QUOTE from georged:

Are personal attacks in a public forum a part of your military training?

No, it’s a response to your personal attack on all the men and women in the armed services, and their families.

Not my numbers, please check the link.

Those are YOUR numbers, because that’s what YOU used. If you don’t have the ******** fortitude to stand by what you say, don’t say anything.

Why not compare your Texas experiences with inner-city statistics? Or the overall military racial mix to percentage of population including private sector per-capita income for those segments?

No, I use what I know and see every day, not some psycho babble pulled off of some obscure web site that I won’t stick to like you have.

Anyone can cite exceptions to any statistic, that's what makes it a statistic. To statistically make your point, please provide the total number of Corvettes given to military members by parents as a percentage of military members, same with hosting an entire platoon. Otherwise, you're using personal experiences as a strawman argument without validity.

I can make statistics say anything I want, and I can quote web sites that support any argument I wish to make. My personal experiences are far more reliable than the quotes you have mentioned.

Here’s a quote I received from a gentleman that has never served to the armed forces:

We're so lucky to have dedicated, committed, persons as yourself, willing to take on the challenge, so we can live in peace and freedom.....even the f@%kin liberal whining a$$h@les who don't know how good they have it.

I think he was talking about you.

 

Hopefully, your job doesn't require manners, accurate research or rational conclusions.

 

I want to comment on this, and appologize if it is discussed already before etc, but I was away and have not seen the other newer posts yet.

First off lets stop the personal attacks, its not going to do us all any good, and only will take away from any value of the thread.

Most of the those I know personally also do not fit into the typical socioeconomic segment being discussed, but they are also the minority of those currently serving. If anyone cant understand that the military in general is trying to apeal to certain "groups" to up their numbers, or that there is an advantage to recruiting from specific areas or different income levels, and that like any other employer they will look to find people in a way that produces the most value, well then you need to look a little closer and see what is right there in front of you.

I wont get into the racial aspects of this because I believe it would only have a negative effect on the thread, but I also think we all can see what is happening, and to be fair to everyone lets not get off into that direction.

I do agree that not all enlisted men and officers will end up costing the same amounts, but that does not mean that the cost is fixed lower, or that the whole package could not be very enticing to a large amount of potential recruits.

 

Seen much of it before, believe more of it than I would like to, but I still always seem to go back to thinking why its all just pinned on the "bush admin", if the dem party is not a large part of this also, and why no one single person or party in our political system has done a damn thing about preventing any of this from happening.

Then again I do remember something about a tragic plane crash involving an entire family and a vote against the war.

Far as I am concerned this whole problem is more widespread than any of us are willing to believe or accept, and it doesnt matter if you look at all the mysterious deaths surrounding many of those close to whitewater and the other scandals of the previous admin, or all the mess were in today its all still bringing our country down thru the ever increasing power and size of our govt over the very people its supposed to be made up of. "off the people, for the people".

 

QUOTE from georged: Hopefully, your job doesn't require manners, accurate research or rational conclusions.


I’m underwhelmed by your severe lack of gonads to stand by the garbage you spew.

 

QUOTE from 440EX026
Heres an interesting article in todays paper,

A New Years' Resolution - Resist Fascism
by Bob Burnett


The Declaration of Independence reads, "The history of [King George 3] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." 230 years later we're in a similar plight with would-be King George 43. It's our turn to throw off the yoke of tyranny, to resist the rise of fascism.

The Bush Administration is inexorably becoming a totalitarian regime, where dissent is suppressed and the populace cowed by repressive controls. In Fascism Anyone? Laurence Britt lists 14 characteristics of fascist governments.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

President Bush gives his carefully orchestrated speeches to military audiences in arenas covered with patriotic symbols. His text is loaded with jingoistic phrases, "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." "To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor." His Administration argues that dissenters are unpatriotic, advocates of "surrender."

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

The Bush Administration has the worst human rights record of any Presidency in the past 100 years. Bush authorized torture and illegal eavesdropping on civilians. He abandoned the Geneva conventions and suspended basic rights for those designated as "enemy combatants."

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

After 9/11, President Bush used the struggle against Al Qaeda as an excuse to expand executive authority and pass the Patriot Act. The White House manufactured a climate of fear to convince Americans that the invasion of Iraq was in the national interest. For many, our "enemy" gradually changed from Al Qaeda to fundamentalist Muslims and then to "Arabs," in general.

4. Supremacy of the military/ avid militarism

While terrorism experts felt that the fight against Al Qaeda would require joint diplomatic, financial, intelligence, military, and police operations, the Bush Administration focused solely on the military. The White House painted anti-war voices as unpatriotic, appeasers.

5. Rampant sexism

The Bush Administration glorifies the culture of "machismo." Their policies treat women as second-class citizens - they intend to repeal Title IX. They are against contraception, as well as abortion. They are militantly homophobic.

6. A controlled mass media

Under the direction of Karl Rove, the Bush propaganda machine has been relentless. They subscribe to the maxim, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth." Aided by Fox News and the ubiquitous conservative talk net the Administration has ceaselessly fed the electorate the Orwellian Party line - "war is peace", "ignorance is strength."

7. Obsession with national security

This Administration has been the most secretive in recent memory. It hides vital information from Congress. Through executive privilege, restriction of the Freedom of Information Act, and unwarranted security classification, the White House restricts public access to vital information.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

The Bush Administration allied with Christian Fundamentalists. Jimmy Carter characterized their creed, "Since I am aligned with God, I am superior and my beliefs should prevail, and anyone who disagrees with me is inherently wrong."

9. Power of corporations protected

The Bush Administration changed tax laws to raise corporate profits and reduced oversight to increase their power. As a result, most of the proceeds from an improving economy have gone to corporations, executives, and shareholders.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

The last five years have been the most difficult for organized labor since the beginning of the U.S. labor movement. In the private sector, less than 8 percent of workers are unionized.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

The Bush Administration is anti-intellectual and anti-science: supporting "intelligent design", restricting stem-cell research, and rebuking findings on Global climate change. Recently, it tried to subvert the Public Broadcast System.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

George Bush espouses a dualistic, fundamentalist view of the world - The US is good while others are evil. As a result, he has ordered harsh treatment of suspects and prisoners captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

In 2005, numerous instances of Bush Administration corruption were revealed: Presidential adviser Scooter Libby and House czar Tom Delay indicted. The appointment of Mike "Brownie" Brown as director of FEMA was an example of cronyism, at its worst.

14. Fraudulent elections

Suspicions persist that the 2000 presidential election (in particular) was stolen through a Machiavellian series of maneuvers in Florida, and other states.

In 1942, Woody Guthrie penned "All You Fascists Bound to Lose." When Guthrie wrote the song, Americans were fighting fascists who controlled most of Europe. Times have changed and now we're fighting them in the heartland.

This New Year's eve, after you've toasted your friends and sung a round of Auld Lang Syne , consider singing Guthrie's song of resistance as your segue into 2006.

I'm gonna tell all you fascists, you may be surprised,
People all over this world are getting organized,
You're bound to lose,
You fascists are bound to lose.



original here[/quote]

Seen much of it before, believe more of it than I would like to, but I still always seem to go back to thinking why its all just pinned on the "bush admin", if the dem party is not a large part of this also, and why no one single person or party in our political system has done a damn thing about preventing any of this from happening.

Then again I do remember something about a tragic plane crash involving an entire family and a vote against the war.

Far as I am concerned this whole problem is more widespread than any of us are willing to believe or accept, and it doesnt matter if you look at all the mysterious deaths surrounding many of those close to whitewater and the other scandals of the previous admin, or all the mess were in today its all still bringing our country down thru the ever increasing power and size of our govt over the very people its supposed to be made up of. "off the people, for the people".


Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you!!!!

Have you ever stopped to think that they same people who write this sort of crap (and I do mean crap) are also the same people who want to take away your right to ride? Or do good little socialists like you just cut and paste?

 

If you were capable of posting in a civilized manner with authoritative data rather than personal antidotes and attacks then there might be a basis for debate. Otherwise, bye bye.

 

Seen much of it before, believe more of it than I would like to, but I still always seem to go back to thinking why its all just pinned on the "bush admin", if the dem party is not a large part of this also, and why no one single person or party in our political system has done a damn thing about preventing any of this from happening.

Then again I do remember something about a tragic plane crash involving an entire family and a vote against the war.

Far as I am concerned this whole problem is more widespread than any of us are willing to believe or accept, and it doesnt matter if you look at all the mysterious deaths surrounding many of those close to whitewater and the other scandals of the previous admin, or all the mess were in today its all still bringing our country down thru the ever increasing power and size of our govt over the very people its supposed to be made up of. "off the people, for the people".


Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you!!!!

Have you ever stopped to think that they same people who write this sort of crap (and I do mean crap) are also the same people who want to take away your right to ride? Or do good little socialists like you just cut and paste?[/quote]

If your going to use quotes then please figure out how to do it properly so that its obvious who your quoting. You quoted two different posts by different people as one, and its not accurate, and also very confusing .

Anyhow if you look at what has been posted so far you are truely the only one who appears to be "paranoid" and your refusal to consider or evaluate opinions other than your own show how senseless any further debate or discussion with you really is.

Maybe you have already completely made up your mind (or what your trained to believe?) but many of us are always in pursuit of additional information in finding the truth and ways to make things better, and you just cant do that with a closed mind. I may be wrong and appologize if I am but it would appear that your just ignoring (or not reading) much of what has been posted (eg. my refusal to put all blame solely on the bush admin etc) and are not including anything said here in your decision making process and are only defending a personal opinion.

Your welcome to your opinon and personally I couldnt care who likes it or disagrees etc, but if you want to be a productive part of the thread your really going to need to read the posts you reply to, and at least produce some substance to back up your statements. Just refering to people as morons and making claims to not care about stats or that your own personal experiences are the only ones that count etc isnt helping you win anyone over, and maybe even turning those who may have agreed with you.

What I really dont get is if your truely in the military and serving currently in active duty in Iraq is why you wouldnt question any of the things that have happened leading up to, and during this war as its not only apparant that something isnt quite right, and most all of those who are putting their lives on the line there that I know personally realize they are doing the job they signed up for (and most are more than happy to serve) but still are able to understand or at least question what is truely happening.

If you want to discuss all this more in a inteligent manner please do as I am curious to see your thoughts, but if your only going to produce half thoughts and not take the time to explain yourself, and then rely on personal attacks to hide your lack of proof to back up your claims then please dont bother.

 

Another intersesting story which wont be reported in the main stream press.


Bush's Long War with the Truth

By Robert Parry
January 2, 2006

George W. Bush’s dysfunctional relationship with the truth seems to be shaped by two complementary factors – a personal compulsion to say whatever makes him look good at that moment and a permissive environment that rarely holds him accountable for his lies.

How else to explain his endless attempts to rewrite history and reshape his own statements, a pattern on display again in his New Year’s Day comments to reporters in San Antonio, Texas? In that session, as Bush denied misleading the public, he twice again misled the public.

Bush launched into a defense of his honesty by denying that he lied when he told a crowd in Buffalo, N.Y., in 2004 that “by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order.”

Two years earlier, Bush had approved rules that freed the National Security Agency to use warrantless wiretaps on communications originating in the United States without a court order. But Bush still told the Buffalo audience, “Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

On New Year’s Day 2006, Bush sought to explain those misleading comments by contending. “I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involved in the Patriot Act. This is different from the N.S.A. program.”

However, the context of Bush’s 2004 statement was clear. He broke away from a discussion of the USA Patriot Act to note “by the way” that “any time” a wiretap is needed a court order must be obtained. He was not confining his remarks to “roving wiretaps” under the Patriot Act. [For Bush’s 2004 speech, click here.]

In his New Year's Day remarks, Bush further misled the public, by insisting that his warrantless wiretaps only involved communications from suspicious individuals abroad who were contacting people in the United States, a policy that would be legal. Bush said the eavesdropping was “limited to calls from outside the United States to calls within the United States.”

But Bush’s explanation was at odds with what his own administration had previously admitted to journalists – that the wiretaps also covered calls originating in the United States, which require warrants from a special court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

The White House soon “clarified” Bush’s remarks to acknowledge that his warrantless wiretaps did, indeed, involve communications originating in the United States. [NYT, Jan. 2, 2005]

Though occasionally the news media notes these discrepancies in Bush’s claims, it rarely makes much of an issue out of them and often averts its collective gaze from the deceptions altogether.

Lying & Enabling

For years now, there has been a troubling pattern of Bush lying and U.S. news media enabling his deceptive behavior, a problem especially acute around the War on Terror and the Iraq War, which has now claimed the lives of nearly 2,200 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Yet, even on something as well known as the pre-war chronology, Bush has been allowed to revise the history. In one favorite fictitious account, he became the victim of Hussein’s intransigence, leaving Bush no choice but to invade on March 19, 2003, in search of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction.

Less than four months later – facing criticism because no WMD was found and U.S. soldiers were dying – Bush began to claim that Hussein had barred United Nations weapons inspectors from Iraq and blocked a non-violent search for WMD. Bush unveiled this rationale for the invasion on July 14, 2003.

“We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power,” Bush said. [See the White House Web site.]

The reality, however, was that Hussein had declared that Iraq no longer possessed WMD and let the U.N. inspectors into Iraq in November 2002 to check. They were allowed to examine any site of their choosing. It was Bush – not Hussein – who forced the U.N. inspectors to pull out in March 2003, so the invasion could proceed.

But this historical revisionism – which Bush has repeated in varying forms ever since – spared him the need to defend his decisions forthrightly. By rewriting the history, he made it more palatable to Americans who don’t like to see themselves as aggressors.

Iraqi Goals

Even before the invasion, Bush pushed the fiction that he went to war only as a “last resort,” rather than as part of a long-held strategy that had a variety of goals including changing regimes in Iraq, projecting U.S. power into the heart of the Middle East, and securing control of Iraq’s vast oil reserves.

For instance, on March 8, 2003, 11 days before invading Iraq, Bush said he still considered military force “a last resort.” He added, “we are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.”

But former Bush administration insiders, such as Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, have since disclosed that Bush long wanted to conquer Iraq, an option that became more attainable amid the American fear and anger that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Those insider claims about Bush's Iraq War premeditation – heatedly denied by the White House – were buttressed in 2005 by the release of the so-called “Downing Street Memo,” which recounted a secret meeting on July 23, 2002, involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security aides.

At that meeting, Richard Dearlove, chief of the British intelligence agency MI6, described his discussions about Iraq with National Security Council officials in Washington.

Dearlove said, “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

The memo added, “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”

Despite the Downing Street Memo, Bush and his spokesmen continued to deny that the White House was set on a course to war in 2002. On May 16, 2005, White House spokesman Scott McClellan rejected the memo’s implication that Bush’s pre-war diplomacy was just a charade.

“The president of the United States, in a very public way, reached out to people across the world, went to the United Nations and tried to resolve this in a diplomatic manner,” McClellan said. “Saddam Hussein was the one, in the end, who chose continued defiance.” [For more on Bush's pretexts for war, see Consortiumnews.com’s “President Bush, With the Candlestick…”]

Media Hypnosis

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Bush’s historical revisionism still has mesmerized even elite elements of the U.S. news media.

During an interview in July 2004, for instance, ABC News anchor Ted Koppel repeated the administration’s “defiance” spin point in explaining why he thought the Iraq invasion was justified.

“It did not make logical sense that Saddam Hussein, whose armies had been defeated once before by the United States and the Coalition, would be prepared to lose control over his country if all he had to do was say, ‘All right, U.N., come on in, check it out,” Koppel told Amy Goodman, host of “Democracy Now.”

This media fear of questioning Bush’s honesty seemed to have reached a point where journalists would rather put on blinders to the facts than face the wrath of Bush’s defenders.

So, as Koppel showed, Bush had good reason to feel confident about his ability to manipulate the Iraq War reality. He even made his phony Hussein-defiance case during an important presidential debate on Sept. 30, 2004.

“I went there [the United Nations] hoping that once and for all the free world would act in concert to get Saddam Hussein to listen to our demands,” Bush said. “They [the Security Council] passed a resolution that said disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. I believe when an international body speaks, it must mean what it says.

“But Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions and nothing took place. As a matter of fact, my opponent talks about inspectors. The facts are that he [Hussein] was systematically deceiving the inspectors. That wasn’t going to work. That’s kind of a pre-Sept. 10 mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place.”

Virtually every point in this war justification from Bush was wrong. The reality was that Hussein had disarmed. Rather than the U.N. resolutions having no consequence, they apparently had achieved their goal of a WMD-free Iraq. Rather than clueless U.N. inspectors duped by Hussein, the inspectors were not finding WMD because the stockpiles weren’t there. Bush’s post-invasion inspection team didn't find WMD either.

Despite the importance of this setting for Bush’s rendition of these falsehoods – a presidential debate viewed by tens of millions of Americans – most U.S. news outlets did little or no fact-checking on the president’s bogus history.

One of the few exceptions was a story inside the Washington Post that mentioned Bush’s claim that Hussein had “no intention of disarming.” In the middle of a story on various factual issues in the debate, the Post noted that “Iraq asserted in its filing with the United Nations in December 2002 that it had no such weapons, and none has been found.” [Washington Post, Oct. 1, 2004]

But there has been no media drum beat – either in mid-2003 when Bush began revising the history of the U.N. inspections or since then – that drove the point home to Americans that Bush was lying. So his pattern has continued.

Snowing the Times

New revelations about Bush’s secret warrantless wiretaps indicate that the Bush administration undertook another disinformation campaign against the press during Campaign 2004 – to keep the lid on his wiretapping program.

In December 2005, explaining why the New York Times spiked its exclusive wiretap story for a year, executive editor Bill Keller said U.S. officials “assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions.”

But the Bush administration was concealing an important fact – that a number of senior officials had protested the legality of the operation.

In the months after the Times agreed to hold the story, the newspaper “developed a fuller picture of the concerns and misgivings that had been expressed during the life of the program,” Keller said. “It became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood.”

In March 2004, Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey refused to sign a recertification of the wiretap program, the Times learned. Comey’s objection caused White House chief of staff Andrew Card and Bush’s counsel Alberto Gonzales to pay a hospital visit on then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was hospitalized for gallbladder surgery. But Ashcroft also balked at the continuation of the program, which was temporarily suspended while new arrangements were made. [NYT, Jan. 1, 2006]

After disclosure of Comey’s objection on New Year's Day, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called for a congressional examination of the “significant concern about the legality of the program even at the very highest levels of the Department of Justice.” [NYT, Jan. 2, 2006]

But at a crucial political juncture – before the Nov. 2, 2004, election – the Bush administration kept its secret wiretapping operation under wraps by misleading senior editors of the New York Times. The Times, which had been fooled about Iraq’s WMD, was fooled again.

This tendency to always give George W. Bush the benefit of every doubt raises serious questions about the health of American democracy, which holds that no man is above the law. It’s also hard to imagine any other recent president getting away with so much deception and paying so little price.

Charmed Life

Yet, the lack of accountability has been a hallmark of Bush’s charmed life, from young adulthood through his political career. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

When Bush ran for president in 2000, American political reporters – both conservative and mainstream – tilted that pivotal U.S. election toward him by applying starkly different standards when evaluating the honesty of Democrat Al Gore in comparison with Bush and Dick Cheney.

Reporters went over Gore’s comments with a fine-toothed comb searching for perceived “exaggerations.” Some of Gore’s supposed “lies” actually resulted from erroneous reporting by over-eager journalists, such as misquotes about Gore allegedly claiming credit for discovering the Love Canal toxic waste problem. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Al Gore vs. the Media.”]

By contrast, Bush and Cheney were rarely challenged over falsehoods and misstatements, even in the context of their attacks on Gore’s honesty. Cheney, for instance, was given almost a free pass when he falsely portrayed himself as a self-made multimillionaire from his years as chairman of Halliburton Co.

Commenting on his success in the private sector during the vice-presidential debate in 2000, Cheney said “the government had absolutely nothing to do with it.” However, the reality was that Halliburton was a major recipient of government contracts and other largesse, including federal loan guarantees from the Export-Import Bank.

But Cheney was allowed to get away his own resumé -polishing even as he went out on the campaign trail to denounce Gore for supposedly puffing up his resumé. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Protecting Bush-Cheney.”]

This pattern of “protecting Bush-Cheney” intensified after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when the U.S. news media rallied around the embattled president and concealed evidence of Bush’s shaky reaction to the crisis.

Though pool reporters witnessed Bush sitting frozen for seven minutes in a Florida classroom after being told “the nation is under attack,” the national news media shielded that nearly disqualifying behavior from the public for more than two years, until just before the release of Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” a 2004 documentary that featured the footage.

War Cheerleaders

Major news organizations were equally solicitous of Bush and Cheney during the run-up to war in Iraq. While Fox News and other right-wing outlets were unabashed cheerleaders for the Iraq War, the mainstream media often picked up the pom-poms, too.

It took more than a year after the invasion and the failure to find WMD caches for the New York Times and the Washington Post to run self-critical articles about their lack of skepticism over Bush's war claims.

Nevertheless, the Times’ top editors were still willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt in fall 2004 when his aides offered more false assurances about the legal certainty surrounding Bush’s warrantless wiretap program.

Now Bush's latest comments in San Antonio suggest that he still feels he has the magic, that he still can convince the U.S. press corps and the American people that whatever he says is true no matter how much it diverges from the well-known facts.

One might also presume – given the continued deceptions in his San Antonio remarks – that Bush did not make a New Year’s resolution to stop lying.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/010206.html

 

QUOTE by:440EX026

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you!!!!

Have you ever stopped to think that they same people who write this sort of crap (and I do mean crap) are also the same people who want to take away your right to ride? Or do good little socialists like you just cut and paste?

If your going to use quotes then please figure out how to do it properly so that its obvious who your quoting. You quoted two different posts by different people as one, and its not accurate, and also very confusing .

Anyhow if you look at what has been posted so far you are truely the only one who appears to be "paranoid" and your refusal to consider or evaluate opinions other than your own show how senseless any further debate or discussion with you really is.

Maybe you have already completely made up your mind (or what your trained to believe?) but many of us are always in pursuit of additional information in finding the truth and ways to make things better, and you just cant do that with a closed mind. I may be wrong and appologize if I am but it would appear that your just ignoring (or not reading) much of what has been posted (eg. my refusal to put all blame solely on the bush admin etc) and are not including anything said here in your decision making process and are only defending a personal opinion.

Your welcome to your opinon and personally I couldnt care who likes it or disagrees etc, but if you want to be a productive part of the thread your really going to need to read the posts you reply to, and at least produce some substance to back up your statements. Just refering to people as morons and making claims to not care about stats or that your own personal experiences are the only ones that count etc isnt helping you win anyone over, and maybe even turning those who may have agreed with you.

What I really dont get is if your truely in the military and serving currently in active duty in Iraq is why you wouldnt question any of the things that have happened leading up to, and during this war as its not only apparant that something isnt quite right, and most all of those who are putting their lives on the line there that I know personally realize they are doing the job they signed up for (and most are more than happy to serve) but still are able to understand or at least question what is truely happening.

If you want to discuss all this more in a inteligent manner please do as I am curious to see your thoughts, but if your only going to produce half thoughts and not take the time to explain yourself, and then rely on personal attacks to hide your lack of proof to back up your claims then please dont bother.[/quote]


Me paranoid? Hardly. I consider all sorts of opinions, but your lengthy cut and pastes are hardly your opinions, just BS you and your butt-buddy georged copied from a web site. Neither one of you have addressed the items I have brought up. Instead you rely on BS written by other left wing weenies.

I question many things; in particular all the left wing BS put out and all the negative news on Iraq. One example is a few months ago when we took the city of Falujah where I am at now, (and yes, I’m really am here in the military. Come on over and see me some time. I’ll take you on a tour of some lovely mass graves courtesy of Sadam) the only news on this area was a two year old story on a beating. No mention of the 200 fire fights a week or the heroism of the Marines involved. And of course, the body count. (See Wash Post 28 Dec pg 21).

Once again I’ll point out that my “personal attack” was in defense of all the men in women in uniform. You may only know people in uniform that are of a lower social order, but then as the old saying goes; “Birds of a feather….” and all that.

My lack of proof? Are you really saying that anything you cut and paste off a web site is “proof”? You really are a moron. My personal testimony is good in a court of law, while you BS web site couldn’t stand the light of day.

This is my last post here; I’m done with you. Keep your socialist BS off the ATV site; it’s not where it belongs. I hope you enjoy your selves on Broke Back Mountain.