Conquer Club

Pretty sad. Georgie boy drops (temporarily, unfortunately) the phony Texas accent and uses a national icon as a ventriloquist dummy. Cute. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, and have some more kool-aid - Haliburton's got plenty.

Awesome

20 years from now, when you're sitting around your family, with your grandson on your knee, and he asks you "what did you do in the great war on terror?". You won't have to say:
"Well........... I listened to far-left bullshit and sat on my ass..... and was more concerned with American Idol, than I was about American security & freedom......."
Alright now you sons of bitches, and women, you know how I feel.

Classic.

Patton was a fan of any war he could command an army in

Iz Man wrote:Awesome

20 years from now, when you're sitting around your family, with your grandson on your knee, and he asks you "what did you do in the great war on terror?". You won't have to say:
"Well........... I listened to far-left bullshit and sat on my ass..... and was more concerned with American Idol, than I was about American security & freedom......."
Alright now you sons of bitches, and women, you know how I feel.

Classic.

What part did you play? Did you kill terrorists who attacked the U.S., or did you kill those who were simply defending their own country? I will tell my grandson the same thing i told my son. The greatest enemies of this country are the leaders who send our young men off to war in return for monetary favors. George Bush Sr. is chairman of the board at Haliburton, and junior will follow shortly. He sold the vice presidency of this country as part of the deal. Where is Osama? You sir, have been manipulated (as i was) while our country's constitution was compromised even more to give our cow eyed yuppie republicans a false sense of security and predictability, and to stuff the already swollen pockets of Haliburton. I will tell my grandson to take up arms, if and when this country developes the balls to revolt against the government that has made fools of all of us for so long.

3 minutes of this crap and I already hate the douche. So damn narrow-minded by war that he wants to keep going to war.

b.k. barunt wrote:

Iz Man wrote:Awesome

20 years from now, when you're sitting around your family, with your grandson on your knee, and he asks you "what did you do in the great war on terror?". You won't have to say:
"Well........... I listened to far-left bullshit and sat on my ass..... and was more concerned with American Idol, than I was about American security & freedom......."
Alright now you sons of bitches, and women, you know how I feel.

Classic.

What part did you play? Did you kill terrorists who attacked the U.S., or did you kill those who were simply defending their own country? I will tell my grandson the same thing i told my son. The greatest enemies of this country are the leaders who send our young men off to war in return for monetary favors. George Bush Sr. is chairman of the board at Haliburton, and junior will follow shortly. He sold the vice presidency of this country as part of the deal. Where is Osama? You sir, have been manipulated (as i was) while our country's constitution was compromised even more to give our cow eyed yuppie republicans a false sense of security and predictability, and to stuff the already swollen pockets of Haliburton. I will tell my grandson to take up arms, if and when this country developes the balls to revolt against the government that has made fools of all of us for so long.

A little correction: It's Halliburton
And a gentle reminder: don't forget KBR
It looks like the war in Iraq is soon going to end, since Halliburton sold it's share of KBR. One of the horror things about these two companies is how many times they broke the law and they still land a huge government contracts. If it were a person you'd get a life sentence without parole.

Skittles! wrote:3 minutes of this crap and I already hate the douche. So damn narrow-minded by war that he wants to keep going to war.

Yep.

I mean, the man actually had the audacity to suggest that, after having defeated Nazi Germany, we should have pushed on to Moscow.

Oh, wait...

Then the USA should have left Nazi Germany alone, I mean, they were already pushing for Moscow. At least they had been, but two fronts is hard to hold, especially when one is to your left and the other is to your right. Let them duke it out with the commies and then go in to mop up the rest. There might have been some 60 states in the US of A and E then.

MeDeFe wrote:Then the USA should have left Nazi Germany alone, I mean, they were already pushing for Moscow. At least they had been, but two fronts is hard to hold, especially when one is to your left and the other is to your right. Let them duke it out with the commies and then go in to mop up the rest. There might have been some 60 states in the US of A and E then.

Note to self.....Don't play MeDeFe on the Europe map.

b.k. barunt wrote:Did you kill terrorists who attacked the U.S., or did you kill those who were simply defending their own country?

That is such a bullshit remark to make. The Muj in Iraq aren't just targeting US military, they're going for the Iraqi civilian population as well. There's no way you can justify murder of Iraq's populace as defense of Iraq.

I haven't made a comment for or against the war here, but don't glorify the Muj's cause as "defending their own country." Whether or not you and I agree with the war, fact is that it's there and tooting the horn of terrorists isn't going to help us get out in any timely manner, especially when tooting said horn require swallowing a shovelful of BS whole.

Not to mention, the simple fact that a good portion of the Muj aren't even Iraqis should show that there's a deeper (and more dangerous) meaning behind their insurgency than defense of Iraq (as if the fact that they target Iraqis isn't enough).

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:Did you kill terrorists who attacked the U.S., or did you kill those who were simply defending their own country?

That is such a bullshit remark to make. The Muj in Iraq aren't just targeting US military, they're going for the Iraqi civilian population as well. There's no way you can justify murder of Iraq's populace as defense of Iraq.

I haven't made a comment for or against the war here, but don't glorify the Muj's cause as "defending their own country." Whether or not you and I agree with the war, fact is that it's there and tooting the horn of terrorists isn't going to help us get out in any timely manner, especially when tooting said horn require swallowing a shovelful of BS whole.

Not to mention, the simple fact that a good portion of the Muj aren't even Iraqis should show that there's a deeper (and more dangerous) meaning behind their insurgency than defense of Iraq (as if the fact that they target Iraqis isn't enough).

I'll drink to that!

So will I, there's no other way I could possibly make sense of all that. I mean, was the whole Iraqi army before the US invasion comprised of terrorists or what? I think not. But those soldiers were definitely defending their country against a foreign aggressor, no matter if the attack was justifiable or not, that remains a fact.
I also don't think that bk is throwing all the COUNTLESS groups in Iraq that perpetrate attacks against the US army, against civilian targets they feel support the US presesence, against other groups, religious or otherwise, into one pot, the way Ambrose seems to do.

I'll stop here before I start rambling, but think about it, Ambrose.

b.k. barunt wrote:What part did you play? Did you kill terrorists who attacked the U.S., or did you kill those who were simply defending their own country? I will tell my grandson the same thing i told my son. The greatest enemies of this country are the leaders who send our young men off to war in return for monetary favors. George Bush Sr. is chairman of the board at Haliburton, and junior will follow shortly. He sold the vice presidency of this country as part of the deal. Where is Osama? You sir, have been manipulated (as i was) while our country's constitution was compromised even more to give our cow eyed yuppie republicans a false sense of security and predictability, and to stuff the already swollen pockets of Haliburton. I will tell my grandson to take up arms, if and when this country developes the balls to revolt against the government that has made fools of all of us for so long.

We actually agree on more than you may think b.k.
I'm no Bush lover, by any means, and am looking forward to a change in '08 (as long as its not Hillary).
The current crop of politicians (on both sides, although you seem to only mention Republicans) are a great threat to this country, but I wouldn't say the greatest threat. They only care about their own power, not the safety & security of our country.
Agree or disagree on the war in Iraq, the fact remains we are there; so the issue has to be resolved, and pulling out completely with our tail between our legs is not a viable option. That is where our problem lies.
The Republicans are so weak knee'd to take off the gloves, remove the rediculous rules of engagement, and let the soldiers fight the war, that its costing more lives and extending this war much longer than necessary. Pathetic.
The Democrats are more interested in bringing down Bush and attacking Reps. All we're seeing out of the new congress is investigation after investigation. None of them have posed a solution to the war. Pathetic.
The Iraqi's won't step up to the plate and show any kind of will to govern themselves. Pathetic.
I have not been manipulated. I feel our politicians stopped serving the people after WWII. A war that we finished.
That's why I switched from Republican to no-party affiliation in 1992. The corruption is on all sides.
In Korea, Truman fired Macarthur because he wanted to lay waste to the North. Look what we have there today.
Kennedy got us into Vietnam, Nixon got us out after the Dems cut off funding to the troops over there. What happened? Pol Pot and mass murder right next door in Cambodia.
We kicked ass getting Saddam out of Kuwait in 100 hours but didn't keep going to eliminate him for good because the U.N. said no.
In Somalia, we lose a few Rangers in combat so Clinton runs away, paving the way to 9-11.
Now here we are.

I have very little respect for the politicians (all of them) now.

I liked this video because I like the way Patton looked at war. He knew (along with Bradley, Macarthur, Pershing, and even Shwartzkopf) what it takes to win. That's what made him different from the generals of today.
As a fellow vet, you know that once you get scrambled eggs on your hat (non-vets may not know what that means), you become a politician.
Patton was a soldier, not a politician.
Westmoreland, Sheehan, Petraeus, and the like are politicians.
Once we get new politicians in Washington, and get rid of the politicians in the leadership ranks of the military, the whole world will be better off.

MeDeFe wrote:So will I, there's no other way I could possibly make sense of all that. I mean, was the whole Iraqi army before the US invasion comprised of terrorists or what? I think not. But those soldiers were definitely defending their country against a foreign aggressor, no matter if the attack was justifiable or not, that remains a fact.
I also don't think that bk is throwing all the COUNTLESS groups in Iraq that perpetrate attacks against the US army, against civilian targets they feel support the US presesence, against other groups, religious or otherwise, into one pot, the way Ambrose seems to do.

I'll stop here before I start rambling, but think about it, Ambrose.

Perhaps then it was, but for the past few years it's been an insurgency. The only Iraqi army there is now is on our side. The resistance movement is the Muj- or the terrorists, who are fighting a psychological war by killing Iraqi citizens to show the world what a crummy job the U.S. is doing. Is that the behavior of a group of fighters defending Iraq?

Additionally, I'd say it's fairly obvious that the Muj are far less concerned about collateral damage than we are. US forces are often denied air support out of fear of collateral damage, while resistance fighters detonate IEDs in the middle of marketplaces as a main tactic.

Point being, don't glorify the cause of the insurgent in Iraq.

No, sorry my friend, but in the present situation, the resistence in Iraq is terrorists. I've recommended it before, and I'll recommend it again: a book entitled Blood Stripes, excellent firsthand accounts of the insurgency.

Iz Man wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:What part did you play? Did you kill terrorists who attacked the U.S., or did you kill those who were simply defending their own country? I will tell my grandson the same thing i told my son. The greatest enemies of this country are the leaders who send our young men off to war in return for monetary favors. George Bush Sr. is chairman of the board at Haliburton, and junior will follow shortly. He sold the vice presidency of this country as part of the deal. Where is Osama? You sir, have been manipulated (as i was) while our country's constitution was compromised even more to give our cow eyed yuppie republicans a false sense of security and predictability, and to stuff the already swollen pockets of Haliburton. I will tell my grandson to take up arms, if and when this country developes the balls to revolt against the government that has made fools of all of us for so long.

We actually agree on more than you may think b.k.
I'm no Bush lover, by any means, and am looking forward to a change in '08 (as long as its not Hillary).
The current crop of politicians (on both sides, although you seem to only mention Republicans) are a great threat to this country, but I wouldn't say the greatest threat. They only care about their own power, not the safety & security of our country.
Agree or disagree on the war in Iraq, the fact remains we are there; so the issue has to be resolved, and pulling out completely with our tail between our legs is not a viable option. That is where our problem lies.
The Republicans are so weak knee'd to take off the gloves, remove the rediculous rules of engagement, and let the soldiers fight the war, that its costing more lives and extending this war much longer than necessary. Pathetic.
The Democrats are more interested in bringing down Bush and attacking Reps. All we're seeing out of the new congress is investigation after investigation. None of them have posed a solution to the war. Pathetic.
The Iraqi's won't step up to the plate and show any kind of will to govern themselves. Pathetic.
I have not been manipulated. I feel our politicians stopped serving the people after WWII. A war that we finished.
That's why I switched from Republican to no-party affiliation in 1992. The corruption is on all sides.
In Korea, Truman fired Macarthur because he wanted to lay waste to the North. Look what we have there today.
Kennedy got us into Vietnam, Nixon got us out after the Dems cut off funding to the troops over there. What happened? Pol Pot and mass murder right next door in Cambodia.
We kicked ass getting Saddam out of Kuwait in 100 hours but didn't keep going to eliminate him for good because the U.N. said no.
In Somalia, we lose a few Rangers in combat so Clinton runs away, paving the way to 9-11.
Now here we are.

I have very little respect for the politicians (all of them) now.

I liked this video because I like the way Patton looked at war. He knew (along with Bradley, Macarthur, Pershing, and even Shwartzkopf) what it takes to win. That's what made him different from the generals of today.
As a fellow vet, you know that once you get scrambled eggs on your hat (non-vets may not know what that means), you become a politician.
Patton was a soldier, not a politician.
Westmoreland, Sheehan, Petraeus, and the like are politicians.
Once we get new politicians in Washington, and get rid of the politicians in the leadership ranks of the military, the whole world will be better off.

First of all, i'm hard on the Republicans because they're the ones in power now. Kennedy did not get us into the Viet Nam war, as it was Truman who turned on Ho Chi Minh (our staunch ally in WWII as the leader of the Vietnamese resistance) in order to support France with arms, in taking back her colony. Kennedy was assassinated because he was going to get us out of further involvement with Viet Nam, and Johnson bought his presidency with a promise to get us fully involved. BTW, we created the situation in Cambodia when Nixon helped Lon Nol sieze power from the king so that he could drop bombs on the Ho Chi Minh trail.
But you're right - Dems and Reps are just 2 sides of the same coin. I don't trust our government as it stands right now, and would support a violent overthrow of such, in order to restart this country as it was first begun. But that will never happen as long as we have so many mindless flag wavers, who sell off our constitution for their own safety.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Perhaps then it was, but for the past few years it's been an insurgency. The only Iraqi army there is now is on our side. The resistance movement is the Muj- or the terrorists, who are fighting a psychological war by killing Iraqi citizens to show the world what a crummy job the U.S. is doing. Is that the behavior of a group of fighters defending Iraq?

Additionally, I'd say it's fairly obvious that the Muj are far less concerned about collateral damage than we are. US forces are often denied air support out of fear of collateral damage, while resistance fighters detonate IEDs in the middle of marketplaces as a main tactic.

Point being, don't glorify the cause of the insurgent in Iraq.

No, sorry my friend, but in the present situation, the resistence in Iraq is terrorists. I've recommended it before, and I'll recommend it again: a book entitled Blood Stripes, excellent firsthand accounts of the insurgency.

I can't speak for MeDeFe, but I don't think you've understood what he meant. The problem with what you're saying is that you seem to refer to all the resistance movements in Iraq as if they were one entity, and that they all had the same tactics (bombing civilians), neither of which is true. (Plus you keep referring to them as the Muj. Perhaps that's how the Marines refer to them on the ground, but in a civilian context, it's out of place and misleading.)

This recent story might give you an idea of just how disparate in their aims and methods the different groups are. Note the resentment against Al-Qaeda.

Thank you Stopper, I was just goiung to point out again that there isn't such a thing as a single group to blame for every attack on Iraqi soil.

And, likewise, I think we should not assume that all (or even most) of the insurgents in Iraq are "simply defending their own country".

Most news stories regarding casualties in Iraq are of Iraqis dying in car bombings, IED detonations, etc. Military targets are becoming less and less of a priority. Firsthand accounts of the troops are that the insurgents do a great deal of IED attacks in crowded marketplaces.

This is especially true in areas of high sectarian violence. I don't care WHAT Bush says, there is a civil war in Iraq. Iraqis kill each other more than they kill us! The situation in Iraq is certainly not on the level of "aggressor and defender", as b.k. seemed to indicate. It's a civil war with a 3rd party involved.

I think that most understood what i meant when i said "defending their own country", but let me simplify it for you. We were attacking Iraq. Most of those soldiers were young and unlearned politically. They were not terrorists, but soldiers enlisted to serve their country, which they were protecting. Iz fought against the Iraqi navy, not shadowy terrorist groups - hence my comment. Hope that clears it up for you.

It does, thank you. I was unaware of Iz's service. I thought you were referring to the present situation.

MeDeFe wrote:Then the USA should have left Nazi Germany alone, I mean, they were already pushing for Moscow. At least they had been, but two fronts is hard to hold, especially when one is to your left and the other is to your right. Let them duke it out with the commies and then go in to mop up the rest. There might have been some 60 states in the US of A and E then.

Well, Patton did want to use remnants of the Wehrmach as a spearhead into the Soviet Union so.......

The Muj are not defending Iraq, they're most of the problem.

"No rules of engagement, this enemy hides behind women and children. And to beat violence, you must ignore the focus-groups. You must sent in the Mossad, turn off the BBC CNN and don't look back! Rest asured there will be no more middle eastern crisis, hell, there'll be not more middle east!"- excerpt from 'Amerikastan' by Megadeth's 'United Abominations' album.

We need to fight this 'war' the way wars are fought and won. No pussy-footing; if we find the rat-bastards, then we kill said rat-bastards. End of story.

No one said "they" are, jenos, we already got rid of that misunderstanding.


And btw, CA, why don't you want to play me on the Europe map?`

We've all been so wrong. We should have listened to a heavy metal band.

Jenos Ridan wrote:"No rules of engagement, this enemy hides behind women and children. And to beat violence, you must ignore the focus-groups. You must sent in the Mossad, turn off the BBC CNN and don't look back!

Send in the secret police, and close down those pesky news reporting agencies? If there's a better formula for spreading freedom and democracy, I don't think I've heard of it.

Jenos Ridan wrote: Rest asured there will be no more middle eastern crisis, hell, there'll be not more middle east!"

Excellent solution to the Middle East troubles. Kill 'em all.

Megadeth for President!