SG Broadband Community

Originally posted by torsten
If you don't see any difference between slamming jets into the WTC and the removal of an atrociously brutal regime from power, you're admitting publicly to an ignorance that goes beyond explanation. In fact I'd say it's closer to maliciousness than ignorance. It sounds more like the simplistic us vs. them blind rhetoric that you hear from racists and nationalists. Come on, I think you do understand the difference.

The Iraqi sanctions were a result of failure to comply with post Gulf War agreements. That was a choice made by Hussein only. The same guy we're trying to get rid of now. The person responsible for the whole mess in the first place. But rather than place blame where it belongs, you'd rather attack the people who are trying to HELP the people of Iraq. You consider liberators as being the bad guys? What the hell is your motivation? Again, it sounds like an us vs. them thing where emotions, blood, and religion seem to matter more than facts. That's a shame.

sorry for the continuous replies im just reading this thread now, but Torsten I couldnt agree with you more. Well said.

Originally posted by cobra25
hey... I'm Dutch..... here in the Netherlands everyone thinks the US chose the wrong president....

seems the people in the US have trouble understanding that they're following the wrong leader...

Personally I know i'm following the right leader.

Originally posted by cobra25
Bush is the leader of his country... so he represents the US....
so: BUSH = US & US=BUSH....

That doesn't mean that everyone in the US agrees with him, but certainly the majority does....

majority does?

I wont even go into the election.

Is this another political thread?

If so...

yeah, kinda.

debating is a major stress reliever for me.

Originally posted by zooner
yeah, kinda.

debating is a major stress reliever for me.

I usually debate with myself but I usually lose. lol

Originally posted by zooner
majority does?

I wont even go into the election.

well if the majority doesn't stand behind him... why is it happening??

He was elected and if a majority was really against him would they have let it happen??

But as we all know people are sheep... whine whine whine.... but no action... (and note I say people... I mean all of us)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Paft
Shall I remind you that an attack on us only enables us to respond in kind to the aggressor?

This is like fighting back against the school bully.. AND all of his friends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Roody posted
problem is though Paft is that the school bully resides in many countries if you get what I mean.

Good point.
Guerrilla warfare tactics are meant to slowly chip away at a greater power. Small offenses while offering no discernible target for retribution.

Originally posted by cobra25
well if the majority doesn't stand behind him... why is it happening??

He was elected and if a majority was really against him would they have let it happen??

But as we all know people are sheep... whine whine whine.... but no action... (and note I say people... I mean all of us)

Need I remind you that Bush only got the electoral college, NOT the popular vote?

Also, if only 50% or less of America voted, then how is his being elected in any way a "majority"?

Guys i honestly dont see the point in reliving the election again, but here is something I do know. Yes Bush apparently only won the Electoral Votes, and not the popular vote. The system is flawed, but its been that way regarding Electoral votes for some time.

Lastly, as mentioned in another thread, I personally have no problems with people voicing their displeasure with Bush, but dont act like Gore got ripped off because he didnt. The facts are and even Gore will tell you this..if he wins his home state, and Arkansas then he wins that election period and Florida wouldnt have mattered.

Did it end controversially? yes it did, did it seem kinda wrong? Yeah it sure did, but win those two states and its all a moot point.

Anyway, thats really all I have left to say on that topic, because its two years old and its over and done with.

Originally posted by Joint Chiefs Of Staff
I usually debate with myself but I usually lose. lol

Exactly.

Originally posted by JCOS
Exactly.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Paft
Need I remind you that Bush only got the electoral college, NOT the popular vote?

Also, if only 50% or less of America voted, then how is his being elected in any way a "majority"?

Sorta like when Clinton got elected in '92...of the people that voted, only 42% voted for Clinton, while 58% voted against him...

BUSH was elected by YOUR system of government. If you dont like it try and change it or move. Dont complain. The system was desinged as a safegaurd against ignorant stupid masses. But it still reflects the people because the people choose who chooses those on the electoral college.

And if the masses are only showing a %50 turnout maybe we do need a safeguard like the founding fathers gave us.

saw a good small item on CNN this morning... Sean Penn was in Iraq visiting and looking around.. his words:"I wanna look the people here in the eye... I want to see for myself who America... so who [bold]I[/bold] might be attacking in the near future. And it the same as every place I go... they're just normal people.


I'm sure that you must agree with me that when the US attacks a country that the US actually stands for all the people living there... unless the people who don't agree speak up publicly....

Originally posted by cobra25
saw a good small item on CNN this morning... Sean Penn was in Iraq visiting and looking around.. his words:"I wanna look the people here in the eye... I want to see for myself who America... so who [bold]I[/bold] might be attacking in the near future. And it the same as every place I go... they're just normal people.


I'm sure that you must agree with me that when the US attacks a country that the US actually stands for all the people living there... unless the people who don't agree speak up publicly....

The US does not target civilians.

Sean Penn looked in the wrong area.

you sure that absolutely no civilian is going to get hurt.... Of course they will always say that no civilians are targeted.... It's not only a real war... it's a media war as well...

Come on you can't be that naive....

Originally posted by cobra25
you sure that absolutely no civilian is going to get hurt.... Of course they will always say that no civilians are targeted.... It's not only a real war... it's a media war as well...

Come on you can't be that naive....

Civilians are going to get hurt, but to think that Americans specifically target civilians is naive at best...what purpose would targeting civilians serve?

Originally posted by cobra25
you sure that absolutely no civilian is going to get hurt.... Of course they will always say that no civilians are targeted.... It's not only a real war... it's a media war as well...

Come on you can't be that naive....

No country during any war can fully guarantee that innocent civilians will not be harmed.

Civilians die in every war. It happens, sad but true.

The US does not target innocent civilians but picture this for a moment.

If US intelligence says that Bin Laden is at this house and it's full of civilians do you think for an instant the US or any other UN nation would hesitate to drop (2) 500 lb. smart bombs on top of that building?

Originally posted by cobra25
you sure that absolutely no civilian is going to get hurt.... Of course they will always say that no civilians are targeted.... It's not only a real war... it's a media war as well...

Come on you can't be that naive....

UOD didnt say that civilians wouldnt get hurt Cobra. He said that they dont target them. there is a difference.

If US intelligence says that Bin Laden is at this house and it's full of civilians do you think for an instant the US or any other UN nation would hesitate to drop (2) 500 lb. smart bombs on top of that building?

I actually hope they would hesitate.... if they wouldn't they would be no different than Bin Laden.

Cobra, I'm in the military on active duty. Naive? No. Civilians are not military targets.

Maybe you should watch the video that Banshee posted that shows us using great restraint while killing members of the Taliban/Al-Qaeda.


http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~jonesdl/guns ... o_divx.avi


If you'll notice, the aircraft commander constantly reminds his troops NOT to target a mosque where the enemy is hiding.

I don't know if that vid is a very good example.... to me it looks like some kids playing a video game, screaming "boom bang" every time they launch a rocket or something... doesn't really show much of restraint except for the mosque. I mean, consider how many pounds of explosives their are using. I am also wondering how much this fireworks alone had cost the taxpayer.

Of course, this is just a layman's opinion.

Ronald

If you'll notice, the aircraft commander constantly reminds his troops NOT to target a mosque where the enemy is hiding.

can't watch the vids here at work... were there civilians in the mosque??

You know I think that war with Iraq is actually inevitable.... Bush has already made up his mind and is just laying off till the inspections are done to stay on the good side of the UN.

Civilians of course, might not have been the intended target, but I could not say in all honesty that we didn't target them in the past. Same as any big war...The Gulf war was different than the others.

Accuracy was unbelievable. You really limit civilian deaths that way.

But as recent as Linebacker II during Vietnam..we knew civilian causality's were going to happen on a major scale.