justsgtpat

I would be there a heart beat if I could. I went to MCRD twice to try to join the Marines. The first time a paperwork error sent me home. The second time I blew out my shoulder and had to have surgery to repair it. I do have a re-enlistment code but there are some problems with that so I am actually waiting to see if they can do something for me.

yellowfish

this post makes me understand you more
now i see where you get your very aggressive nature from
i might be wrong but you seem very sour over the fact you are not in Iraq killing folk

karmicly it seems as if you should not go

mdog

No. The worst thing is you spout BS and don't check your facts. You don't understand my posts. You know nothing about the history or politics of the Middle East, and believe that diplomacy begins at the end of a barrel of a gun.

You are a neo-con ideologue. Reality be damned, all that matters is the ideology. Neo-conservatism is a philosophy created by former anit-Vietnam War liberal communists. They came to grips with the reality of their old failed philosophy, and formed a new philosophy. Bill Kristol said before we invaded Iraq that any talk about animosity between Sunni and Shia was just worng. He said the Sunni and Shia in Iraq have always gotten along. And now the Neo-cons want us to invade Iran. They were completely wrong about everything else, so let's just trust them one more time.

America cannot be destroyed by external forces, it can only be destroyed from within.

justsgtpat

I will do what I can and be where I should be when I should be there, karmicly speaking of course. I played soccer in highschool and it taught me alot. As a goalie there are long stretches of nothing followed by a insane few seconds of action. If you waste to much in the time of no action, yelling or not paying attenetion, you waste what you will need in the times of action. I think about what needs to be done and do it, all out. I am not agressive at all, until I believe it is time to defend what I believe in. I have a 3 y.o son and 8 y.o. daughter that I love with all my heart. I understand that the choices made today will be the problems they live with tomorrow. I just don't want this to be one of the things they deal with because we screwed the pooch. I don't want to go to Iraq and kill people, as you imply. I want to go to Iraq and help those who give you and I the right to have this discussion. I want to be a part of the solution. Anyone can be taught to shot a weapon, but only a TRUE soldier can understand when NOT to fire. And our soldiers are again showing a great deal of control over there. There are a few incidents where US soldiers acted wrongly, and they are being delt with. But all in all I think we are conducting ourselves with honor and restraint. And I would not wait to in any way tarnish that fact by my actions if I were to go there.

justsgtpat

If I spout BS, then go point by point and prove me wrong. I did it when I didn't agree with the Olbermann video linked earlier on this thread, do the same. I use as many facts as I have available to me to back my opinion. And I understand that diplomacy has its limits. You can not reason with the unreasonable. And I am willing to accept the fact that from time to time action is needed to end a threat to our nation. We didn't get to be where we are by doing what the world thought was right. We got here by doing what was needed even if it was wrong to the rest of the world.

I don't ever remember commenting on relations between the two groups so this has little to do with me. I may have an opinion closest to conservatives but I make my own mind and will accept responsibility for my comments and no one elses.


I only see one group who is truely divisive in their actions. While we watch the Val Plame hearings about leaks that exposed her identity, I ask where are the hearings on all the leaks that we find later in Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups communications. If you are all about right and wrong, then you would not make a distinction between the two. By having a hearing on one and not the other you are make a clear statement that one is important while the other is not. They are both the same things done by different people. One effects one person, Mrs. Plame, the other has a daily effect on every soldier, sailor, Marine and airman in Iraq. But we know which one is on the tip of the Liberal sword don't we.
I am not a communist, I am an American. I am willing to support and defend myself, my family, and if need be my nation. A communist is willing to leave it up to the "government" to do that and alot more. Plus I am willing to accept responsibility for what I say and do, which does seperate me a little more from communists.

ddoubleez

The pentagon released a statement that revield that most of the road side bombs could be traced back to Iraq domestic bunkers that were not secured at the begining of the war. What was secured in the begining of the war were pipelines and rigs. All the oil inferstructure.... The maps used were property of haliburton. The depleated uranium that the soldiers are using is making more and more soldiers sick and they march them through area that they shell with it, protective gear like ventalation masks and full rad suits should be worn. The rate of psycological casualties are close to half of the soldiers that have seen combat, and they are closing hospitals and military bases here to open bases in forien countries, they don't care about the soldier and they sure the hell dont care about any citizen making less than 7 figuers a year..... So Finley I don't think you should go and I don't think Mizzer was being a smartass......

vince_w2004

Just a fact> The depleated uranium that is used by the UNITED STAES ARMED FORCES is less radioative than your cell phone or television set.
It is not only use as a munition but as very effective sheilding element in all Abrams Tanks in combat.
If it was a true hazard causing illness. Alomst all troops in combat would become sick within hours of exposure.
If the government was in any way responsible for something like this they would lose about 80% of its combat ready troops in one week. This isnt WW1, WW2, or Vietnam, where thosands of Armed forces are dieing every week. This is a war against an enemy not a country. It is two seperate occupations that have evolved and mated into what will most likely become a full occupation of the persian gulf within the next 2-4 years. The LEFT WING will continue to fight it, but the government knows that if (no matters who's in charge) we pull all troops from iraq and leave iran to continue inriching uranium that within 10 years this country will have been obliterated by some from of nuclear device that will cause possibly a 75% lose of the north american continent's population.
The terrorist want to kill all americans and any allies involved with the fight. This is the same as the fight against communism that we are still trying to end.

ddoubleez

Hmmmm... The half life of DU is 4.2 billion years old... The solor system is about 4.2 billion years old.... <-- Fact

Fact:

DU weapons emit Alpha particle dose to a single cell from U-238 which is 50 times the annual dose level. Cancer is initiated with one alpha particle, its daughter isotopes effect generations as the isotopes bio-concentrate in plants and animals, and travel up the food chain. It is a nuclear weapon because the energy is derived from the nucleus of the atom. They enter the body through the lungs, the digestive system or breaks in the skin. One gram of DU releases more than 12,000 particles per second. The radiation slowly kills the cells that make life possible. The Gulf War syndrome of 1991 did just that ( reported by Dr Asaf Durakovic, Prof. of Medicine , Georgetown University, and discoverer of the Gulf War Syndrome.)

Fact:

The uranium remaining after removal of the enriched fraction contains about 99.8% 238U, 0.2% 235U and 0.001% 234U by mass; this is referred to as depleted uranium or DU.
The main difference between DU and natural uranium is that the former contains at least three times less 235U than the latter.
DU, consequently, is weakly radioactive and a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass.
The behaviour of DU in the body is identical to that of natural uranium.
Spent uranium fuel from nuclear reactors is sometimes reprocessed in plants for natural uranium enrichment. Some reactor-created radioisotopes can consequently contaminate the reprocessing equipment and the DU. Under these conditions another uranium isotope, 236U, may be present in the DU together with very small amounts of the transuranic elements plutonium, americium and neptunium and the fission product technetium-99. However, the additional radiation dose following intake of DU into the human body from these isotopes would be less than 1%.

Fact:

Since 1990, the incident rate of leukemia in Iraq has grown by more than 600 percent. The situation is compounded by Iraq's forced isolations and the sadistic sanctions regime, recently described by UN secretary general Kofi Annan as "a humanitarian crisis", that makes detection and treatment of the cancers all the more difficult.


Fact:

When the tank-busting bombs explode, the depleted uranium oxidizes into microscopic fragments that float through the air like carcinogenic dust, carried on the desert winds for decades. The lethal dust is inhaled, sticks to the fibers of the lungs, and eventually begins to wreck havoc on the body: tumors, hemorrhages, ravaged immune systems, leukemias.

Fact:

If the US has been keeping silent, the Brits haven't been. A 1991 study by the UK Atomic Energy Authority predicted that if less than 10 percent of the particles released by depleted uranium weapons used in Iraq and Kuwait were inhaled it could result in as many as "300,000 probable deaths."

Fact:
UN scientists have pointed to the health implications of using depleted uranium in Iraq, where the weapons were used in the 1991 and 2003 wars.

Depleted uranium (DU), which is used for armor-piercing bullets or shells, is an extremely dense and hard metal that can cause chemical poisoning to the body, according to the Campaign Against Depleted Uranium Web site.

Fears over the DU's health implications prompted a study by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2001, which said that the weapons pose only a small contamination risk.

But a top UN scientist told the BBC Radio Four's Today program that evidence showing that depleted uranium could cause cancer was withheld.

In an interview for the BBC Radio 4 Today program, Dr Keith Baverstock, a British scientist who worked as a radiation adviser with the WHO, said he uncovered research indicating that depleted uranium was a potentially-dangerous carcinogen.

The study was carried out by the U.S. Department of Defense Armed Forces Radiobiological Research Institute.

According to Dr Baverstock, the scientist who headed the WHO review, Mike Repacholi, didn’t include the study in his final report, which was released in 2001, and concluded that depleted uranium was "basically safe”.

Dr Baverstock, who believes that DU is carcinogen, described a process known as genotoxicity, which starts when depleted uranium dust is inhaled.

"The particles that dissolve pose a risk - part radioactive - and part from the chemical toxicity in the lung," he said.

Later, the material enters the body and the blood stream, potentially affecting the bone marrow, the lymphatic system and the kidneys, he added.

PS Recurters LIE!!!!!!!!

helkz

Most of the Americans are Ignorant, you don't want to know anything about whats going on in the world, one day BEN LADEN or Iran or any other terror group will have a nuclear weapon and they will use it against europe and the USA. Look on UK they have already got lots of terror cells in their country, one day it will blow up in their face and they will realize what they are dealing with. It's only time to tell.

If no one will act or do anything about it there will be a mass destruction. Bush Is one of many who still see the threat from the Islamic fanatics.

ddoubleez

We are in agreement!


Bush was also an alcoholic that had hallucinations of God visiting him... Most alcoholic hallucinations of pink elephants and thing of that nature, but leave it up to bush to see God.....

Now were the majority of those terror cells, in the UK, there before or after the start of our aggressive exploitation of oil in the middle east or after?
I enjoy when people point out what a good grasp bush has on the Islamic fanatics when he can't even tell you what type of Muslim they are when asked.... He is a fucking pro isn't he.....

And when you all bought the blatant manipulation of the 'cut and run' rhetoric that you hear these republicans spew, while the press stays silent about us handing over Afghanistan to the UN...... h#@p://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-29-nato-afghanistan_x.htm We were cutting and running, under the direction of this administration, in the only country that was harboring bin laden at the time of the attacks.... And if bush has such a good grip of what is going on, why did he hold hands with the king of Saudi Arabia AFTER his country produced HALF the attackers of 9-11....

Let's look at some recent history:

#1

RICE CLAIM: "The administration took seriously the threat" of terrorism before 9/11.

FACTS: President Bush himself acknowledges that, despite repeated warnings of an imminent Al Qaeda attack, before 9/11 "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism. Similarly, Newsweek reports that Bush's attitude was reflected throughout an administration that was trying to "de-emphasize terrorism" as an overall priority. As proof, just two of the hundred national security meetings the Administration held during this period addressed the terrorist threat, and the White House refused to hold even one meeting of its highly-touted counterterrorism task force. Meanwhile, the administration was actively trying to cut funding for counterterrorism, and "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism" despite a serious increase in terrorist chatter in the summer of 2001.

#2

RICE CLAIM: "I don't know what a sense of urgency any greater than the one we had would have caused us to do anything differently. I don't know how...we could have done more. I would like very much to know what more could have been done?"


FACTS: There are many more things that could have been done: first and foremost, the administration could have desisted from de-emphasizing and cutting funding for counterterrorism in the months before 9/11. It could have held more meetings of top principals to get the directors of the CIA and FBI to share information, especially considering the major intelligence spike occurring in the summer of 2001. As 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick said on ABC this morning, the lack of focus and meetings meant agencies were not talking to each other, and key evidence was overlooked. For instance, with better focus and more urgency, the FBI's discovery of Islamic radicals training at flight schools might have raised red flags. Similarly, the fact that "months before Sept. 11, the CIA knew two of the al-Qaeda hijackers were in the United States" could have spurred a nationwide manhunt. But because there was no focus or urgency, "No nationwide manhunt was undertaken," said Gorelick. "The State Department watch list was not given to the FAA. If you brought people together, perhaps key connections could have been made."

#3

RICE CLAIM: "Iraq was put aside" immediately after 9/11.


FACTS: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." In terms of resources, the Iraq decision had far-reaching effects on the efforts to hunt down al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As the Boston Globe reported, "the Bush administration is continuing to shift highly specialized intelligence officers from the hunt for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to the Iraq crisis."


Info already posted on Iraq:
http://forums.webrats.com/thread128589-2.html

ddoubleez

Watch this:

http://forums.webrats.com/showthrea...632#post2454632