Bin Laden who?

[Mark]

Does anyone else think it's odd that Dubya has the whole world frothing at the mouth over Hussein...and never even mentions Bin Laden anymore? Bin Laden? Who dat?

You might remember Osama...he was the one behind the attack on the U.S. on 9/11.

Of course, Bin Laden doesn't control any oil fields, does he?

[aerocontrols]

Bin Laden seems slightly dead, to me.

[Mark]

Bin Laden seems slightly dead, to me.

Oh? Well, my crystal ball has a crack in it.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mark
Does anyone else think it's odd that Dubya has the whole world frothing at the mouth over Hussein...and never even mentions Bin Laden anymore? Bin Laden? Who dat?

You might remember Osama...he was the one behind the attack on the U.S. on 9/11.

Of course, Bin Laden doesn't control any oil fields, does he?

Well,

We cannot prove that Bin Laden still lives,...and we cannot prove that he has perished. Much like Carl Sagan's teapot.

We cannot prove, nor disprove that there is a teapot in orbit around Pluto. It is, however, unlikely....just as it is unlikely Bin Laden is still in the land of the living. If a thing cannot be proved, nor disproved then it is nonsense to spend time thinking about it.

Therefore, until Bin Laden pops his nasty little head up, it is best to move on to the next task at hand lest you become too focused on the tree, missing the forest. The Bush team has rightly, IMO, moved on in the WOT. Now please explain to us why you think this is wrong.

-zilla

[Mark]

Al Qaeda still exists, and they are NOT on Pluto (neither are they in Iraq)...the Bush administration themselves say the threat is just as high as it ever was. North Korea HAS the bomb; Iraq MIGHT have the bomb...someday; but they do have oil fields now. Dick Cheney's company Halliburton, rebuilt the Iraqi oil fields in the 1990s. Condoleeza Rice was a Chevron executive. The Bush family IS American oil. Bush's economic plan stresses higher oil consumption, but NOT conservation or alternate energy.

I tell you what...you send YOUR children to die for Bush's oil war.

[panduh]

Bin Laden? Been Forgotten..... at least until the next terrorist attack.

[corplinx]

I think its good that they took the emphasis off a manhunt. His terror network has been greatly damaged. Many of his upper elites have been captured or killed. Cells have been busted all over europe. Many of his people are being held prisoner in Cuba. I really think Osama is a cat with no claws right now.

[crackmonkey]

I think it's telling that Al-Qaeda hasn't managed to undertake any more spectacular attacks in the West. The closest they've come is the bombing in Bali and the attack in Kenya - evidence that our security apparatus is doing its job.

[Goshawk]

Hey, c'mon, his brother-in-law says (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/15/binladen/index.html) he's a really nice guy. :D
[Mohammed Jamal] Khalifa called bin Laden a "very humble and very simple person."

"He forces you to respect him from his attitude," Khalifa said. "He is not a person who is aggressive. He is not a person who is even thinking to hit any person, even by word. He is really selecting his words very careful when he's talking. He's a really nice guy, very nice guy." Uh huh. :rolleyes:
U.S. and Asian authorities say Khalifa funded Islamic charities in the Philippines and set up links between al Qaeda and the separatist Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

Intelligence officials say Khalifa lived in the Philippines from 1988 to 1994 and worked with a terrorist cell that plotted to destroy U.S. airliners in 1995. I mean, if you can't take the word of his BIL...

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Therefore, until Bin Laden pops his nasty little head up, it is best to move on to the next task at hand lest you become too focused on the tree, missing the forest. The Bush team has rightly, IMO, moved on in the WOT. Now please explain to us why you think this is wrong.



You are so wrong!

Don't you remember all those years we spent searching for Hitler's corpse? I really can't see how we could possibly move on from WWII until we're sure he's dead. Certainly it was a mistake to cut back on fighting in Germany and concentrate in Japan without verifiable proof that Hitler was dead.

I can't imagine what they were thinking...

[Goshawk]

I really can't see how we could possibly move on from WWII until we're sure he's dead. [Therapist Voice]

If he was still alive, he'd be 114 years old. He's dead. Let it go, time to move on...

:D

in 2071, we'll be able to let Osama go, too

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mark

I tell you what...you send YOUR children to die for Bush's oil war.

Please review the points mentioned on this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12904)

Then address these points telling me why they are inaccurate, and also explain in detail why your assinine assertion that this is an "oil war" is more correct.

God damn! I am so friggin' sick of the idiots who keep chanting "oil war, oil war" as if they have a clue. It has become nothing more than a trite expression chanted by the mindless mob.

So there's your challenge Mark. Show me you are a serious guy and get down to business. Either that or shut the hell up.

-zilla :mad: :mad:

[shemp]

Originally posted by Goshawk
[Therapist Voice]

If he was still alive, he'd be 114 years old. He's dead. Let it go, time to move on...

:D

in 2071, we'll be able to let Osama go, too

Unless they freeze him next to Ted Williams.

[Mark]

1. Saddam gave haven and support to the terrorist Abu Nidal and his organization

So did numerous other countries we are NOT threatening with war. But guess what? THEY DON'T HAVE OIL FIELDS! If you want to roll over and play dead for anything your boy tells you to do, that is your business. Me, I'd rather think for myself.

It's late here, so I will look at, and respond to the other points tomorrow as I have time.

I will also resist the strong temptation to respond to your rant with similar infantile name calling.

[crackmonkey]

Who else supported Abu Nidal? Syria and Libya, who kicked his organization out after the US pressured them to do so. Iraq assassinated him, so I'll give them a pass on this one...

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Mark
Does anyone else think it's odd that Dubya has the whole world frothing at the mouth over Hussein...and never even mentions Bin Laden anymore? Bin Laden? Who dat?

You might remember Osama...he was the one behind the attack on the U.S. on 9/11.

Just a couple of points...

- As other posters have said, Bin Laden is most likely dead.
- Work still needs to be done to control and eliminate al Quaeda. However, most of the necessary work will be 'covert' type activities; not the type of thing that you need to stand up and cheer for
- There is some evidence (although not everyone believes it) that there are some ties between Iraq and al Quaeda (Some eastern European countries claim Iraqi officials met with the terrorists prior to the attacks; some al Quaeda people may be training in Iraq now, etc.)
- Even if there are no direct links between the 2 countries, Iraq does support other terrorist activities. Al Quaeda may be the one that attaced the world trade centers, but there are other terrorists that want westerners dead and democracy eliminated.
- If the U.S. is successful in turning Iraq into a democracy, it will put pressure on other countries in the region (notably Saudi Arabia) to curtail their support for terrorism. (And Saudi Arabia is probaby the biggest supporter of Al Quaeda.)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

- As other posters have said, Bin Laden is most likely dead.
- Work still needs to be done to control and eliminate al Quaeda. However, most of the necessary work will be 'covert' type activities; not the type of thing that you need to stand up and cheer for
- There is some evidence (although not everyone believes it) that there are some ties between Iraq and al Quaeda (Some eastern European countries claim Iraqi officials met with the terrorists prior to the attacks; some al Quaeda people may be training in Iraq now, etc.)
- Even if there are no direct links between the 2 countries, Iraq does support other terrorist activities. Al Quaeda may be the one that attaced the world trade centers, but there are other terrorists that want westerners dead and democracy eliminated.
- If the U.S. is successful in turning Iraq into a democracy, it will put pressure on other countries in the region (notably Saudi Arabia) to curtail their support for terrorism. (And Saudi Arabia is probaby the biggest supporter of Al Quaeda.)

1- He may be dead. He may be keeping his head down. We dont know.
2- If the al-q busting is all so covert, is this the reason we need a big, high profile war to stand up and cheer about? even it is utterly irrelevant to the WOT?
3- Evidence linking al-q to Iraq has been discredited. The only reason people belive it is because dubya keeps mentioning it. Say something often enough and loud enough and some people will belive it.
4- So there are other terrorists (evidence?). Why invade Iraq? Surely there are more in other places like Kenya? or why not Pakistan or Columbia or Northern Ireland? some steps are missing in your logic here.
5- If Saudi Arabia is the biggest supporter of terrorism why not invade them instead of Iraq?

[Mark]

Well said, Jon.

I have a question...when has the U.S. EVER installed a democracy in the mid-east? Afghanistan may evolve into one, but it is certainly not there yet, and all the evidence seems to indicate the same tribal warfare will continue as has been happening there for centuries. And we are doing as little a possible to prevent that.

Countries who have harbored/supported terrorists (an incomplete list off the top of my head):

Iraq
Syria
Jordan
Libya
Iran
Yemen
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Algeria
Northern Ireland (Not the government)
El Salvador
North Korea
Russia
Pakistan
France
China
Egypt
Lebannon

Of all these (and there are others, of course)
why are we only going to war with Iraq? And which one has the most significant oil fields?

Another lame rationalization I hear often is that "Hussein killed his own people." True. He's evil. Taken as read. Now where does that put the U.S. and our genocide of the Indians? Should Canada consult the U.N. for permission to invade the U.S.? And we have nukes and have threatened to use them!

All the growling smilies in the world won't change the fact that Bush has offered zero explanation why invading Iraq is important, when we happily ignore all the others who are as bad or worse.

If it is not oil, then what is it? It sure ain't terrorism.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mark
Well said, Jon.

I have a question...when has the U.S. EVER installed a democracy in the mid-east? Afghanistan may evolve into one, but it is certainly not there yet, and all the evidence seems to indicate the same tribal warfare will continue as has been happening there for centuries. And we are doing as little a possible to prevent that.

Countries who have harbored/supported terrorists (an incomplete list off the top of my head):

Iraq
Syria
Jordan
Libya
Iran
Yemen
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Algeria
Northern Ireland (Not the government)
El Salvador
North Korea
Russia
Pakistan
France
China
Egypt
Lebannon

Of all these (and there are others, of course)
why are we only going to war with Iraq? And which one has the most significant oil fields?

Another lame rationalization I hear often is that "Hussein killed his own people." True. He's evil. Taken as read. Now where does that put the U.S. and our genocide of the Indians? Should Canada consult the U.N. for permission to invade the U.S.? And we have nukes and have threatened to use them!

All the growling smilies in the world won't change the fact that Bush has offered zero explanation why invading Iraq is important, when we happily ignore all the others who are as bad or worse.

If it is not oil, then what is it? It sure ain't terrorism.

Thanks for playing Mark....

Now go through your list of countries and tell me which one had put pen to ink and signed UNSC 687.

Please pick another of the 10 points....be sure and bring your brain with you on your next outing.

-zilla

[Mark]

Please pick another of the 10 points....be sure and bring your brain with you on your next outing.

Aaaaagggh! Skewered by rapier wit! You've convinced me! I'll send other peoples' children to die for this cause! You're the man!

[Jon_in_london]

Why so keen on UNSC 687?

What about the new one 1441(? or something)

Heres a good one UN resolution #242.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


1- He may be dead. He may be keeping his head down. We dont know.
2- If the al-q busting is all so covert, is this the reason we need a big, high profile war to stand up and cheer about? even it is utterly irrelevant to the WOT?
3- Evidence linking al-q to Iraq has been discredited. The only reason people belive it is because dubya keeps mentioning it. Say something often enough and loud enough and some people will belive it.
4- So there are other terrorists (evidence?). Why invade Iraq? Surely there are more in other places like Kenya? or why not Pakistan or Columbia or Northern Ireland? some steps are missing in your logic here.
5- If Saudi Arabia is the biggest supporter of terrorism why not invade them instead of Iraq?
1- If he is alive, he's done a very good job at keeping a low profile. Lets face it, the U.S. dropped so many bombs that its hard to imagine him NOT laying under a pile of rubble. And even if he is alive, a lot of his terrorist infrastructure is gone
2 - Why do you say that a war against Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror? If nothing else, Iraq has supported various Palestinian terrorist groups
3 - Who has discredited the al Quaeda links? I know I keep hearing arguments from both sides. (Some major newspapers have articles on things like training camps in the Iraqi desert)
4 and 5 - Why not invade other countries that give more terrorist support? for several reasons.... There is at least a partial legal argument for attacking Iraq: they agreed to certain conditions at the end of the gulf war, and have refused to live up to them. (Those other countries made no such agreements). Iraq has shown outward hostility in the past (annexing Kuwait).... Iraq is a country that has a relatively secular outlook (compared to some other middle east countries) and thus if the goal is to install democracy, they have a better chance at installing it in Iraq than other contries. Finally, although there are terrorists in Columbia and Ireland, the terrorism there doesn't directly threaten global interests like middle eastern terrorism does

[Mark]

2 - Why do you say that a war against Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror? If nothing else, Iraq has supported various Palestinian terrorist groups

So have a number of other mid-eastern countries...including many of our "allies." So this excuse doesn't wash.

3 - Who has discredited the al Quaeda links? I know I keep hearing arguments from both sides. (Some major newspapers have articles on things like training camps in the Iraqi desert)

Discredited or not, there are stronger links to other countries we are NOT attacking. Pakistan, for example.

4 and 5 - Why not invade other countries that give more terrorist support? for several reasons.... There is at least a partial legal argument for attacking Iraq: they agreed to certain conditions at the end of the gulf war, and have refused to live up to them.

So you feel that if a country makes a deal and doesn't keep it, we should declare war on them before we do any countries that didn't make such an agreement at all? I don't follow the logic. Yes, there is a certain amount of legal justification here, I admit; but the goal is supposed to be (snicker) to keep us safe from terrorism.

It keeps coming back to this: we are worried about terrorism, and yet we are preparing to attack a country whose terrorist links are not as strong as those of some of our allies, let alone enemies. Why?

As has been pointed out before, Saddam can't even shoot down one of our planes when it flies over his own house. If he isn't as big a threat as countries we are ignoring (North Korea), then what is he? Well, he is the controller of some vast oil fields. Oil fields that our shadow veep, at least, already has a vested interest in.

1- If he is alive, he's done a very good job at keeping a low profile. Lets face it, the U.S. dropped so many bombs that its hard to imagine him NOT laying under a pile of rubble. And even if he is alive, a lot of his terrorist infrastructure is gone

Sorry...I left out this point. The Bush Administration themselves say Al Qaeda's infrastructure is intact.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Mark
2 - Why do you say that a war against Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror? If nothing else, Iraq has supported various Palestinian terrorist groups

So have a number of other mid-eastern countries...including many of our "allies." So this excuse doesn't wash.

3 - Who has discredited the al Quaeda links? I know I keep hearing arguments from both sides. (Some major newspapers have articles on things like training camps in the Iraqi desert)

Discredited or not, there are stronger links to other countries we are NOT attacking. Pakistan, for example.
[/B]
So, are the links discredited? Others here have posted a few rather strong links between Iraq and other terrorists.

I do not deny that other countries are greater contributors to global terrorism. If the total contribution to terrorism were the only measure, I'd probably go after other countries.

The fact that Iraq is the best target has more to do than just that one factor... You have to take all factors into account (terrorism support, legal background, chances for a successful conversion to democracy). Three or 4 conditions together make for a much more compelling argument than just one.
Originally posted by Mark

4 and 5 - Why not invade other countries that give more terrorist support? for several reasons.... There is at least a partial legal argument for attacking Iraq: they agreed to certain conditions at the end of the gulf war, and have refused to live up to them.

So you feel that if a country makes a deal and doesn't keep it, we should declare war on them before we do any countries that didn't make such an agreement at all? I don't follow the logic. Yes, there is a certain amount of legal justification here, I admit; but the goal is supposed to be (snicker) to keep us safe from terrorism.
[/B]
Well, if the 'agreement' that was broken involves rules about weapons of mass destruction, and not attacking innocent people in other countries, then it is a stronger reason for military action. (Yes, there are cases where military action is warranted even if they are not breaking any agreements, such as in Kosovo; however, its more likely that a country that had gone to war in the past will do so in the future than a country that had never gone to war.)

As I've said before, the case for military interaction in Iraq rest on more than just a single reason.
Originally posted by Mark
It keeps coming back to this: we are worried about terrorism, and yet we are preparing to attack a country whose terrorist links are not as strong as those of some of our allies, let alone enemies. Why?
As I've said before, the 'amount' of terrorism it is responsible for is just part of the reason why Iraq should be attacked.

Sorry if it seems like I'm beating a dead horse here... however, in so many of the debates on this issue I've done my best to make it clear that attacking Iraq is good due to a combination of factors; and usually people just try to take one factor and say "this isn't good enough" without considering the whole case.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mark
Please pick another of the 10 points....be sure and bring your brain with you on your next outing.

Aaaaagggh! Skewered by rapier wit! You've convinced me! I'll send other peoples' children to die for this cause! You're the man!

:rolleyes: spare me

I spent time in uniform. As a young soldier in a Frankfurt W. Germany tactical commo unit for V corps, I was sent to Rhein Main airbase with my unit to await airlift in the hours after the US embassy was seized by Iran. (the weirdest part was that there were armed MP's around making sure, I guess, than none of us headed for the hills) Luckily for me the order never came, and we went back to our barracks whilst our countrymen spent the next 444 days being fed chicken-head-beak-and-claw soup. I didn't have to go to war that day long ago,...but I'd have gone to do my duty, because I swore an oath and gave my word that I'd do so.

So will these "other people's children" that you would so happily send off to war. My question to you is why is it okay for my kids or myself to have to defend the freedoms of your kids and yourself?? What makes you so superior to us? Is there anything that you value more than your own skin? If not then I feel kinda sorry for you.

The maintenance of individual freedoms comes at a price, usually paid by a collective group....you have alienated yourself from that group. For me, my time in the army, and the friends I made for life were well worth the risk of my own sorry neck. When I see servicemen on tv I feel a natural affinity for them and what they are up against and what they are feeling. When I see the flag I don't see a symbol of oppression....I see a symbol of that collective I once was such an integral part of. I know that flag will cover my coffin someday....and when it does and an officer presents it to my daughters or my wife...I know it will make them feel a little prouder of their dad and a little balm for their sadness to hear that the President of our country officially grieves with them.

That's what it's really all about Mark. The symbols are only meaningless if you have alienated yourself from them. A war is only a bad thing when there is a viable alternative.

Listen, war is not something fun to contemplate...not even from the distance I may now enjoy from it. But once upon a time I was that "other people's child"....now it is someone else's turn. War is a last resort, but in the end will bring relief to the world in general and the common Iraqi people in particular.

-zilla

[Mark]

So will these "other people's children" that you would so happily send off to war. My question to you is why is it okay for my kids or myself to have to defend the freedoms of your kids and yourself?? What makes you so superior to us? Is there anything that you value more than your own skin? If not then I feel kinda sorry for you.

I don't mind if we disagree on this issue; it's just politics to me. But here you have offended me. On this planet we have something called sarcasm, which is what I was using. I AM NOT PREPARED TO SEND ANYONE'S CHILDREN OFF TO THIS DUMB WAR! That was my point, you imbecile.

Let me say it plainly, so you can understand: I don't want my children, your children, or you, or any other American to go off and fight this oil war.

You can disagree with me about the need for this war. Fine. Maybe you are even right...but don't you dare accuse me of something like this. You don't know me, my life, or anything about me.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mark
So will these "other people's children" that you would so happily send off to war. My question to you is why is it okay for my kids or myself to have to defend the freedoms of your kids and yourself?? What makes you so superior to us? Is there anything that you value more than your own skin? If not then I feel kinda sorry for you.

I don't mind if we disagree on this issue; it's just politics to me. But here you have offended me. On this planet we have something called sarcasm, which is what I was using. I AM NOT PREPARED TO SEND ANYONE'S CHILDREN OFF TO THIS DUMB WAR! That was my point, you imbecile.

Let me say it plainly, so you can understand: I don't want my children, your children, or you, or any other American to go off and fight this oil war.

You can disagree with me about the need for this war. Fine. Maybe you are even right...but don't you dare accuse me of something like this. You don't know me, my life, or anything about me.

I indeed am capable of inferring alot about you from the way you post. Sarcasm, my friend, doesnot always lend itself to the internet very well. You should choose your words more wisely.

What's more, again you have,...in the face of presented facts,...called this an "oil war"...after I have repeatedly shown you that the subject at hand is not that simple. That you are not a skeptic is another thing that can be easily inferred about you from your posts because you simply disregard evidence that does not fit in with the world view you have placed so much emotional capital into.

I suggest that you calm down....and engage your brain before you post again. You are embarrassing yourself, even if you don't have the sense to recognize it.

-zilla

[Mark]

What's more, again you have,...in the face of presented facts,...called this an "oil war"...after I have repeatedly shown you that the subject at hand is not that simple. That you are not a skeptic is another thing that can be easily inferred about you from your posts because you simply disregard evidence that does not fit in with the world view you have placed so much emotional capital into.

I have explained at length why I disagree with your points. You have repeatedly (and finally successfully) tried to turn this into a personal slanging match. You started the personal attacks. I disagree with you about this war...but, as I said, you may be right. Time will tell. What will remain true, however, is that you personally attacked me---with no knowledge about me at all---and then don't even have the good grace to apologize for that.
You are an ill-mannered boor; I regret that I allowed myself to temporarily sink to the same level.

P.S. If you would like to continue to debate this topic like reasonably intelligent human beings, I will be happy to oblidge. If, on the other hand, you want to continue with infantile school yard behavior, then PM me and we can do that privately.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mark
What's more, again you have,...in the face of presented facts,...called this an "oil war"...after I have repeatedly shown you that the subject at hand is not that simple. That you are not a skeptic is another thing that can be easily inferred about you from your posts because you simply disregard evidence that does not fit in with the world view you have placed so much emotional capital into.

I have explained at length why I disagree with your points. You have repeatedly (and finally successfully) tried to turn this into a personal slanging match. You started the personal attacks. I disagree with you about this war...but, as I said, you may be right. Time will tell. What will remain true, however, is that you personally attacked me---with no knowledge about me at all---and then don't even have the good grace to apologize for that.
You are an ill-mannered boor; I regret that I allowed myself to temporarily sink to the same level.

Your opinion of me is not at issue. I attacked your post, not you. You are the one attempting to bait me into an emotional flame fest.....sorry, but I'll pass.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how it is that I am wrong and you are right. Your inability to stick to the facts speaks volumes.

Like I said before, if you cannot post without getting carried away by your emotions, then maybe you shouldn't post here.

-zilla

[c0rbin]

I posted this in the "Material Breach..." thread, but the interest in that one seems to be waning and it is on topic here as well :)

So I quote myself in all humility:



It would be so much easier for me to buy the anti-terrorism or bringing democracy or eleviating suffering, for the good of the Iraqi people (doesn't Iraq have the largest middle class in the middle east?) if oil weren't involved, with a country like North Korea, which, as far as I know, is a worthless rock jutting out into Ghidira's playground.

Sorry for the run-on.

Anyway, if there is so much internal strife, why not use that instead of perpetuating an Anti-American mythology that our might will make right? Are our interests in the region such that we can't take the moral high-ground and pressure/shame the whole world of freedom-loving peacenics into forcing Saddam out?

I realize that we are the big-bad military on the planet, but as has been pointed out in other threads, we are not the only military.

I guess I am coming at this from a PR perspective. You cannot justify going into Iraq for humanitarian reasons and not go into North Korea or Africa. Because we are willing to do this very thing, it seems like we care only for the oil to feed our "excess."

It is evident that a large portion of humans on the planet dislike A,ericans, why perpetuate thier reasons for hating us?





---

Edited to add: "A,ericans" = "Americans"

[Mark]

Like I said before, if you cannot post without getting carried away by your emotions, then maybe you shouldn't post here.

I agree.

Now, on this topic, I can't think of much to add. I am not going to convince you of anything, nor you me; nothing you have said about Iraq does not apply even more so to other nations. The one thing Iraq adds to the equation that the others do not is oil. If there is something else, I don't know what it is, and Bush isn't telling. Until he does, this will remain, to my mind, an "oil war" and I do NOT want any Americans to die fighting it.

I wonder, what would Republicans (I am NOT a Democrat, BTW) say if Clinton had helped rebuild Iraqi oil fields in the 1990s, as Dick Cheney did. There would, I am certain, be more than a few cries of "Traitor!"

Originally posted by rikzilla

God damn! I am so friggin' sick of the idiots who keep chanting "oil war, oil war" as if they have a clue.

So there's your challenge Mark. Show me you are a serious guy and get down to business. Either that or shut the hell up.

...be sure and bring your brain with you on your next outing.


------------------------------

I attacked your post, not you.

Like I said before, if you cannot post without getting carried away by your emotions, then maybe you shouldn't post here.

-zilla

Indeed! :rolleyes:

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by sundog


Indeed! :rolleyes:

okay...my bad.. In my defense however, if you scroll back and read my comments in their original context it becomes clear what prompted that post.

If you, sundog, are the arbiter of decorum here perhaps you would also like to include a cut-and-paste of Mark calling me an idiot, etc....

All this is of course way off topic. Is that what you are attempting to do? Derail the thread?? Why don't we all calm down and get back to facts and off emotional outbursts.

-zilla

Originally posted by rikzilla


okay...my bad.. In my defense however, if you scroll back and read my comments in their original context it becomes clear what prompted that post.

If you, sundog, are the arbiter of decorum here perhaps you would also like to include a cut-and-paste of Mark calling me an idiot, etc....

All this is of course way off topic. Is that what you are attempting to do? Derail the thread?? Why don't we all calm down and get back to facts and off emotional outbursts.

-zilla

My, my. All this from a single word. :D

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I spent time in uniform.Thank you. I didn't have to go to war that day long ago, but I'd have gone to do my duty, because I swore an oath and gave my word that I'd do so.

So will these "other people's children" ... Is there anything that you value more than your own skin? If not then I feel kinda sorry for you.

The maintenance of individual freedoms comes at a price, usually paid by a collective group ... For me, my time in the army, and the friends I made for life were well worth the risk of my own sorry neck. When I see servicemen on tv I feel a natural affinity for them and what they are up against and what they are feeling ... I know that [the U.S.] flag will cover my coffin someday. [A]nd when it does and an officer presents it to my daughters or my wife, I know it will make them feel a little prouder of their dad and a little balm for their sadness to hear that the President of our country officially grieves with them. Content edited (respectfully) for pertinance and punctuation edited for clarity.I'm truly curious. As a veteran, do you have any viewpoint about George W. Bush's behavior during the Viet Nam conflict while an officer in the Texas Air National Guard?