Target,AMERICA

[angela515]

This thread gives me a headache. 

[George Jung]

Then stay out of it.   What is the point of posting that?  Unless you want to up your post count, that was completely unnecessary and I for one don't get it.  There is absolutely nothing constructive about "This thread gives me a headache."

[angela515]

Wow, did someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Talk about having an attitude for no reason.    I like to post what I am thinking when I read it... excuse me for being that way, but it's how I am. I guess everyone who posted about "bringing out the lawnchairs and eating popcorn" should of shut up also? 

Have a GREAT day. 

[BigSky]

Then stay out of it.   What is the point of posting that?  Unless you want to up your post count, that was completely unnecessary and I for one don't get it.  There is absolutely nothing constructive about "This thread gives me a headache."

Tsk tsk, bad form,  out attacking people again are you?

[kitkatz]

Back on topic....
     America has been a target for years. however we are a country that thumbs its nose at other governments.  And we believe in everyone getting up on their own two feet, although the poverty I see across the nation is slowly killing us as a country.

[bigshot99]

If you happen to be talking about me, George, then you are terribly mistaken.  I said that K.I.A. by ITSELF means nothing.  You can not judge, compare, measure, or whatever, a war on K.I.A. ALONE.  I have read you posts and I have to tell you I have been taking it easy on you, so I hope you are talking about someone else in that last post bigshot99.

I have talked about the past four years at war and that our casualties are verry good compared too past wars.
I do care about the men and women that we have lost in combat don't get me wrong about that part
IF the number was lets say 80,000 or 120,000 in four years compared to the real number,would that mean something.
Vietnam ,how about that war.compare the out crys about the K.I.A. in that war
that by its self caused a huge with drawl of our troops ,that lead to the " increased "air bombing campaign.
I'm sure that you care about the fact that our  K.I.A. is much less that of Vietnam.
 or Does that mean nothing,,GEORGE. you tell me?








EDITED: Quote tage error fixed-kitkatz,moderator

[George Jung]

now the news media trays to make this war look bad when in fact the U. S. military is doing very well,
lets look at this, in 4 years of combat the K. I. A. is very good. you have to look at past wars and there K. I. A.
this is not Vietnam like i have heard some people say.

What other FACTS do you have to support the condition of the military?  K.I.A. by itself is nothing.

In the context of the conversation it seems to me that we were talking about how well our military is doing.  You had said the the fact is that our military is doing very well.  You followed up that statement with K.I.A. statistic of some sort.  Am I right so far?  Are you following me?  I then asked what other FACTS do you have to support the condition of our military and then noted that K.I.A. (although a factor) by itself is nothing.  There are too many other factors to take into consideration when assessing this (or any) war.

*Yes the casualties are not bad compared historically.  Keep in mind this war is like no other in history.
*I know you care about the young men and women we have lost just as I know all Americans do.
*Weather the number is 3,250 or 80,000 or 120,000 it all means something. 
*Is Vietnam a war most people are proud of?  I have been to the Memorial several times and it is very moving.  It makes me feel proud to be American and I feel proud that those soldiers fought for me and you and our country.  They deserve tremendous respect.
*Do I care that we haven't sustained the loss of life like we did in Vietnam (or anywhere else really) YES.  Why is that even a question?

Without looking back a page or so I think I can recall you further supporting your opinion about our military status with more "facts" which were buddies of yours that are serving our military now.  Three of them I believe.  I have to say that your support of them is something to also be proud of.  However facts they are not.

It is my opinion that we must make changes in strategy, back out of Iraq, find support from all four corners of the world if we are going to have success fight GLOBAL TERRORISM.  It is not the men and women following orders that I have trouble with, my god, they are my protectors too.  It is our government, the Bush Administration that jumped into this faster than you can say "weapons of mass destruction".

[BigSky]

If you happen to be talking about me, George, then you are terribly mistaken.  I said that K.I.A. by ITSELF means nothing.  You can not judge, compare, measure, or whatever, a war on K.I.A. ALONE.  I have read you posts and I have to tell you I have been taking it easy on you, so I hope you are talking about someone else in that last post bigshot99.

I have talked about the past four years at war and that our casualties are verry good compared too past wars.
I do care about the men and women that we have lost in combat don't get me wrong about that part
IF the number was lets say 80,000 or 120,000 in four years compared to the real number,would that mean something.
Vietnam ,how about that war.compare the out crys about the K.I.A. in that war
that by its self caused a huge with drawl of our troops ,that lead to the " increased "air bombing campaign.
I'm sure that you care about the fact that our  K.I.A. is much less that of Vietnam.
 or Does that mean nothing,,GEORGE. you tell me?

You are right Bigshot.

For someone not to claim it means anything is laughable, especially when time and time again they post that number as some effort to why we should cut and run from Iraq.

WWII roughly 10.35% of active duty troops were killed in battle.  In this action that number is 2/10 of 1%.  This historically unheard of in war.   We have put a huge crimp into terrorist operations and have killed thousands of terrorists in battle since this war on terror started.  The very least this does is buy us time to infiltrate these terrorist organizations and take them down from the inside.  This is much needed time considering this wasnt done before.

The best "facts" come from those who are there.  Time and time again those soldiers that have returned here, are dismayed at the negative news coverage of what is going on in Iraq and say the media and the left is highly distorting what is going on. 

Claims that Bush jumped into this action are blatantly false.  Anyone who paid attention seen this coming for 12+ years.  Even the first two UN weapons inspectors seen this coming and Butler wrote a book outright telling people this is what it would take to make Saddam comply.

I find it really odd there george you claim Bushed jumped into this action after the US dealt with this for 12+ years but yet you turn around in the same breath and say that we have been in Iraq too long and refuse to answer the question on just what it would have taken Saddam to do before you felt action needed taken.

[George Jung]

For someone not to claim it means anything is laughable, especially when time and time again they post that number as some effort to why we should cut and run from Iraq.

Quote me where I said K.I.A. means nothing. 
"Cut and run" is your preception/interpertation.  Quote me when I said we should run from Iraq.

WWII roughly 10.35% of active duty troops were killed in battle. In this action that number is 2/10 of 1%. This historically unheard of in war. We have put a huge crimp into terrorist operations and have killed thousands of terrorists in battle since this war on terror started. The very least this does is buy us time to infiltrate these terrorist organizations and take them down from the inside. This is much needed time considering this wasnt done before.

*Yes the casualties are not bad compared historically.  Keep in mind this war is like no other in history.

I find it really odd there george you claim Bushed jumped into this action after the US dealt with this for 12+ years but yet you turn around in the same breath and say that we have been in Iraq too long and refuse to answer the question on just what it would have taken Saddam to do before you felt action needed taken.

I feel as if I am explaining myself to a child sometimes.  First off I have not and will not "refuse" to give my opinion or answer a question.  Fact is I have answered the question.  For the final time........I AM NOT ARGUING THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO COMBAT GLOBAL TERRORISM.  That is Saddam, or no Saddam, terrorism must be stopped somehow, someway, with a unified plan from governing members of the world.  Do you find that odd?

[BigSky]

Quote me where I said K.I.A. means nothing. 
"Cut and run" is your preception/interpertation.  Quote me when I said we should run from Iraq.

Never said you said KIA means nothing....however

quote from george jung--K.I.A. by itself is nothing.

Interesting though how you post the KIA number by itself as it is suppose to mean something and try to use it as some evidence why we shouldn't be in Iraq.

Never claimed you said cut and run. 

Very interesting however that you jumped to that conclusion.

I feel as if I am explaining myself to a child sometimes.

My my my.  Not even an original thought on your part.   

First off I have not and will not "refuse" to give my opinion or answer a question.  Fact is I have answered the question.  For the final time........I AM NOT ARGUING THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO COMBAT GLOBAL TERRORISM.  That is Saddam, or no Saddam, terrorism must be stopped somehow, someway, with a unified plan from governing members of the world.  Do you find that odd?

Each country fights terrorism in their own manner to their own needs and many countries are working together to fight it. 

If you think the whole world is suppose to be unified about it, it isnt going to happen.  One only needs to look to saddam who violated 17+ resolutions hundreds and hundreds of times over 12+ years and the world refused to be "unified" to hold him to accord.

[George Jung]

For someone not to claim it means anything is laughable, especially when time and time again they post that number as some effort to why we should cut and run from Iraq.

I have but one question.  BigSky, are we reading the same posts?

[BigSky]

I have but one question.  BigSky, are we reading the same posts?

By all means where did I say YOU said that.


You need help.

http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm

[George Jung]

Okay BigSky...............

For someone not to claim it means anything is laughable, especially when time and time again they post that number as some effort to why we should cut and run from Iraq.

[George Jung]

Targeting America has got to be the secondary reason for invading Iraq.  OIL, OIL, OIL......that is what Iraq is truly about, who controlls the 3rd biggest oil reserve. 

To top things off the Iraq Parliament is considering a 2 month recess this summer....WTF.... how are they going to take a break with so much going on?  To even consider a recess is a slap in the face of Americans, especially our military with all of their efforts.  The hits just keep on coming..........

[glitter]

Targeting America has got to be the secondary reason for invading Iraq.  OIL, OIL, OIL......that is what Iraq is truly about, who controlls the 3rd biggest oil reserve. 

how do you know what its 'truly' about? Can you substantiate that? Or is that just an opinion?

This thread gives me a headache too and I will not be bullied by anyone who thinks I shouldn't post that-and I will post whatever and where ever I please- and I dont care if it pisses you off George Jung.

[George Jung]

If what pisses me off? 
You shouldn't not post something because of what you think someone else thinks. (does that make sense?)
Without getting into anything completely unnecessary......in response to your question, you can call it a gut feeling.