|
|
| Sick of... |
| Pro-choicers in general. |
|
17% |
[ 13 ] |
| Pro-choice arguments. |
|
19% |
[ 15 ] |
| Pro-choice ideology. |
|
25% |
[ 19 ] |
| life in general. |
|
15% |
[ 12 ] |
| no respect whatsoever. |
|
22% |
[ 17 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:32 am
divineseraph we used them because we didn't like the "commies". and sadam had no weapons of mass destrtuction. even if he could make them, what about the thousands we hold? yes, he was killing his own men. we have too. we marched troops into ground zero of nuclear tests. we wanted to see what the radiation would do. and we also aimed for the direct center of hiroshima and nagisaki in order to cause the most civilian casualties. why? for testing, to see what our new boomstick could do. and to provoke fear- who would attack someone who not only COULD turn their entire city into ash, but WOULD? Sadam may not be right or good, but our s**t isn't lime scented either. *sigh* You don't understand war tactics. Japan was still, at the time, a country in which they would fight to the very last man ,woman, and child if we did not show them it was futile. By killing thousands and forcing to japan to surrender instead of force its whole country into throwing its self at us, we saved millions. Its atrosious, but it's how war works these days. As well, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both the most powerful militery centers in japan at the time. It was not a violation of the geneva convention since militery sites were bombed. There were civilions, but Nagasaki and Hiroshima were fair game because they were designated and official militerized zones. We didn't aim at them to see what it could do. We already knew what it could do. Sadam did have WMDs. Your arguing he didn't. But he did. He did by the admission of one of his own generals. A story the media would not run with because it made Bush look good. By the admission of his own general, Sadam had WMDs and had them moved before UN inspectors came. They may not be in Iraq, but they were still in his possesion. There, my 2 cents
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:35 am
Pyrotechnic Oracle divineseraph we used them because we didn't like the "commies". and sadam had no weapons of mass destrtuction. even if he could make them, what about the thousands we hold? yes, he was killing his own men. we have too. we marched troops into ground zero of nuclear tests. we wanted to see what the radiation would do. and we also aimed for the direct center of hiroshima and nagisaki in order to cause the most civilian casualties. why? for testing, to see what our new boomstick could do. and to provoke fear- who would attack someone who not only COULD turn their entire city into ash, but WOULD? Sadam may not be right or good, but our s**t isn't lime scented either. *sigh* You don't understand war tactics. Japan was still, at the time, a country in which they would fight to the very last man ,woman, and child if we did not show them it was futile. By killing thousands and forcing to japan to surrender instead of force its whole country into throwing its self at us, we saved millions. Its atrosious, but it's how war works these days. As well, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both the most powerful militery centers in japan at the time. It was not a violation of the geneva convention since militery sites were bombed. There were civilions, but Nagasaki and Hiroshima were fair game because they were designated and official militerized zones. We didn't aim at them to see what it could do. We already knew what it could do. Sadam did have WMDs. Your arguing he didn't. But he did. He did by the admission of one of his own generals. A story the media would not run with because it made Bush look good. By the admission of his own general, Sadam had WMDs and had them moved before UN inspectors came. They may not be in Iraq, but they were still in his possesion. There, my 2 cents Saddam Hussein had some old Sarin Gas shells that had long since decayed past a point of being able to be used. Yet America dropped White Phosphorous and depleted Uranium shells on Iraqi villages. The Iirony in that sickens me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:38 am
I.Am The reasons I support the war are a) I still believe that they either had WMDs or would've been able to produce them quickly if we hadn't gone in when we did, b) Saddam may have not been doing anything to us, but he was doing things to his own damn people! Mass graves! Just because they weren't Americans doesn't mean their lives were valueless! c) Iraqis may be "defending" their country, but did you ever stop to think why? Maybe it was because, if they didn't join the military, Saddam added them to those mass graves, hmm? And now that we have gone in there, many Iraqis are glad, and hail us as liberators. The only reason you don't hear about it on the news is that "Oh, these Iraqis blew themselves up!" sells a lot more then, "Oh, the Iraqis love us!" does. Yes, there are those who don't love us, and there are those who "defend" themselves from us, but you know what? If they put down their guns and acted like decent people, we'd go away. American soldiers don't shoot until shot at. And the bombers won't bomb where there's no one fighting. How did we "******** over" these fundamentalists? The Afghanis and Osama himself received training and weapons from us to defend themselves against the Soviets, so I don't see how we were "******** them over." Civilian deaths in Iraq due to peoplle attacking the invading force and just deaths from the invading force are rising quickly, they found mass graves, they have also created them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:40 am
And his own sons (before killed) were atmepting to produce anthrax. As well, the cannisters were musterd and sarin. Filled, unfilled, working, non working. They may be degraded, but degraded gas is still harmful and some times lethal. He had weapons there, and were only now just finding out. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008568No villiges were bombed, despite what many liberla media outlets would have you beleive. We bomb militerized insurgent occupied areas. Also, please provide a link reporting these supposed mass civilan deaths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:48 am
divineseraph we used them because we didn't like the "commies". and sadam had no weapons of mass destrtuction. even if he could make them, what about the thousands we hold? yes, he was killing his own men. we have too. we marched troops into ground zero of nuclear tests. we wanted to see what the radiation would do. and we also aimed for the direct center of hiroshima and nagisaki in order to cause the most civilian casualties. why? for testing, to see what our new boomstick could do. and to provoke fear- who would attack someone who not only COULD turn their entire city into ash, but WOULD? Sadam may not be right or good, but our s**t isn't lime scented either. I never said that war was a good thing. But sometimes it's the only option. Sometimes you have to kill thousands to save millions. @King_Seth: As Pyro said, the media claims those things, but they aren't true. The thing is, the media reports when they hear that the US soldiers are being accused of doing something horrible, and they overblow it... And then it's found to be false, but who wants to advertise that? The American military actually did nothing wrong? That doesn't make good news. We don't drop bombs on civilians. We don't attack civilians. You don't shoot until the enemy has shot, that way you know they are enemies. And the insurgents don't exactly wear a uniform. Nor do they follow the same rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:57 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:15 am
...How is claiming that we purposefully attack civilians "poetic license"???
And, as I said, it's not like the insurgents wear a uniform. Yes, some civilians die. That's war. War is hell. But it's a lot fewer then Saddam has killed, it's not purposefully, and at least there is a definable end to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:48 am
I.Am ...How is claiming that we purposefully attack civilians "poetic license"??? I never claimed that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:54 am
Andy's right.
If y'all want to debate the evils of American soldiers, go somewhere where I won't be ranting about people debating the evils of American soldiers, it just throws everything off balance and makes for a very uncreative rant
Kidding, my real reason is, people have conflicting feelings on this. People come to the rant thread to vent, not to get even MORE worked up than they were before.
If one of you would please mak a debate thread on it, I would appreciate it very much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:10 pm
as for japan- were they not going through meetings? were they not trying to surrender through the soviet union? was their military power not already so depleted that men aboard the bombing crews called their flight "like a vacation"? was a bridge in the exact center of the city enough of a military threat to provoke a nuclear weapon? and before you bring in the whole "well, they trained women and children to sharpen sticks..." crap, we were teaching our women and children to "hate the slanteyes", teaching how to hide under desks in case of nuclear war- it was less a military tactic than a way of keeping the "evil americans" from "killing raping and pillaging"- of course we had no such intent. however, propoganda has it's effects, and the other side always looks like a singular, faceless monster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:36 pm
Did you not hear the woman? If we're going to continue this, start a new thread in the Extended Discussion subforum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:55 pm
I just watched Silence of the Lambs and now Terje keeps scaring the heck outta me! He keeps turning on me and doing that slithery sucking thingy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:03 pm
It gos so good with parsley and chives Shhhhhh TH TH TH TH TH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:34 pm
lymelady I just watched Silence of the Lambs and now Terje keeps scaring the heck outta me! He keeps turning on me and doing that slithery sucking thingy! *hisses*
ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:49 am
Call me stupid and smack me with a wet noodle, but I just went over to the PCG and after reading some of their posts, I started feeling sick to my stomach.
*sigh* If pro-choicers support a woman's option to terminate a pregnancy or not, why can't some of them support a person's right to oppose said option?
I know there are some exceptions, but goodness. There's so much hatred in that guild. *sniffle*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
