strike on iraq

Originally posted by rs7

What do you want from me? I told you several times when I was in. I was absolutely not in the CIA. I was in the ARMY and not by choice. I did not "sign on", I was DRAFTED! What is so interesting about this to you? I told you where I was and when I was there. I am not writing a book about myself. I only talked about this stuff to try and get across the point to the more bloodthirsty among you that war is not a game. It is about real people and real blood and very final deaths. I find your overwhelming curiousity quite morbid. What is it you REALLY want to know? Would it give you a thrill if I told you I was at My Lei and killed women and little children? That I am really Lt. Calley? What is your goal here? Are you sitting there now tearing wings off of insects?
More...

"I find your overwhelming curiousity quite morbid. What is it you REALLY want to know?"

Just an answer to part of my original question and thank you for being forthcoming so far. What was your induction month/year?



"Would it give you a thrill if I told you I was at My Lei and killed women and little children?"

No.

"That I am really Lt. Calley?"

No.

"Are you sitting there now tearing wings off of insects?"

Nope.
 
Originally posted by max401

Just an answer to part of my original question and thank you for being forthcoming so far. What was your induction month/year?
More...
I am afraid if you need to know more about me, you should tell me something about yourself. A good start would be your age, gender and social security number.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
rs7
 
Originally posted by rs7

I am afraid if you need to know more about me, you should tell me something about yourself. A good start would be your age, gender and social security number.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
rs7
More...

Rs7, my question to you is completely innocuous.
 
Originally posted by max401


Rs7, my question to you is completely innocuous.
More...

April, 1970. What possible significance is there to this?
 
Originally posted by rs7


April, 1970. What possible significance is there to this?
More...

rs7, i have to apologize, i inadvertently kept referring to you as r7.

may have to buy some glasses as old age comes creeping up, hmm.

anyway, i wouldn't worry to much about about max's trial shots at inquisition methods.

we ascertained earlier that there most certainly is no material justification to his attempts, as you do not need to have been a soldier let alone have been involved in warfare to be able to imagine death or mutilation on the one hand, or come to an educated assessment of strategic diplomatic, geopolitical and economic consequences of war on the other.

and that, very obviously, is also why your combat background is absolutely immaterial to the content of your posts.

all max is trying to do is get off some cheap shots at those who disagree with his and W's position, said position being characterized, inter alia, by splendid isolation, by trying to undermine their credibility and integrity through dissembling and spin spinning merrily away.

brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133
 
Originally posted by Madison


It's a shame this thread has degenerated into personal attacks and "neocon vs. liberal" foolishness.

If you give it some thought you might realize that while those in power have us calling each other names and arguing over labels, they're in the back room counting your money, smoking cigars and laughing at the suckers that work until June each year to fund their cocktail receptions, porkbarrel projects, and entitlement schemes, pay for their bodyguards and interns, and send them on "sightseeing tours" in private jets.

THEY, collectively, are responsible for policies that have made international targets out of their citizens. They have antagonized people all over the globe, from Ecuador to Vietnam. They have amassed a tremendous national debt to be delivered to your grandchildren. And now another war and $200 Billion more debt are needed for their latest adventure, and presumably to provide an excuse for the next tax increase.

Point: ALL politicians lie -- this should have nothing to do with "liberal" or "conservative" - we are talking about war: preserving our future, killing people, destroying lives, and thinking a little bit deeper than 10 sec. soundbytes from criminals like Daschle and Armey...

/politics_rant :D
More...

madison, i absolutely couldn't agree more with your points !!
 
Originally posted by rs7

OK....whatever.

Bottom line is that I don't see how ANYONE can be gung-ho to send troops to fight a war that will cause unnecessary casualties on both sides. The whole purpose of bringing up SE Asia during the Viet Nam era was to point out that whatever happens truly affects those that are put in harms way at the time. I always maintained that ridding the world of Saddam is imperative. But going to war with a nation is not (at this moment) the effective way to do it. We have been to this dance before.

It looked in '91 like it was an easy victory. But what did it really accomplish? Saddam is still in power (as was our objective at that time). Kuwaiti oil fields burned for a year and polluted the planet. The Iraqi people are worse off now than they were prior to the Gulf War, and Saddam continues to sell oil and live in many palaces and rule with no regard to human rights or his own people. And "Gulf War Syndrome" is very real. But not for Dotslash, he got to just watch on tv if he was old enough.

So when I hear Dotslash and his kind clamoring for war, I have to object. He obviously has no idea what war is about. He and so many, including some of our most hawkish leaders like Cheney have never served and it seems like they believe it is a game of good vs. evil using the bodies of others. It isn't that simple. Blood and death are very real to those that experience it. And their families.
More...

great post, rs7.

Senior lawmakers from both parties -- including Sens. John McCain and Richard Durbin, and House Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi -- who have been given a peek at some of this latest evidence of Iraq's ability to unleash weapons of mass destruction on the world have reacted with yawns and shrugs. "I heard nothing that was new, compelling, or that I have not heard before," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Robert Menendez, while McCain termed his top-secret Rumsfeld briefing "a joke."

It doesn't help matters that the White House has ignored repeated congressional requests to have the CIA produce a National Intelligence Estimate, the agency's most comprehensive level of analysis, on the threat posed by Iraq. Why the hesitancy? Are the president's men afraid that the results won't jibe with their doomsday -- "we're in imminent danger" -- party line?

What makes it even harder to trust without verifying is that Team Bush doesn't exactly have the greatest track record when it comes to telling the truth. Back in 1990, when the first President Bush and then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney were trying to sell an invasion of Iraq to the world, one of the key selling points was top-secret Pentagon satellite photos that purportedly showed 250,000 Iraqi troops ready to storm across the border into the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. It sounded ominously convincing, until some Soviet satellite pictures taken at the same time surfaced, revealing an utter absence of Iraqi troops. Twelve years later, the same Dick Cheney is assuring us that today Saddam "constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined." Color me unconvinced.

http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/092602.html
 
Originally posted by vvv:
now you're disingenuously trying to imply that r7 and i are one and the same?
More...

Oh, I don't know, vvv . . . what would give you that idea?

1. who appointed you inquisitor in chief doubting others?

2. so who did appoint you a modern day mcarthy or inquisitor in chief??

3. why don't you just apply for the position of national chief inquisitor for hiomeland defense,

4. your instrumentalized attack on r7's credibility

5. how, pray, should r7 be able to, hmm, verify his claims on a public board? what difference does it make to the material content of his message?

6. his military background has zero, nada, to do with the material content of his message.

7. all you're doing here is a cheap attempt to undermine the credibility of others

8. you do not need to have been a soldier let alone have been involved in warfare to be able to imagine death or mutilation

9. that is why r7's background of having or having not been a combat veteran is absolutely immaterial to the content of his posts

10. not going all out and making the accusation, no, just subtly implying that r7 lied about being a vet, when you know and i know that there is not a chance in a million to prove or disprove that point

11. as for r7, oh dear, we are moving in a circle here.

12. challenging the integrity of people here by pretending to desire knowledge of issues that cannot be proven in a board like this, and that have no relevance to the contents of r7's posts.

13. yes, and thoroughly right those allegations are too.

14. we ascertained earlier that there most certainly is no material justification to his attempts, as you do not need to have been a soldier let alone have been involved in warfare . . .
 
spin spinning happily away as ever...

and, oh yes, very valid points in your post about yourself. no doubt.

unfortunately, during all your time consuming spin activities, you haven't yet seem to have found an opportunity to answer my question i wrote earlier:

i do wonder, though, what with max's insistence on delving into others private backgrounds just to shed some doubt on the material content of their messages, if the dear boy, now that we have verified his gender, is actually planning on applying for a tour of duty himself?

or if he would prefer to be a couch potato warrior, getting his thrills from watching manipulated tv coverage of the war that makes it magically appear surgically precise and clean, with a remote control as his only weapon and a beer or two his only consolation for a missed opportunity to hmm, go kick some ass.

but, then again, how could he prove his reply to us?

oh dear.

brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts
http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110002133
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top