A message for ALL !!!!!

[Bambikiller240]

Originally posted by dozer171

i actually considered the marine corps, and talked to them a bit last year. but, in the end, i decided it wasn't for me:ermm:

Well, as one of many who served his country to protect the rights of the protesters, and all who live in our country (including you also) to voice your opinion, all I can say is...........Talk such as your statement espousing "find(ing) stump humpers to beat on" is cheap talk. Perhaps you'd benefit from the opportunity to learn what it really means to serve your country, and to fully understand the freedoms that they defend.

[dozer171]

whoa... i wasn't trying to pick a fight or anything. i have worked for the protection of others, but not via the military. i come from a family of volunteer firefighters. it may not be the same as expiriencing artilery fire, but flames and sagging floors are scary as all living hell as well.

gotta love the people when you show up on scene and they are like "what took you so long to get here!?!?" when it was people who just plain wouldn't get out of the way because they felt they were more important than where the flashing lights were going. ironic thing is, many people who ask that question are those people who don't care until they need us...

[Bambikiller240]

Originally posted by dozer171

whoa... i wasn't trying to pick a fight or anything.

Just with those "Stump humpers" with whom you disagree.

Originally posted by dozer171

i have worked for the protection of others, but not via the military.

It isn't the same thing. You still seem to advocate "beating" other people who you disagree with. Freedom of speech is guarenteed to ALL by our Bill of Rights. It is not selective.

[dozer171]

i realize freedom of speech is garunteed to all, i am not debating that with you. i tip my hat at men such as yourself who served our great nation. i simply hate it when people belittle others based upon them doing their job, be it following orders, defending freedom, or just having a job in which some people believe is wrong (ex: abortion providers, but, that's a whole other can of worms in and of itself). and, protesting is not a job in my opinion...

i don't advocate beating on people simply for the heck of it because they don't agree with me. i just don't understand how people can still think diplomacy is the answer. i mean, we gave this guy twelve years to disarm, and he danced around it. then, in the last few days before the war, he was giving token missiles up to make it look like he was, when he wasn't. he was obviously stalling. now junior is finishing what daddy started.

you may believe me to not be standing by my own beliefs in this, that, sometimes combat is neceserry to reslove an issue because i choose not to enter the military. however, because this started as a somewhat lighthearted statement, i'll end it with what is intended as a light hearted statement.

it would still be nice to prove a point to some of the activists with a square punch in the nose. :classic:

no hard feelings bro *handshake*

[Bambikiller240]

I apologise if I'm being harsh in my previous comments.

Many of the people complaining about the "protesters" have never experienced "serving your country, and protecting our freedoms" through the military. It often times seems that their voices are the loudest, when most of them have no concept of what it means to defend the freedoms that we enjoy. Including, but not limited to the freedom of speech.

I do understand that combat is sometimes necessary. Also, I have no doubt that Saddam had been playing a shell game with WMD's. Moving them, and hiding them from the UN inspectors. It is just hat I feel that, at this time, the way to deal with that is through international law. When the SOB actually threatens the US in a meaningful way, I just might advocate turning Iraq into a "lovely glass bowl". But not yet.

Peace!

[metalman5117]

I hate to get involved in this but I want to get some of this off my chest. Carl I hate to disagree with you but we have given international law (i.e. the UN) a chance to work. There have been many resolutions over the last twelve years and the have been routinely ignored by Iraq. Maybe if the UN had backed up the resolutions in the begining with some consequences we would not be in this situation now,but that is not the case so here we are. 911 in my opinion changed everything, including how we should deal with rogue nations such as Iraq. Former Iraqi scientist Dr. Hamsa(sic?) the head of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program has stated publicly that Iraq was just six months away from having nuclear weapons. None of what Dr. Hamsa has said has been disputed by others. What I'm trying to say is that Saddam was secretly trying to acquire Nuclear weapons. Other countries like North Korea make clear of their intentions to acquire nukes because they want acceptance into the International Community. The want to be considered a power. Saddam was trying to keep his program secret because in all likelihood he was planning to use them. This is not just my opinion but the opinion of many others far more learned than me. I for one am not willing to take the chance that saddam is not going to use them because once he does it really is to late.

I feel that President Bush truly is following his conscience and doing what he believes is right. This has not been an easy position for him to take and I for one stand behind my President, my country, and the armed forces fighting as we sit here. May we all say a prayer for the men and women of our armed forces and all the members of the coalition tonight. May God bless them.

[biker]

We once again had the students from 10years of age onwards ptortesting against the Iraq war again.

We have had three interesting quotes of late since from varying sources.

1. Interview with Aussie defence personnel in the Gulf state "We do not mind the protesters because we are here to protect their freedom of speechand their right to protest"

2. Interview with 12 year old at protest asked if he knew who was in charge of Iraq "umm Sam someone"

3. Interview with another protester around 16 years asked do you know what Saddam has done to the Kurds repying "It's his turf man, how would you like someone invading you"

Final question that I have asked as well as many others and cannnot be answered "Why don't you bloody students protest on a Saturday?"

Last Sunday someone decided to stop on one of the main bridges in his car and said "I am protesting against the war man". Then loudly played music with several feral women dancing around the car. News reports several hours later stated that police were negotiating with them to move. What the hell is there to negotiate about, move the car or will push it off the bridge and throw you all in the slammer!.:mad:

I think this is a good summation of our current protesting in this country.:sick:

[Bambikiller240]

biker:

The examples #2, and 3 that you site are points where you and I certainly agree.

Regarding the 12 & 16 year olds, at that age one can be learned enough to begin to undestand the issue, but obviously these were not. Probably was there to hang out with friends, or brought to the demonstration by parents who didn't have brains enough to educate their children.

Regarding the car on the bridge, I'd say impound the vehicle for 30 days, at the owners expense, AND arrest the driver & dancers. No negotiations necessary. Immediate action required. end of story.

I have no problem with the statement in point #1, so long as he referred to lawful, peaceful demonstrations.

[Bambikiller240]

Originally posted by metalman5117

I hate to get involved in this but I want to get some of this off my chest. Carl I hate to disagree with you but we have given international law (i.e. the UN) a chance to work. There have been many resolutions over the last twelve years and the have been routinely ignored by Iraq. Maybe if the UN had backed up the resolutions in the begining with some consequences we would not be in this situation now,.................

metalman5117:

Many other countries in the world feel that we are wrong in this action. Should we force our will on all countries of the world? I say No. I agree that the UN has been far too lenient in dealing with the government in Iraq. Still, we are over-ruling an international body and telling the rest of the world that we know what is best for the entire world. To my mind, that is setting us up to be looked at as an arrogant, agressor which will win us no friends and will probably cause us to loose stature as a "country of law" in the world. That is what concerns me most.

[thefastestz]

what is wierd is that so many people are formulating opinions without any knowledge to back up thier opinions.

example of a conversation i was in today:

(I am a college studet and this took place at school)

Student 1: we should have never went to war. the UN sanctions were already working.(no , i am not making this up.)

student 2: its all about oil and we are just trying to get thier oil fields.

student 1: what do you think?

ME: Earlier you said the we had no reason to cause war and that the un sanctions were working.

student 1: yeah.

Me: well can I ask you, what were the un sanctions that were placed?

student 1: UUUUUUUUUUUr.......

Me: Then how do you know saddam was following them, or that they were in fact working.

Me: You (student 2) think that we are just fighting for thier oil. why do you think that? what information led you to belive that.

( I was expecting an argument of some sort.)

student 2: I don't know i just don't think that we should be out there.

Me: Then say that, don't go off talking about oil. No one said that texaco is going to build a pipeline to iraq and start pumping it here.

student 2: well the US isn't all as good as every one thinks. we ship our POWs to egypt to get tortured.

( I should have followed the steps from that first post in this thread at this point it would've been perfect.)

ME: I haven't heard that but they should do what they have to do.

If an Iraqi soldier has info that could save US soldiers from dying and he won't tell, you have to do something.

You aren't the one out there holding a machine gun getting shot at. What would you do? Better for the enemy to suffer some than let your own people die.

After that the conversation on this subject ended.

Still there are alot of college students that have strong opinions on the war with nothing to back it up.

[metalman5117]

Carl;

You make some very valid points and I would agree with you 100% if the UN was an unbiased organization. In my opinion the United Nations has lost much of its legitamacy in dealing with the Iraq issue among other things. Sure other countries disagree with what we are doing namely France, Germany, and Russia but they have not so pure motives for their disagreement. All three of these countries have been breaking UN Sanctions and have been doing business with Iraq; selling them weapons, buying their oil etc. This is in violation of the UN sanctions the same UN that they claim has to be the one to deal with this issue. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The real issue is what is the UN's motivation? I personally believe that the UN is anti american whether that be jealously at what our country has achieved, or the wealth of this country, or the freedoms we have here. Whatever the case may be if one were to take an unbiased look at the actions of the UN I believe that this conclusion would be drawn.

Yes many countries are against us but as many or more stand with the US/UK in this fight. Once again I say the motives behind these countries disagrement with us is purely political. In 1998 when President Clinton announced that Iraq was a threat and we were going to force them to comply with the UN sanctions where was the protests? There was none. When he lobbed a few cruise missles into Iraq that missed their target and killed civilians where was the outcry by the UN? There was none because Clinton agreed with the politics of the UN more so than Bush.

Lastly I believe that our country's sovreignty should come before the UN's sovreignty. Our constitution should come before the UN's. We as Americans should have the right of self defense (as should any LEGITIMATE country) whether our not the UN agrees with it or not. When and if the UN becomes a non political organization that treats each and every member exactly the same the I would be in favor of letting International Law run its course. As for losing stature as a "country of law" , any country that claims that, long before held that opinion and have found that this is a convienent excuse to raise the issue again. We live in the most free pro human rights pro democracy country in the world and no matter what others say that is the case.

Carl I understand your passion about this and respect your beliefs. I also fee passionate about this subject and after reading the posts felt I had to say something. I'll just be glad when this is over and WE ALL can get back to just talking about our Z cars.

[Bambikiller240]

metalman5117:

I 100% agree that our sovreignty must come before the UN's, and we do have the right of self defense. Before I'd allow Iraq to acquire missles that could reach the US or develop a Nuke, I'd NUKE them beyond the stone-age.

I believe that Saddam, left to his own devices WILL become a threat to the rest of the world. However, he will be a threat to Europe, and other areas long before he is a threat to the US. We would have far more support if this were the senario that we faced AT THIS TIME..

I saw Iraqi people being given "humanitarian rations" this morning on TV. This was in an area that he US led forces had deemed safe enough for the humanitarion aid workers to be allowed into, in other words; it was well behind the leading edge of our attacking forces. These people were taking the aid being offered while shouting "Saddam Yes, USA No". The people of Iraq do not want us to "liberate" them.

fstr240z:

Anyone with a mouth can spout arguements, as you have seen. The only ones worth listening to, are those who have armed themselves with knowledge. Opinions, can and will differ, but mindless protesting, or arguements should be considered for what they really are. "Bovine Fertilizer."

I gotta start staying out of these threads for a while.