Jump to content

agentorange

Members
  • Content Count

    243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About agentorange

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Rock n' Roll, cars, computers. In that order.
  1. I wasn't trying to invalidate Lincoln's statement; I absolutely agree with him but only under the context of a war that directly affects the existence of the U.S. (say the entire world vs. the U.S. as a ridiculous example). I also agree that congress can affect the morale of troops abroad. But also remember that a lot of their criticism is directed at the leadership and architects of the war, not the military itself. The military is like an extremely powerful gun. Responsibility for its control lies with the person holding the gun, not the gun itself. Congress is just doing what anti-gun people would do if they were reasonable; going after the source. This in turn does affect the morale of the troops because it exposes flaws in their implementation and thus indicates that their lives may be wasted. Hey, that metaphor even allowed me to get on my 2nd amendment-supporting soap box. That was a two-for!
  2. I've got my fingers crossed that the democrats only give the Bush administration some public chastising. Embarrassing the Bush administration would be a lot easier and more effective. Getting caught up in a huge war between the parties (and branches of government I guess) would hurt the country and the democratic party too much. If they can make the right decisions and not get bogged down beating on the Bush administration, the democrats could gain a lot of favor. I just noticed your Lincoln quote lo; don't you think that quote was made at a time when the U.S. was not a global super power and held to a policy of isolationism. That said, at that time, war was assumed to be in defense of the country (i.e. life and death for the U.S.) and not a preemptive attack on a nation on the other side of the world with virtually no capacity to do serious harm to the U.S. Your quote seems extremely out of context considering the type of war the U.S. fights in Iraq.
  3. I thought that this was fairly interesting. Take it with a grain of salt I guess but definitely worth reading. I won't get verbally violent but I'm so dang glad to see the "thumpin'."
  4. You are disgusting. Sitting behind your screens. Sensory depravation. Go to hell.
  5. But there won't be an uproar from the bought media? We precision guided missiles into water supplies and power plants that were working (if there were people in them I feel bad for them but we did announce most of our targets). I understand that we are bringing power and water to areas that have never seen it (with not bid contracts mind you) but we also forced many areas that were accustomed to such amenities to live without them for a long time. And this didn't help us out in gaining support with the Iraqi people.
  6. It's almost funny how you guys are for making fun of them for this (to bad you aren't clever or witty to begin with). America has had more than it's share of race riots and you act like this is exculsive to the French. We were able to control ours better but the French are new at this; we've been . minorities off for a century.
  7. "our engineers got their plumbing back up and running. We made their lives go from bad to worse (bad > good), not the other way around (good > bad > good)." - Yes, back up and running. It had been previously running, then we destroyed it, and now we're fixing it. Unfortunately that period where they didn't have anything was pretty dang long because we had our hands full. And a lot of the contracts going into Iraq are no-bid... to Halliburton. $$$ So now we're paying ourselves to fix what we broke.
  8. "I hope your NOT suggesting that France has a monopoly on National arrogance surely?' - ahaha not at all. The U.S. has deffinitely been moving in on that market.
  9. Holy jesus I played the first two a lot. Thank you for finding that!
  10. Surrendering was a joke. And yes, be afraid of the flaming in here. It's kinda funny though.
  11. This is one post in which I really do agree with Lo. I don't dislike the French but their arrogance has caught up to them.
  12. Ok, I've stepped back from this for a little and now I have a couple points to make. This is a very "mature" response and it may deviate from the original topic of this thread but it is related to several of the posts in this thread. "there is NO WAY to plan for a guerilla war like we are fighting now." - I think that had we not completely destroyed the infrastructure of the country, there wouldn't have been such a drastic change in the quality of life for the Iraqi people. Democracy is great (duh) but it's a difficult change for people who have never seen it (as in ever in thousands of years) and destroying their entire infrastructure makes it an even more difficult transition. Now we have to rebuild all of that (with no-bid contracts so far) and we have a bunch of people that are mad at us because it's easy. It's not hard to drum up resistance in people if they are already angry and that's why we are fighting a guerilla war right now. I understand that fighters have come in from other countries but there are Iraqis on the other end of some of those rpg's. Also, I would like to make it clear that I don't support Saddam in any way and I understand that he was a potential threat to national security (although insignificant when compared to countries like North Korea which already had a successful nuclear weapons program and has since re-activated that program in light of our aggression in Iraq) but I think that his removal should have been done with a razor, not a hammer. The Iraqi people aren't our enemies.
×
×
  • Create New...