Can anyone else see this coming

[Timi]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darein @ Jan 13 2006, 11:02 AM) [snapback]27081[/snapback][/center]

My view on war is the rich leaders get to sit at home while the poor guys have to go fight. You'll never see the leader wearing BDUs in a minefield.
[/b]

Not always true. Pat Tilman gave up millions to fight and made the ultimate sacrafice. The vocal minority will always be heard, but the silent majority dont talk the talk...they walk the walk.

"I repeat, there is no U.S. presence in Baghdad."

 

[Darein]

I don't know who that is, but it isn't the president, and that's what I'm talking about. Kings used to ride into battle with their troops, I just see the president talking alot. Not like I hate him or anything he's doing a better job than I would, but if you're going to command troops working with them boosts morale.

 

[Timi]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darein @ Jan 13 2006, 11:14 AM) [snapback]27090[/snapback][/center]

I don't know who that is, but it isn't the president, and that's what I'm talking about. Kings used to ride into battle with their troops, I just see the president talking alot. Not like I hate him or anything he's doing a better job than I would, but if you're going to command troops working with them boosts morale.
[/b]

Hehe, didn't pay attention the war much did ya Just pickin on ya.

Thats Baghdad Bob the Iraqi Information Minister.....who famously declared on the outbreak of war that the Americans were lying and there was no US presence in Baghdad even though a Bradley goes rolling by

For shit's and giggles here are some of his best quotes during the war.....

Mocking the Coalition's Attempt To Target Saddam Hussein:
"These villains, and in particular the villain Bush, said they had struck Iraq with 40 cruise missiles to assassinate President Saddam Hussein. Not only are they disappointed, I think they are hysterical."

Attempting to Acknowledge What Was Happening Militarily Beyond Baghdad:
March 22, 2003
"Maybe they will enter Umm Qasr and Basra, but how will they enter Baghdad? It will be a big oven for them. They can penetrate our borders but they cannot reach Baghdad. They will try to pull our army and troops out but we are well aware of their plans and they will fail."

March 23, 2003
"In Umm Qasr, the fighting is fierce and we have inflicted many damages. The stupid enemy, the Americans and British, failed completely. They're not making any penetration."

As Televised Reports of U.S. Forces Approaching the Outskirts of Western Baghdad Are Shown:
"They are not any place. They are on the move everywhere. They are a snake moving in the desert. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion."

After U.S. Forces Seized Baghdad's Airport:
"We butchered the force present at the airport. We have retaken the airport! There are no Americans there!"

After U.S. Troops Penetrated Central Baghdad:
April 5, 2003
"Nobody came here. Those America losers, I think their repeated frequent lies are bringing them down very rapidly.... Baghdad is secure, is safe."

April 5, 2003
"They are not near Baghdad. Don't believe them.... They said they entered with... tanks in the middle of the capital. They claim that they - I tell you, I... that this speech is too far from the reality. It is a part of this sickness of their plan. There is no an... - no any existence to the American troops or for the troops in Baghdad at all."

April 6, 2003
"Whenever we attack, they retreat. When we pound them with missiles and heavy artillery, they retreat even deeper. But when we stopped pounding, they pushed to the airport for propaganda purposes."

April 7, 2003
"The Americans are not there. They're not in Baghdad. There are no troops there. Never. They're not at all."

April 7, 2003
"U.S. forces learned a lesson last night they will never forget. We slaughtered them and will continue to slaughter them."

April 7, 2003
"There is no presence of American infidels in the city of Baghdad."

With Media Pictures of U.S. Troops Being Shown Standing Under the Giant Crossed Swords in Saddam's Favorite Parade Grounds in Baghdad, While Giving a Press Briefing Around the Corner:
"There you can see, there is nothing going on."

After U.S. Missiles Destroyed His Office in the Information Ministry and He was Forced to Give Press Briefings on the Street:
"They will be burnt. We are going to tackle them."

Disputing His Own Assertions of No Coalition Troops in Baghdad:
"We blocked them inside the city. Their rear is blocked.... They pushed a few of their armored carriers and some tanks with their soldiers. We besieged them and I think we will finish them soon."

While American Soldiers Are Showering in Saddam's Bathroom Nearby Presidential Palace:
"We have killed most of the [coalition] infidels, and I think we will finish off the rest soon."

After Being Shown Footage of Iraqi Soldiers Surrendering:
"Those are not Iraqi soldiers at all."

April 7, 2003
"This invasion will end in failure."

April 8, 2003
"Baghdad Bob" disappeared, perhaps forever. On the other hand, perhaps he will return as Minister of Information for France or be awarded a drive time show on the new liberal talk radio network.

 

[Eldiablo8]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Timi @ Jan 12 2006, 08:12 PM) [snapback]27083[/snapback][/center]

Not always true. Pat Tilman gave up millions to fight and made the ultimate sacrafice. The vocal minority will always be heard, but the silent majority dont talk the talk...they walk the walk.

"I repeat, there is no U.S. presence in Baghdad."
[/b]

Ummmm we have our own Bagdad Bob denials. What about the Weapons of Mass destruction speech? Funny thing, if Iraq votes in Shiites that are Iran backed, would we honor what the people wanted aka democracy and choice in leaders, or do we want OUR democracy?

 

[Fluffy]

Hmpf, you think a war in Iran is next? If you listen to our "glorious" leader some more you would see he has been spending a lot of time thinking and talking about Mr. Chavez in Venezula (if you remember not too long ago the 700 club tipped the president's hand in the matter when it asked for people to pray for Chavez's assassination).

He would not start a war in Iran much like he would not start a war in North Korea due only to the fact of the potential of nuclear action happening.

His next target (if he can muster the troops by removing them from Iraq and Afganhastan, and N. Korea) will be Venezula....hopefully he will be out of office before he can even attempt it. Tell you now though, he is really, really thinking about it.

 

[Timi]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(El-Diablos @ Jan 13 2006, 03:06 PM) [snapback]27170[/snapback][/center]

Ummmm we have our own Bagdad Bob denials. What about the Weapons of Mass destruction speech? Funny thing, if Iraq votes in Shiites that are Iran backed, would we honor what the people wanted aka democracy and choice in leaders, or do we want OUR democracy?
[/b]

Like I said, I agree with takin Sadam out regardless of the reasons. I was skeptical of the WMD's when it was brought up in 2002, but regardless Sadam needed to go sooner or later.

Iraq electing a shiite majority that is sensitive to Iran through a democratic process sucks much ass, but I'm not saying it's wrong. They had the opportunity, took, and that may happen and I'm not saying it's wrong because of the process, that is their right because that is what was fought for.

What I am saying is democracy in Iraq will not last period and that country is going to implode on itself and a possiblity will be Iran gaining major influence within the country and influeincing the Iraqi government (assuming they are shiite majority). If that happens there will be a major threat not only to the US but Europe and Israel.

Until people stop hugging trees and realize that there is a boneafied threat regardless if we take action or not and get off their asses and take action, we are all in danger and will be until these assholes are snuffed out.

Things in life aren't black and white, but grey and saddly what is happening now and what will be in the future is extremely grey. There will be no president that can resolve or conduct actions that will appeal to the majority of the people. There will be a mass divide across the globe for the fore seeabel future.

 

[Eldiablo8]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Timi @ Jan 13 2006, 01:03 AM) [snapback]27191[/snapback][/center]

Like I said, I agree with takin Sadam out regardless of the reasons. I was skeptical of the WMD's when it was brought up in 2002, but regardless Sadam needed to go sooner or later.

Iraq electing a shiite majority that is sensitive to Iran through a democratic process sucks much ass, but I'm not saying it's wrong. They had the opportunity, took, and that may happen and I'm not saying it's wrong because of the process, that is their right because that is what was fought for.

What I am saying is democracy in Iraq will not last period and that country is going to implode on itself and a possiblity will be Iran gaining major influence within the country and influeincing the Iraqi government (assuming they are shiite majority). If that happens there will be a major threat not only to the US but Europe and Israel.

Until people stop hugging trees and realize that there is a boneafied threat regardless if we take action or not and get off their asses and take action, we are all in danger and will be until these assholes are snuffed out.

Things in life aren't black and white, but grey and saddly what is happening now and what will be in the future is extremely grey. There will be no president that can resolve or conduct actions that will appeal to the majority of the people. There will be a mass divide across the globe for the fore seeabel future.
[/b]

The issue is we are our own worst enemies. We create our own enemies. As far as Sadam he was evil but we supported him, with our blessing. We didn't do jack shit when he gassed the Iranians, or the Kurds. Fact is we support Pakastan and Saudia Arabia, just as two examples of dictators. Issue is, the US defines evil as people that are not our friends, not people that are evil.

 

[Timi]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(El-Diablos @ Jan 13 2006, 04:43 PM) [snapback]27199[/snapback][/center]

The issue is we are our own worst enemies. We create our own enemies. As far as Sadam he was evil but we supported him, with our blessing. We didn't do jack shit when he gassed the Iranians, or the Kurds. Fact is we support Pakastan and Saudia Arabia, just as two examples of dictators. Issue is, the US defines evil as people that are not our friends, not people that are evil.
[/b]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

[dEVIANT]

Iran was way more of a threat than Iraq but we won't be able to fight a war like that without a draft. Hell when we had to use National Guardsman to go to Iraq. You know the ones to protect our OWN country, to go to Iraq. And once there is talk of draft, the masses will be up in arms cause hey, as long as we are in a volunteer army people don't give a shit. Now when their asses can be drafted to go to war, you will see people's care level go up.[/b]

First and foremost, let me get this out of the way before any of you begin to question why I know the things I know: I am active duty in the United States Navy, with the Seabees of Construction Batallion Maintainance Unit 202, homeported out of Norfolk, VA. I've been in for just over 5 years, and I've seen and heard a thing or two, to put it lightly.
Now, in response to your statement about the National Guard: The reason the guardsmen got called in is because the American people wouldnt approve the original plan, which was to send damn near 70% of the active forces over there. It's a political situation, not a manpower issue. If the UN and the US population would quit worrying so much about how our appearance is going to be affected by war, we would have been done with the middle east by now. I've done two tours in the middle east, one in afghanistan, the other in iraq, and I would go back in a heartbeat if my presence there meant progress. I can speak for a vast majority of the rest of your armed forces when I say this. It was your decision, not ours. If a draft were to be instituted, it would be a direct response from the cries of "send our troops home!" that is consantly echoed throughout the country. We are there to accomplish a mission, and had we been given the proper tools to begin with, (i.e. sufficient manpower, higher funding, etc.) we weould have been packed up and back to our own business right now.