AMERICAN SOLDIER

[Intifada]

this disgusts me. :angry:

what a joke! (http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2003/story.html)

[Y2A]

Times person of the year is the people that have had the greatest impact on the news be it good or bad. Saddam Hussien and the Insurgents were canidates. This had nothing to do with "patroitism". But of course with you obvious bias you thought it was.

However I do believe that Hussien should have been the person of the year.

[Soviet power supreme]

The overconfident pose, the fawning lackeys, the weird eyewear that suggests that no one can speak directly to him
http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2...3/people/3.html (http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2003/people/3.html)

I lauhged to this propaganda :lol:

[timbaly]

Although I don't agree with the occupation , I do feel sorry fo the soliders that have to be the occupiers. It's a tough job. I can't help but feel somewhat sorry for thos who have died, any loss of life is terrible. That is especially true when it can be avoided.

[Y2A]

These people don't give a crap about our soldiers. They are the kind that have a chuckle when they die, well most of them atleast.

BTW I was against the war but view further occupation as neccessary.

[Intifada]

the occupation is an example of the imperialist nature of america. they should get the fuck out! :angry:

[Deniz Gezmis]

Pathetic.

[Intifada]

what's pathetic?
:huh:

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 03:22 AM
BTW I was against the war but view further occupation as neccessary.
As much as I hate the occupation, I must say Iraq is better off in some ways because of it. Without the Americans I must say there would probaly be chaso and anarchy in Iraq. A power struggle would probaly arise, it ould probaly be very bloody as well. I heard Dennis Kucinichs idea for ending the occupation but it seemed a little unplausible, though I can't remember exactly what he said that made me feel that way.

[The Role Of Ideology]

However I do believe that Hussien should have been the person of the year.


Why?

[Y2A]

Originally posted by The Role Of [email protected] 5 2004, 10:04 PM
Why?
Because he has made a bigger impact on the news then any of the others, especially after his capture. The person of the year is suppose to be about who made the biggest impact and I think Hussien made a bigger impact on the news then the soldiers.


As much as I hate the occupation, I must say Iraq is better off in some ways because of it. Without the Americans I must say there would probaly be chaso and anarchy in Iraq. A power struggle would probaly arise, it ould probaly be very bloody as well. I heard Dennis Kucinichs idea for ending the occupation but it seemed a little unplausible, though I can't remember exactly what he said that made me feel that way.

Yes, but these people don't understand that and instead are irrational out of there hatred and do not realize that the occupation will be neccessary atleast until a stable government is put in place. Just look at afgainstan, we left it with little security and are now forced to rely on former warlords to protect it's most powerful province. And the taliban insurgents are on a rise and rebuilding is difficult do to it. Even worse look at the aftermath of Somalia when we left without placing a stable government. But these people won't understand that. I tell them this and they will just call me an "imerpialist pig". My biggest problem with the war is that we left Afganistan in the dark. It is far better off then it was before the war but due to Bush's idiocy we left it with less security and now look like liars in the international community because all the money Bush promised for rebuilding Afganistan is not there but rather being used to fight in Iraq.

[timbaly]

Perhaps President Bush would have been the best choice, he did push the war agenda in the United States more than anyone else in his cabinet. He also was the one to start the war ahead of schedule. If it wasn't for him Saddam Husseins name wouldn't have been heard nearly as much last year.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:23 AM
Perhaps President Bush would have been the best choice, he did push the war agenda in the United States more than anyone else in his cabinet. He also was the one to start the war ahead of schedule. If it wasn't for him Saddam Husseins name wouldn't have been heard nearly as much last year.
True. But I think that due to the capture, Hussien made a bigger impact. I mean that made history. Pres Bush didn't have a "breaking the berlin wall"-like moment and Saddam Hussien did.

[BuyOurEverything]

I think it was a pretty good choice. The American GI has made a huge impact worldwide. They're the face of American imperialism.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:28 AM
I think it was a pretty good choice. The American GI has made a huge impact worldwide. They're the face of American imperialism.
See what I mean timbaly. It's useless. People don't realize that soldiers are soldiers not government leaders. This is why I have given up trying to rationalize with communist. BTW are you a communist?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

American soldiers are just puppets. Don't attack the puppets, attack the hands controlling them.

[timbaly]

Hate to break it to you Y2A, but I am.

The average American solider is not an ideologe. Many soliders are there for the money to further there education. So although I see them to be the tool of American imperialism, I wouldn't call them the face.

[BuyOurEverything]

They may be puppets but I still think they were a good choice. They are symbolic of US imperialism and that's all you can expect from a "person of the year." Bush is just as much a puppet as any US soldier. How has Hussein made an impact?

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:44 AM
How has Hussein made an impact?
He was the leader of Iraq, his capture made headline news around the world, he led one of the most brutal reguimes of all time, etc.... The fact is that he had a huge impact in the news much more then the American Soldier, it's just that people are pussies now, I remember when 9/11 happened and people were ready to protest if Bin Laden was the person of the year even though he did have the greatest impact on the news.

BTW.... I know what your trying to do. No I am not an idiot, I know that Hussien most likely had nothing to do with 9/11 but the fact remains he did make the greatest impact especially after his capture.


Hate to break it to you Y2A, but I am.

Oh well at least you sound much more rational then the rest.

[BuyOurEverything]

He was the leader of Iraq

There are many leaders of many other countries.


his capture made headline news around the world

That means nothing. Mainstream news is just entertainment. The breakup of the Spice Girls made headlines around the world.


he led one of the most brutal reguimes of all time

Your retoric is laughable. His regime isn't by any means the most brutal today, let alone of all time. There are many people far more brutal than Sadaam.


The fact is that he had a huge impact in the news much more then the American Soldier, it's just that people are pussies now, I remember when 9/11 happened and people were ready to protest if Bin Laden was the person of the year even though he did have the greatest impact on the news.

Yes, of course bin Laden should have been person of the year. That has nothing whatsoever to do with Sadaam.


BTW.... I know what your trying to do. No I am not an idiot, I know that Hussien most likely had nothing to do with 9/11 but the fact remains he did make the greatest impact especially after his capture.


Well I'm glad you at least admit that. I still fail to see how he made any major impact. His capture made good headlines, that's all. It meant nothing.

[AmericanZionist2004]

I understand you loathe the US Military, but despite Government Policy, these guys make no executive, partisan, or political decisions. They are out there putting their lives on the line and they have families. I feel that you have no business calling TIME's selection for "Person(s) of the year a joke given what these soldiers have to go through.

[Germanator]

Oh, how noble of you.

Do you know what the most dangerous American occupation is? It's Alaskan King Crab fishing. They have the highest mortality rate of any profession in the US, including GIs. If being put in danger is the criteria for heroism, then I think these guys deserve some props. Statues, stamps, quarters, something. Shit, don't they have families too? If you asked me to get on a rickety boat and hang out in the Bearing Strait so you could munch on a giant underwater cockroach, I'd tell you to go to hell. But these men are out there 24/7 giving you the right to fatten your ass on quite possibly the most revolting looking creature to grace this planet, and here you are disrespecting them by paying honor to a group of grunts who aren't even on the top ten list of most dangerous jobs. Hell, the Coast Guard has a higher mortality rate than the Army.

[Bolshevika]

The only 'honor' the American soldier deserves is being dragged through the streets of Baghdad on the back of a 7 year olds tricycle.

As i've said, these "liberators" are not being showered in flower pedals, they are being showered by Rocket Propelled Grenades. They have made no historical impact, they are simply nameless mercinaries. You may think I have no compassion, but these American assassins hold up the deaths of Iraqis as "trophies", so why shouldn't we meet them with the same? The Iraqi people won't complain.

Definetly man/men of the year are Saddam Hussein and 'Baghdad Bob' , two people that have agitated the Iraqi masses enough to see that the American assassins are not their friends.

[AmericanZionist2004]

You think these ordinary people obtain these rocket grenades? They are armed by Ba'athist factions and Fedayeen Saddam, and other loyalist groups, and they attack and kill their own people, who they are determined to throw back into oppression.

[Bolshevika]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 02:56 AM
You think these ordinary people obtain these rocket grenades? They are armed by Ba'athist factions and Fedayeen Saddam, and other loyalist groups, and they attack and kill their own people, who they are determined to throw back into oppression.
Since when is the imperialist invader "your own people"? Since when are treacherous police officers and pro-US Iraqi officials 'your own people'? Since when is the UN your people? They are not, they are the conspirators of the imperialists.

To think that Ba'athists are the only orchestrating this is ridiculous. Come now zionist, if this is really only Ba'athists doing dozens of guerrilla attacks on Americans a day, then the Ba'athist party has a lot of support, no? What about all those Iraqi's holding portraits of Saddam in Baghdad?

This "the guerrillas kill their own people" nonesense is just not true, George W. Bush trying to stop the massive support for the guerrilla war in Iraq (the imperialists setup a US run network called "Freedom TV" in Iraq where they broadcast this). How many unarmed Iraqi civilians have the guerrillas killed? Let's compare to that to the Iraqi civilians killed by American occupyers during demonstrations, chases, imperialists having fun, etc? Who has killed more unarmed Iraqis?

[AmericanZionist2004]

Since when is the imperialist invader "your own people"? Since when are treacherous police officers and pro-US Iraqi officials 'your own people'? Since when is the UN your people? They are not, they are the conspirators of the imperialists.

Actually, many Iraqi civillians have died at the hands of Saddam's insurgents, and there have been many Iraqi attacks that have killed only such civillians, aimed at them.

[Intifada]

operation iraqi "freedom" is the biggest lie in the history of u$a state terror.

[Germanator]

The only 'honor' the American soldier deserves is being dragged through the streets of Baghdad on the back of a 7 year olds tricycle.

And congratulations, you're a dipshit. No one deserves to die. End of story.

[Bolshevika]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 09:54 PM

The only 'honor' the American soldier deserves is being dragged through the streets of Baghdad on the back of a 7 year olds tricycle.

And congratulations, you're a dipshit. No one deserves to die. End of story.
So if a foreign army came and invaded your city you wouldn't fight back?

Hey "dude" lay off the pot "man", because this world is no green utopia. I'd like to see what you would do instead of fighting back against aggressors? Hold peaceful demonstrations? The Iraqis have tried this,sadly every demonstration is met with some American numbskull firing randomly to stop a crowd.

And Zionist, name me a specific news case where the Iraqi guerrillas deliberately attacked civilians? (there might be a few, but it doesn't compare to the civilians killed by the imperialists)

[ComradeRobertRiley]

I hear 35 U$ soldiers were wounded today in Iraq.

www.news.bbc.co.uk

[Germanator]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 01:20 AM







So if a foreign army came and invaded your city you wouldn't fight back?

Two words: Mohondas Ghandi


Hey "dude" lay off the pot "man", because this world is no green utopia.

There's no reason why it shouldn't be.


I'd like to see what you would do instead of fighting back against aggressors? Hold peaceful demonstrations? The Iraqis have tried this,sadly every demonstration is met with some American numbskull firing randomly to stop a crowd.

I'm not as of yet convinced that the attacks are by the hands of Average Joe Iraq. Violence almost always comes from the hands of a minority, even in the most extreme of cases (such as South Africa).


And Zionist, name me a specific news case where the Iraqi guerrillas deliberately attacked civilians? (there might be a few, but it doesn't compare to the civilians killed by the imperialists)

Whether or not they are deliberately killing them doesn't absolve them of the crime. In almost every attack against US soldiers, Iraqi civilians are killed. These guerillas don't give a fuck about the people they are killing because, like all "revolutionaries" they see it as an acceptable price to pay for "freedom", despite the obvious fact that they aren't the ones paying it. They're assholes. Just like you.

You're nothing more than a stereotypical pseudo-marxist. You think the answer to everything is putting a bullet is someone's head. I have something for you to consider, how the fuck do you expect to look credible in claiming that the US government is oppressive, when you're advocating senseless killing yourself?

[BuyOurEverything]

And congratulations, you're a dipshit. No one deserves to die. End of story.

Complete and utter bullshit. If you're don't fight back, you will continue to be oppressed.

[Chewillneverdie]

i dunno if there are any of em alive right now, brutal dictators, Hitler and Stalin seemed to be the worst and know they are dead. lol good for us! Soldiers are just soldiers, they go to protect democracy(tho thats what they think anyway) and to get to college. Germ is right, the US soldiers on the ground try not to kill civies, i know quite a few lol. It happens, but alotta the times your grand ol guerrillas are in the middle of a crowd provoking them, by firing at the soldiers lol . In fact, shootings of civies by the guerrillas far outnumber shootings by the US and the brits. Bombings are a bit diff, not to mention the car bombs by your so called revolutionaries. Im against the war but hey, were in the shit, we gotta ride it out.

[Chewillneverdie]

lol i have a feeling Bolsh is just a scared lil boy needing to lash out at the world lol. read his posts and you will see what i mean. One of those guys who is diff. so they can feel special lol

[timbaly]

Although I can not remember details of specific cases, I do remember hearing some cases on the news in which Irai resistance killed civilians rather than military, sometimes it seemed intentional other times accidental.

As for the soliders, they deserve to go home more than they deserved to be killed.

[Bolshevika]

Two words: Mohondas Ghandi

One example compared to how many successful armed revolts? and even that didn't accomplish much. Maybe India isn't under the rule of British government, but all the wealth and corporations in India are owned by westerners. India is no different than it was under Britain, maybe even worse.




There's no reason why it shouldn't be.

There sure isn't, but you must conform to the real earth, full of merciless capitalists. Idealism furthers nothing.




I'm not as of yet convinced that the attacks are by the hands of Average Joe Iraq. Violence almost always comes from the hands of a minority, even in the most extreme of cases (such as South Africa).

Do the massive anti-occupation demonstrations not have mostly average Joe's?



Whether or not they are deliberately killing them doesn't absolve them of the crime. In almost every attack against US soldiers, Iraqi civilians are killed. These guerillas don't give a fuck about the people they are killing because, like all "revolutionaries" they see it as an acceptable price to pay for "freedom"

I believe guerrillas ought to take every single step possible to hit their enemies and avoid all civilian casualties. They do most of the time, and their resistence is definetly justified.

You are full of blatant idealism. Do you think the Soviets would've defeated the Nazi fascist invader by laying down their arms and engaging in peaceful protest? Of course not. Peaceful protest was attempted to stop this imperialist act, here, in Iraq, and around the world, and guess what? It didn't work. So now, we must resort to plan B, which is, kill as many of these invaders as possible.


You're nothing more than a stereotypical pseudo-marxist. You think the answer to everything is putting a bullet is someone's head.

No actually, I think you are the one who is not a Marxist when he does not support elimination of the upper class and antagonists by all means necessary, classes struggle, this is a fact that you, nor Ghandi, nor any 1960's new-Leftist can change. I am an extreme pacifist, in the sense that I believe military should not be used against sovereign nations, however, if a group of murderers want to steal your resources and instate their own government invade, they must be expelled by all means necessary.

I do not believe in senseless killing, in fact, I even oppose the death penalty for criminals, I believe in rehabilitation before taking any rash actions. However, in rare situations where immediate action must be taken, like someone invading your country, action must be taken in a realistic fashion.

[Bolshevika]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 03:07 AM
lol i have a feeling Bolsh is just a scared lil boy needing to lash out at the world lol. read his posts and you will see what i mean. One of those guys who is diff. so they can feel special lol
I do not see what you find so comical in your posts feudalist.

People like you praise the American imperialist soldiers over the Iraqi fighters (number 2 principle of communist theory, antiimperialism), people like you praise the reactionary feudalists in Tibet, repeat anti-communist lies made by the bourgeoisie, think being a "rebel" is wearing a Rage against the Machine t-shirt with Che on it, people like you suggest we peacefully protest and get ignored over taking action.... the bourgeoisie loves people like you.

What sort of new wave of 'marxists' have you spawned from?

[Soviet power supreme]

In fact, shootings of civies by the guerrillas far outnumber shootings by the US and the brits.

WTF.

The guerillas haven't shot any civilies that I know.Civilians has died by guerillas by only suicide bombings and just by bombings.And how you guys even know that they are Pro-Saddam guerillas?

[Intifada]

its fucking simple. the iraqis dont want to be occupied. who would?

*edit* especially by the u$a and britain, they have done enough damage to iraq already.

[AmericanZionist2004]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 01:34 AM
Oh, how noble of you.

Do you know what the most dangerous American occupation is? It's Alaskan King Crab fishing. They have the highest mortality rate of any profession in the US, including GIs. If being put in danger is the criteria for heroism, then I think these guys deserve some props. Statues, stamps, quarters, something. Shit, don't they have families too? If you asked me to get on a rickety boat and hang out in the Bearing Strait so you could munch on a giant underwater cockroach, I'd tell you to go to hell. But these men are out there 24/7 giving you the right to fatten your ass on quite possibly the most revolting looking creature to grace this planet, and here you are disrespecting them by paying honor to a group of grunts who aren't even on the top ten list of most dangerous jobs. Hell, the Coast Guard has a higher mortality rate than the Army.
Many a terrorist attack may have been thwarted since the outbreak of the war on terror, and I get to live another day. No thanks to Alaskan King Crab fishers. And the Coast Guard is still the military, I wasn't really referring to one branch in particular, but the whole Us military and all the coalition forces.

[Sam Adams]

"the iraqis dont want to be occupied."

Maybe they should have thought of that before starting a war?

[Sabocat]

Nobody could be this stupid could they? The Iraqi's started the war? How? By bombing themselves? Go play on Stormfront little boy.

[Sam Adams]

Iraq broke the ceasefire, starting the war.

Perhaps you should look at the facts, instead of your far left mindless propoganda.

[Sabocat]

You fucking halfwit. Broke the cease fire? When? When we invaded? If you actually read the "facts" behind our invasion, it was in regards to a UN resolution that was violated about disclosure. They didn't brake a cease fire.

Congratulations! You may be the stupidest poster here ever!

[Sam Adams]

Iraq broke the ceasefire in the following ways:

Failed to show he complied with WMD regulations
Caught with 150+ illegal long range missiles
Illegally used medical and food funds to rebuild his palace's, bunkers, and military.
Repeatadly fired on US and British aircraft enforcing the no fly zone.
Violated the no fly zone and shot down a pretadator drone.

Just because you cant stand the facts and ignore them, doesnt meen the facts arent there, disgustapated.

Add to this saddams direct ties to al-queda allied terrorist group: ansar-al-islam, and his direct support for Hamas, and you clearly have a war that Saddam's regime brought upon themselves.

[Sabocat]

Okay smartass. Back up one of your claims. Provide proof. Not from CNN or FoxNews either.

I guess he did live up to the WMD regulations because guess what? HE DIDN'T FUCKING HAVE ANY.

The rest of your post is nonsense neo-con drivel.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:38 PM
Provide proof. Not from CNN or FoxNews either.
What do you want him to find "proof" from indymedia or another far-left source. Listen, I don't agree with Sam on this 100% but please stop being so completely hard-headed in thinking that every aspect of American media is "propaganda".

[Sam Adams]

CNN and Foxnews show the FACTS. Just cause you dont like them, doesnt meen they are not reliable.


The facts are that America and England took the necessary steps to defend the free world. Saddam started a fight, and got his ass kicked. The moral of the story? Dont fuck with America!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sam Adams: Fuck you troll.

If you seriously believe the bullshit you're saying, then I pity you.

Why the fuck is the US allowed WMDs?
Why the hell does the US administration think they can fuck with any country they want?
Why is bush the president?

WHY IS THE US THROWING IT'S WEIGHT AROUND LIKE A SCHOOL BULLY?

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by Y2A+Jan 8 2004, 07:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Jan 8 2004, 07:42 PM)
[email protected] 8 2004, 11:38 PM
Provide proof. Not from CNN or FoxNews either.
What do you want him to find "proof" from indymedia or another far-left source. Listen, I don&#39;t agree with Sam on this 100% but please stop being so completely hard-headed in thinking that every aspect of American media is "propaganda". [/b]
Why is the far left news sources less credible than the far right new sources?

But okay, I&#39;ll bite, lets see the "proof" from CNN or Fox that they had 150+ illegal long range missiles. I seem to remember it being roughly a dozen or less, WHICH THEY DESTROYED as per the agreement. The range on the missile was only about 10 miles longer than allowed and it was debatable, but please, provide a link.

Iraq did supply a 12,000 page compiled list of weapons that they destroyed, and a list of what they had. It was given to the U&#036; and we promptly edited some pages out of it.

http://www.zoolosophy.com/May%20Articles/8.../8000pages.html (http://www.zoolosophy.com/May%20Articles/8000pages.html)

http://www.projectcensored.org/publication...ons/2004/3.html (http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/3.html)

Here&#39;s a link to a traditional corporate media.

http://www.sundayherald.com/30195


When I question the validity of CNN reporting, it is because of instances of poor reporting...like this:

http://www.farleyfiles.com/content/BlixTrans.htm

900 words missing from Blix&#39;s speech to the UN, as compared to the BBC report that included the speech in it&#39;s entirety.

Let&#39;s also see some information about the "No fly zone" as well.

They didn&#39;t violate the "no fly zone" by shooting down the drone from the ground.

[FistFullOfSteel]

THATS SUCKS

[Intifada]

Failed to show he complied with WMD regulations

colin powell and condaleeza rice emphatically denied that iraq had wmds in feb 2001. funny how quickly they forgot that?


Caught with 150+ illegal long range missiles

wow&#33; really, shit we had to bomb them&#33; they were obviously a thtreat to the west&#33;


Illegally used medical and food funds to rebuild his palace&#39;s, bunkers, and military.

u&#036;a and britain ILLEGALLY bombed iraq throughout the 90s.


Repeatadly fired on US and British aircraft enforcing the no fly zone.
Violated the no fly zone and shot down a pretadator drone.

GOOD they have a right to defend their homeland.

[Sam Adams]

"Why the fuck is the US allowed WMDs?"

why the fuck not?

"Why the hell does the US administration think they can fuck with any country they want?"

The terrorists fuck with us, we fuck with them. Thats how a war works, genious. And yes, Iraq was an ally of terrorism.

"Why is bush the president?"

Because about half the electorate still uses their heads.

"WHY IS THE US THROWING IT&#39;S WEIGHT AROUND LIKE A SCHOOL BULLY?"

Why do you want us to act like a bunch of feeble pacifists? When war is required, Americans fight. When war is required, socialists, liberals and pacifists run away.

"u&#036;a and britain ILLEGALLY bombed iraq throughout the 90s"

wrong.

"GOOD they have a right to defend their homeland."

not anymore:)

[Intifada]

The terrorists fuck with us, we fuck with them. Thats how a war works, genious. And yes, Iraq was an ally of terrorism.

just dont start crying "why do they hate us so much&#33;??" when they do strike back.

no iraq wasnt an ally of terrorism, but the u&#036;a was and is&#33;


"Why is bush the president?"

because he isnt, he rigged the elections everyone know that.


"u&#036;a and britain ILLEGALLY bombed iraq throughout the 90s"

wrong.

right what an argument, prove i am wrong&#33;


"GOOD they have a right to defend their homeland."

not anymore:)

the dead americans arriving in body bags will make you think about your stupid statement.

you should be banned just for your stupidity.

[LSD]

The terrorists fuck with us, we fuck with them. Thats how a war works, genious. And yes, Iraq was an ally of terrorism.

You know who else is an ally of terrorism? The US. Don&#39;t believe me, ask Nicaragua


Why do you want us to act like a bunch of feeble pacifists? When war is required, Americans fight. When war is required, socialists, liberals and pacifists run away.


And why again was war "required" against Iraq?? Ah yes they have nuclear missiles&#33; no....wait....that&#39;s North Korea. oh then it must be because they were involved in 9/11 no....wait....that&#39;s Saudi Arabia. OK, OK it must be because they threatened the US&#33;&#33; no....wait....North Korea again... DAMN, just why did the US attack again???????


"GOOD they have a right to defend their homeland."

not anymore:)

Remind me, how many Americans have died since the war &#39;ended&#39;?

[Sam Adams]

"no iraq wasnt an ally of terrorism, but the u&#036;a was and is&#33;"

wrong again, kid.

"he rigged the elections everyone know that."

Gore tried to steal the election. He failed. Democracy prevailed, yet again.


"the dead americans arriving in body bags"

How many Iraqi soldiers have we killed? 100,000? How many are our prisoner? 15,000? How many did we lose. 500. We seem to be winning.

Nuff said.

[Intifada]

"no iraq wasnt an ally of terrorism, but the u&#036;a was and is&#33;"

wrong again, kid.

why did/do you fund/support al quaida, saddam, the fucker in uzbekistan, iran, pinochet, batista, suharto...


We seem to be winning.

you wont win. trust me, iraqi resistance will humiliate the imperialists like the vietnamese did.

[Sam Adams]

"why did/do you fund/support"

because at the time they were the lesser of two evils.

"you wont win."

rofl. I remember a lot of feral lefties saying the same thing about afganistan. How long did It take to crush afganistan? A month? How long to take Iraq? 3 weeks? The might of the US is overwealming. Our enemies cannot last.

Indeed, saddam said those exact same words. Now he is in a cage on some marine assault ship somewhere getting pumped full of sodium pentathol.

[Intifada]

because at the time they were the lesser of two evils.

let me give you the example of the dictator in uzbekistan, he boils political enemies alive. you are saying he isnt that evil?&#33; wtf&#33;

the u&#036;a supports these kinds of assholes&#33;


How long to take Iraq? 3 weeks?

no, its coming up to nearly a year. you have only got the oil and saddam. the people are against you and will win.

[Sam Adams]

"the people are against you and will win."

wrong again. The bulk of Iraqis are now peaceful, and accept that America has liberated them.

Only saddam central... the sunni triangle, resists. And we are crushing those idiots. Remember when they tried to ambush that tank patrol last month, and 50 of them got killed? Thats just one of many repeated ass-kickings we provide to the remnants of the fedayin terrorist militia.

[Intifada]

The bulk of Iraqis are now peaceful, and accept that America has liberated them.

no they are not. the iraqis want freedom not occupation.

an iraqi man told a u&#036; soldier to go bach to the u&#036;a, he was arrested and put in prison. wow, american freedom rocks&#33;

[Sam Adams]

"the iraqis want freedom not occupation"

and the wants of a conquered enemy dont matter. Iraqis will be free when they learn to behave.

[Soviet power supreme]

"Why the fuck is the US allowed WMDs?"

why the fuck not?

Why the Iraw can&#39;t then have if Usa can?Oh yes but it is a democratic state. :lol:


and the wants of a conquered enemy dont matter. Iraqis will be free when they learn to behave.

Of course they don&#39;t matter.When the revolution comes you will be tortured for weeks or if we are lucky for months.

Learn to behave?Yes those stupid ragheads.They cant do anything right. :lol:

[Sam Adams]

Iraq isnt allowed wmd because they were a crackpot, dangerous dictatorship.

America is allowed wmd because we are an established world power, who can be trusted to use our weapons only on deserving targets.

[Intifada]

crackpot, dangerous dictatorship.

reminds me of the good ol&#39; u&#036;a


America is allowed wmd because we are an established world power, who can be trusted to use our weapons only on deserving targets.

what, the people of iraq, hiroshima, nagasaki, vietnam, nicuragua...

[Sam Adams]

"what, the people of iraq, hiroshima, nagasaki, vietnam, nicuragua..."

you got it.

Hiroshima and nagasaki were DEFINETLY deserving of the nukes they got. Iraq was crushed with conventional firepower, and again conventional firepower was used to kill a number of communists in vietnam and nicaragua.

All deserving targets...

People who wanna kill Americans are going to get taken out, its that simple. America will always defend herself, as would any responsible free nation.

[Intifada]

:blink: im not even going to bother replying to that bullshit

[Sam Adams]

Cant get your commie gears working in the right order to think up a coherant logical response?

[Intifada]

no because what you said is all american imperialist lies&#33;

you are a war monger who likes to see innocent people being killed.

[Sam Adams]

When our enemies start wars, America does not shrink from the call of duty.

[Intifada]

iraq started on the u&#036;a?

omg

[Sam Adams]

Iraq broke the ceasefire, starting the war.

America does not start wars, we merely end them.

[Soviet power supreme]

Hiroshima and nagasaki were DEFINETLY deserving of the nukes they got.

I wonder why you are not banned from this site?You deserve a bullet in your head. :angry: make that two,no wait a burst.

[Sam Adams]

Good to see you socialists are open minded, decent, people.

[Intifada]

Good to see you socialists are open minded, decent, people.

this being said by the idiot who also said:


Hiroshima and nagasaki were DEFINETLY deserving of the nukes they got. Iraq was crushed with conventional firepower, and again conventional firepower was used to kill a number of communists in vietnam and nicaragua.

All deserving targets...

[Stalinator]

Even a true believer like my self must admit that those assholes in Niggaragua got what they deserved.

[Sam Adams]

http://insideout.wbur.org/documentaries/revolutionaryislam/images/opbrightstar.jpg

There is nothing wrong with defeating a terrible enemy.

[Intifada]

There is nothing wrong with defeating a terrible enemy.

nothing wrong at all...

[Chewillneverdie]

lol if we didnt drop the bombs on japan, do you have any idea how many people would die in that war, and precious china would be fucked as with many asian countries, they predicted over one million US losses in taking japan, and about 2 million japanese, jesus all you people do is bicker, you make leftists look bad. wait wait Ihatebush, some of what he said was true, not the diserving part, but the conventional warfare shit was true. Not everyone that died in Nam diserved it, VERY few people did.US troops didnt diserve it, neither did the civies, or he Vietcong, tho i dont support their actions torturing people and killing and burning down whole towns in S. Vietnam, Iraq needed dealing with yes, but assasination or arming the Kurds seems like a much better solution.

[Intifada]

so you condone hiroshima and nagasaki?

[Sabocat]

lol if we didnt drop the bombs on japan, do you have any idea how many people would die in that war, and precious china would be fucked as with many asian countries, they predicted over one million US losses in taking japan, and about 2 million japanese

This has been proven to be a lie so many times it&#39;s not even worth mentioning. The Japanese had been trying to surrender for almost a year before the atomic bombs were dropped. We were continually fire bombing Tokyo and killed 10&#39;s of thousands there. The atomic bombs were used as a test, and to put Russia and China on notice that they had them.


Vietcong, tho i dont support their actions torturing people and killing and burning down whole towns in S. Vietnam

That&#39;s the price for being a collaborator, or a puppet. As far as the U&#036; soldiers not deserving it, they were the invading force. They got what they deserved.


You really should consider pulling your tongue out of the U&#036; military&#39;s asshole. At least change your name.

[AmericanZionist2004]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 07:35 PM

lol if we didnt drop the bombs on japan, do you have any idea how many people would die in that war, and precious china would be fucked as with many asian countries, they predicted over one million US losses in taking japan, and about 2 million japanese

This has been proven to be a lie so many times it&#39;s not even worth mentioning. The Japanese had been trying to surrender for almost a year before the atomic bombs were dropped. We were continually fire bombing Tokyo and killed 10&#39;s of thousands there. The atomic bombs were used as a test, and to put Russia and China on notice that they had them.


Vietcong, tho i dont support their actions torturing people and killing and burning down whole towns in S. Vietnam

That&#39;s the price for being a collaborator, or a puppet. As far as the U&#036; soldiers not deserving it, they were the invading force. They got what they deserved.


You really should consider pulling your tongue out of the U&#036; military&#39;s asshole. At least change your name.
Wow, you actually think that the American soldiers forced to Vietnam via the draft deserved all the brutal torture the Viet Cong put them through, so that shows me the rationality level I&#39;m dealing with. Also, the Japanese wanting to surrender was a downright lie. While the Emperor wanted to surrender, he was a figurehead, and Japan&#39;s ruling military brass insisted upon fighting to the last man, even after Hiroshima. That doesn&#39;t tell me that they wanted to surrender. And why would we want to use our A-bombs to intimidate China? China was not Communist-ruled until 1949, 4 years after the war. We had no nuclear rivalry in the making with Chiang Kai-Shek.

[Sabocat]

Yes, when the U&#036; gets involved with an attempt to stop a country from being self determining I believe that they should get what they deserve. Ho Chi Minh was going to win a popular election by a margin of as much as 80%. The U&#036; installed a puppet leader (Diem, who they later abandoned) and decided to "fight Communism" regardless of what the inhabitants wanted. If you&#39;re asking me to feel bad for 55,000 troops that died invading a country that killed close to 2 million all tolled, poisoned their land with dyoxin (one of the deadliest chemicals available) for generations to come, used land mines by the thousands that are still taking limbs and lives today, I&#39;m afraid you came to the wrong place.


American soldiers forced to Vietnam via the draft deserved all the brutal torture the Viet Cong put them through

Unlike the U&#036; taking them up in helicopters and throwing them out the doors. Or maybe this little beauty...

“The order was to destroy My Lai and everything in it.”

And the fully premeditated intention of Charlie Company was to murder every last man, woman and child in it as well.

Even though they were assigned to commit this routine American war crime by their officers, the soldiers’ personal motivation for the My Lai massacre was rape, revenge and racism — the Three R’s of the bestial education provided by the U.S. military. American troops were trained by the U.S. Army to see Vietnamese people as “things” or “animals.” GIs joked that “anything that’s dead and isn’t White is a VC.” Any Vietnamese woman or girl was fair game. In their own sick minds, American soldiers dehumanized the Vietnamese people by thinking of them as “gooks.”

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstatete...cide/Mylai.html (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/vietnamgenocide/Mylai.html)

I would expect that this group contained at least a few "innocents that were drafted" wouldn&#39;t you?


As for the reasoning behind the atomic bombing of Japan:

Dropping the Bomb
by John F. McManus

Why did the U.S. unleash its terrible weapon?

Prevailing wisdom concerning the August 1945 atomic bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki holds that those twin horrors were undertaken to force Japan to sue for peace. Had the bombs not been employed (so the "wisdom" goes), an enormous number of American troops would have perished in an inevitable amphibious operation against the Japanese mainland.

During much of 1995, controversy engulfed plans by Washington, DC&#39;s Smithsonian Institution to exhibit the Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber that delivered the A-bomb over Hiroshima. Incredibly, the exhibit&#39;s original commentary intended to empathize with Japan and portray the United States as perpetrators of a "war of vengeance." The planned text even declared of the Pacific conflict, "For most of the Japanese, it was a war to defend their unique culture against Western imperialism."

Veterans groups, angry citizens, and some members of Congress eventually forced the Smithsonian to rewrite the text for the exhibit. What finally emerged, not surprisingly, is now being targeted by an assortment of pacifists and anti-nuclear partisans. A wall panel now informs viewers:

[The atomic bombs] destroyed much of the two cities and caused many tens of thousands of deaths. However, the use of the bombs led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands. Such an invasion, especially if undertaken for both main islands, would have led to heavy casualties among American, Allied, and Japanese armed forces and Japanese civilians.

This current display, therefore, repeats the notion that the dropping of the bombs by the U.S. brought Japan to the peace table and saved countless lives on both sides. But this historical view, like the original commentary intended for the exhibit, is not supported by the facts.

Immediately after the war had ended, President Harry Truman publicized the view of wartime Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have required "a million men for the landing and a million more to hold it, and ... half a million casualties."

Much of the historical perspective on the era holds that the Japanese were prepared to fight to their very last man, and that until the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been visited upon their homeland Japanese leaders had no intention of surrendering. But in fact the Japanese had sent peace feelers to the West as early as 1942, only six months after the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. More would come in a flood long before the fateful use of the atomic bombs.

In her 1956 book, The Enemy at His Back, journalist Elizabeth Churchill Brown supplied overwhelming evidence to counter the inaccurate views about the close of the war. Beginning in 1949, she plunged into dozens of wartime memoirs and congressional hearings dealing with the conflict. The wife of noted Washington Star columnist Constantine Brown, Mrs. Brown had access to many of "the men who were no longer &#39;under wraps,&#39;" as she noted. She wrote, "With this knowledge at hand, I quickly began to see why the war with Japan was unprecedented in all history. Here was an enemy who had been trying to surrender for almost a year before the conflict ended."

In her book, Brown supplied abundant evidence about the immense perfidy that kept the Japanese from surrendering until such time as the Soviets were ready to enter the war against Japan and the American forces had dropped the atomic bombs on civilian populations.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo1...11no17_bomb.htm (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no17/vo11no17_bomb.htm)



Fifty-five years ago, this day the US dropped the first nuclear bomb on the city Hiroshima. Three days later, a second atomic strike on the city of Nagasaki killed some 37,000 people and injured another 43,000. Together the two bombs eventually killed an estimated 200,000 Japanese civilians. Apart from the moral questions involved, were the atomic bombings militarily necessary? By any rational yardstick, they were not. Japan already had been defeated militarily by June 1945. Almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan&#39;s air force had been all but totally destroyed. Against only token opposition, American war planes ranged at will over the country, and US bombers rained down devastation on her cities, steadily reducing them to rubble.

http://icssa.org/ICSS%20-%20theme_fundamen...n_hiroshima.htm (http://icssa.org/ICSS%20-%20theme_fundamentalims_lesson_hiroshima.htm)