents being taken advantage of by very bad people.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Didnt these mass killings happen in the 80's? which was a long time ago... why now overthrow his gov't... We should have completed the job in 1990 if this was our reasoning for going after him.....
No the murders of the Kurds occurred after the gulf war as a direct result of them standing up to Sadaam because we said we would support them and back them up....then we left.
Furthermore the reason Then President Bush did not remove sadaam Hussein was because he said it would force us to have a significant troop level in the region and the fighting would continue after the removal of Sadaam for years......and the American people would not be able to handle it or see why it is necessary......Imagine that? Smart man.
Mind you I am paraphrasing and not giving exact quotes.
Yet many of todays congressman were in office when he stated this, I am surprised they don't remember this.
 

mike22cha

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
Thankfully, I have not heard of children being used. I would hope that you if you ever had to shot a child you'd think long and hard about it after the fact...they are innocents being taken advantage of by very bad people.
You've never seen children? There are plenty of videos of children holding guns and weapons in the Middle East and Africa. But if a child was threating my fellow soldiers, I wouldn't shoot to kill, maybe to wound, but I would never want to kill a child. I don't think I could live with such a memory.
 

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
You've never seen children? There are plenty of videos of children holding guns and weapons in the Middle East and Africa. But if a child was threating my fellow soldiers, I wouldn't shoot to kill, maybe to wound, but I would never want to kill a child. I don't think I could live with such a memory.
In Africa yes but I have not seen many, if any images of children in this conflict with weapons. Who knows that they future holds and I hope our troops don't have to deal with situations like that.
 
Top