ViperPilot

The insurgents are getting practice? Yeah, they're getting practice dying. There are a very small number of insurgents that actually will live through tough urban conflict and use that skill in future conflicts. Won't happen, we will kill them before they get the chance to use this "experience" in other flashpoints. So no, the US occupation is not giving terrorists practice, it's giving them the option to get their ass kicked. Don't believe everything you read in the news. We are NOT killing twice as many, it's the other way around. Much of the time the Iraqi Health Ministry will say civilians were killed by the US when in fact they weren't. Want an example? Here: We get intel that a particular house is a terrorist "hideout". So, we task an F-16 to drop a JDAM on it. The F-16 does so and demolishes the house with the blast range going only a few feet out. However, unbeknownst to us, the house is filled with hundreds of RPGs, bombs, etc. The explosion sets off these RPGs flying indiscriminately into other houses, people in the street, etc. The civilian death is caused by those insurgent bombs, RPGs, not by our bomb. I've seen a house explode from a JDAM only 50 ft from a woman walking on the street. She was completely unharmed. Lucky for her there wasn't an insurgent weapons cache in that one. So before you start calling my buddies and I murderers because of what some trash reporter says, get the real facts and know what REALLY happens. Cheney was wrong to say the insurgency was in its last throws. Those guys keep pumping more fighters into the country. However, more fighters keep dying. It's really just a stalemate. They send more, we kill more. That's how it works, that's why Gen Abizaid said it's about the same.

Oh ok. They really need to start screening employees better, and better yet, stop letting Indonesia Joe do the job.

The 45 minute thing....close, but no cigar. "According to the British government, [Iraq] could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." In this quote, Bush is saying that it is believed that Iraq has the technological capability to launch a missile within 45 min of the decision. This quote DOES NOT say that the US is in imminent threat of a nuclear attack. In fact, the word nuclear wasn't even mentioned. He is only arguing that this kind of technological ability in Saddam's Iraq is a danger to the entire world, including the US. You can still disagree with that statement though, it's your opinion. He was of little threat to the world when he continued to fund WMD research and terrorists? I can agree with the argument that he wasn't a DIRECT threat, but he certainly was an INDIRECT threat by way of providing monetary funds to the people who are direct threats to the US and most of the world. As long as he was providing that support, he WAS NOT contained. Show me where the SU ignored over 15 UN resolutions against it. And I should have been more clear on "weapons research." I meant research done on WMDs by either terrorist networks, or people working with terrorist networks, in order to provide terrorists with WMDs. Sorry about the confusion. But, when did the Soviets do that?

Since you (bill) think Bush is an idiot, I'm assuming you're a Kerry fan. Even Kerry voted for war in 2002. So, even Kerry was among those who sent America to war. Kerry made the right choice in my opinion.

How does it bash Democrats simply by showing quotes from prominent Democrats? I could care less what the people who made that slideshow think about Kerry or anyone else, I simply posted it here to show quotes from Democrats to back up my argument of how Bush wasn't the sole person to rely on this intelligence and hence think we needed to topple Saddam. I knew somone would get in a hissy fit over the site name and the fact that they didn't like the quotes, but would did you want me to, actually take time to type each quote down into a word document to make you feel better? Hell no, I don't have time for that.

If you're looking for more fact, well, Ron just showed it to you. But I'm assuming you're going to try to argue with proven numbers. Please prove me wrong.

Absolutely false. I am a member of the military and I know directly that a statistic like that is unsubstantiated BS. Yes civilians get hurt/killed in war, it's just what happens. It's very sad and I hate it every single time. But it's not us who does it, it's the insurgents. They kill civilians like there's no tomorrow. Yes tens of thousands of innocent people have died, but how did they die? Car bombs, a machete wielded by an insurgent, insurgent explosives (RPGs, grenades, pipe bombs, compound B, etc) detonated accidentally or on purpose, Sunnis hating Shites so much that they'll shoot an 8 yr old boy just because he's Shite. That's how they die. We DO NOT shoot innocent civilians, our bombs DO NOT blow up innocent civilians. That is not what we do. I can't say that accidents don't happen, but I can say that the number of accidental civilian deaths caused directly by the US military is very low. So NO, Bush did not go to war and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. And lastly, you try being in a country where even an "innocent" 10 yr old comes up to you and hands you a live grenade. When the bad guys don't wear uniforms, war is harder than anything on the face of this planet. p.s. If you only knew how accurate our weapons are and the kind of technology we have available, you'd realize soley based on the aformentioned that the civilian death number you claim is completly impossible and unrealistic.

That really sucks. How did this call center get all this info, i.e. the passwords and security numbers/phrases?

I'm wondering the exact thing? Did you read it or are you just passing people like Ron and I off as wacko right-wing nutjobs?

Trent is correct in saying that there are many people out there who just hate Bush so much that they won't acknowledge anything like this. I've seen it, we've all seen it. I don't think Trent or I came off as directly saying you are one of those. Thus, his argument can be take seriously because it is fact that those people are out there. NO ONE said you were one of them. Everyone should try to be objective, just that many don't.

Skyrad, I will definitely take that. Don't get the impression I posted this to be told I'm right. It's not about that, it's about presenting the fact that we shouldn't blame govt f**k ups single handedly on Bush. To me, sounds like the CIA is to blame. Doesn't mean I totally hate the CIA and think they should be disbanded, but they definitely screwed this one up. Anyhow, Bush should have used to reason of helping/saving innocent Iraqis from tyranny and opression as the main reason for going in. And yes I do believe the rest of the world can be made safer by taking Saddam out of the international loop, but overall, we're there to help people, and they should be the reason we went.

Well, there sure weren't WMDs as of a few years ago, I do believe that. But what do you expect when Saddam was given 10+ years to hide/export them? The point is, everyone knew they were there, everyone thought something should be done, but everyone acted too late (by everyone I mean both Democrats and Republicans). In addition to that, it is not Bush's absolute fault that he was given intel reports that ended up not leading to what was said in them. He took them at face value, just as ANY president would. This intelligence was not "obviously flawed" at the time, it was only proven flawed AFTER we had gone in and failed to unearth a WMD. Show me where/when Bush said those words and I'll believe you, hands down. He was contained, eh? If by containment you mean funneling millions of dollars to off-shore accounts, including those expunged by terrorists and corrupt UN officials. Then yes, he was contained. With over 10 years of Saddam laughing at the international community, defying over 15 UN resolutions and thus continuing his roundabout money laundering which funded corrupt officials and weapons research, how is it that America rushed to war? How is it that over 10 years of putting up with this tyrant and then finally acting is considered "rushing?" Please explain.

It's not saying who is right and who is wrong, it's saying that there were far more people than Bush that took that intel as fact. Basically, I'm sick of hearing arguments that Bush was an "idiot" for making decisions based on "bad" intel. Guess what, he most certainly wasn't the only "idiot" to do so. If you watch this, you'll see what I mean. And to add to this, nobody was wrong about the WMDs...Kerry was right, Clinton was right, Kennedy was right. It's just the fact that America acted on this well known fact too late, thus WMDs weren't there when we got to Iraq.

Seriously it does. I don't think they should have named it that. I'm not a Kerry hater, it's just what those guys' site is named. All it does is present facts, if you don't like it, fine by me. But really, what's the reason for not looking at it, think it might have some stuff you don't want to see? Any person without their head up their ass would be objective and at least take a look at it. I promise it is not BS political bashing, just states info.

Here's a link to "educate" everyone out there on the political side of the decision to go to Iraq. Think "crazy" George was the only one who thought Saddam had WMDs, was a threat to the U.S., and needed to be stopped immediately? Think again. Here's a 100% FACT-BASED argument that Bush was not a lone gunman wanting to stop Saddam and using the WMD argument as a reason. Please take the time to read this page. And once your done, come and tell me that you still think Bush was a "lone crazy guy" who made up this WMD argument to go into Iraq. I realize the site name and am in no way trying to bash John Kerry or any Democrats, just look past that title and actually look at this. It's very interesting to say the least (and no it doesn't just bash democrats, so it's not ridiculous "right-wing" propoganda). www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm

I risk my life because I choose to. Yes I'm given orders, but I wouldn't be in that position in the first place had I not CHOSEN to do so. Apparently I never should have been told to rescue innocent people and promote freedom. The oath and values I live by promote helping those that can't help themselves and spreading freedom throughout the world. And that's what I'm doing. It's not about loyalty to the Iraqi people, it's about helping them because most can't help themselves. Doing the right thing does not necessarily equal undying loyalty. I'm loyal to my job, and my job right now is to help the less fortunate. Why is it wrong for me to do this? Why is it so easy for you to sentence Iraqi people to death? Because if we weren't there, then guess what, the death toll would be far higher and that basically amounts to the world sentencing innocent people to die. For me, sitting in an office, at home on the couch watching the news, or whatever, is not would I should be doing when so many have it so much worse. You try living in a country where your friends and family are killed and mamed constantly. Would you just say, "that's ok world, my family and I aren't worth anything anyways. It's ok for you to just sit back and watch us die, don't worry about it." Why is it so hard for people to understand that it's a good thing to help others even if it doesn't directly benefit you? Anyways, get back to your nice, safe life...hope you enjoy it, because thousands around the world aren't. But that's fine by you, right?

Zenister, you have never been on a battlefield, you never will be, because if saving innocent lives is not justification for you, then nothing is. My buddies and I do NOT risk our lives on the "flimsiest of evidence," we risk our lives on the fact that we're saving lives, and making this world a safer place, one bit at a time. Yeah, it's tough going, yeah friends have died, and I would do anything to get them back. But the point is, they understand something you don't seem to; sacrifice for the people, the ones who can't defend themselves. Your little feud with Ron basically tells me you don't care about the Iraqi people simply because it doesn't directly benefit you. Well, how bout watching a masked man slice a little girl's head off with a machete, just because he could? Should I and my friends not stop that man, should America stand by as this kind of shit happens repeatedly to innocent civilians? Gitmo is not the Gulag of our time, Saddam's Iraq WAS the Gulag of our time. We had to stop a murderer, whether he directly or indirectly contributed to this murder. I'm sick of the WMD bullshit, drop it and realize that when a soldier runs into a stream of bullets to grab an 8 yr old boy off the open street, he IS DOING THE RIGHT THING. Did he know him, hell no, but he did save his life just because it was the right thing to do. The right thing is not always popular or nice and pretty, but it has to be done. Our jobs are not to die, but to give our all to save the helpless. Don't ever try to tell me that I'm doing what I do for no reason, for some stupid politician...yeah I think things could be done better sometimes, but the overall mission is just. Sorry for the long rant, just sometimes I get mad when people tell me my job is to die and I do it for no reason. Well, hope all of you sleep well tonight, because thousands of innocent Iraqi certainly won't. But then again, that's not your problem, is it?

I'm here to help!

How insightful...

Hell, we should have been planning to go to war with Saddam pre-911. The guy's been a monster since the 70's. So you didn't like the "WMD" reason, well how bout the "save innocent lives" reason? Is that a good enough one? Perhaps Bush should have used the latter as the basis for invasion, but people make mistakes. Either way, we're helping people by doing what we're doing. WMD's may have been "bad intel," but it is fact that we have saved lives and continue to save lives over there. So, where's the problem?

Strap a rocket to your ass...that should help.

Very well said Ron. It'd be nice if we could all be objective and only make arguments based on FACT and PROOF. It is my opinion that we will probably never find WMDs there, but I still feel we made the overall right move because of the lives we save. It is FACT that Saddam had been slaughtering Iraqis for years, isn't stopping a mad man like that worth it? Or would it just be better to sip coffee in the morning and say "oh that's terrible" to the TV and then go about your daily life while innocent people are killed. To me, it's clear that I need to help those people, no matter how bad the situation.

Pilots with IFR ratings F up too. Anyone know if they pilot(s) did have their IFR ticket?

But what about the person who needs a truck/SUV for towing capacity, cargo space, useful load, etc? Those people do exist...and there's a lot of them. Not that the Prius isn't a great car for some people, but cars just won't cut it for a lot of people.

It doesn't matter a whole lot what OPEC/Saudi does. We only get around 20% of our oil from them anyways. What we need is more self-sufficiency in the energy dept. If we just had more of our own oil sources, it would help a lot. However, I don't think it's fair to bash people who drive SUVs. I mean based on that argument, every single one of us contributes to "wasting" our "grandchildren's" oil because we feel the need to have some fun jumping out of airplanes. Driving an economic car is a great help and a good thing to do, but it doesn't make you a "non-waster" of oil.