# MILITARY TIMES poll shows troops in support of war



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

For all you liberal naysayers

This is all that matters









Poll shows troops in support of war 
By Robert Hodierne, Army Times
Despite a year of ferocious combat, mounting casualties and frequent deployments, support for the war in Iraq remains very high among the active-duty military, according to a Military Times Poll.
Sixty-three percent of respondents approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, and 60% remain convinced it is a war worth fighting. Support for the war is even greater among those who have served longest in the combat zone: Two-thirds of combat vets say the war is worth fighting.

But the men and women in uniform are under no illusions about how long they will be fighting in Iraq; nearly half say they expect to be there more than five years.

In addition, 87%% say they're satisfied with their jobs and, if given the choice today, only 25% say they'd leave the service.

Compared with last year, the percentages for support for the war and job satisfaction remain essentially unchanged.

A year ago, 77% said they thought the military was stretched too thin to be effective. This year, that number shrank to 66%.

The findings are part of the annual Military Times Poll, which this year included 1,423 active-duty subscribers to Air Force Times, Army Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.

The subscribers were randomly surveyed by mail in late November and early December. The poll has a margin of error of +/-2.6%.

Among the poll's other findings:

•75% oppose a military draft.

•60% blame Congress for the shortage of body armor in the combat zone.

•12% say civilian Pentagon policymakers should be held accountable for abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.


----------



## vfrex (Jan 25, 2003)

lol, now theres an objective source.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

i support the war.. but feel we are there for the wrong reasons...


----------



## pablosthename (Sep 30, 2003)

we are there?







you mean the soldiers are there. your not doing sh*t so dont say we.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

vfrex said:


> lol, now theres an objective source.
> [snapback]816863[/snapback]​


hahaha my thoughts exactly


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Peacock said:


> i support the war.. but feel we are there for the wrong reasons...
> [snapback]816864[/snapback]​


I supported the war, until I saw it was going to be dragged out indefinitely by policy makers who are too wussed out to get the job done quicker. And as far as the armour goes, I believe that represents an investment decision on the part of the pentagon as to how quickly and regularly they upgrade the soldiers equipment. But I suppose if you complain about this you're tagged a "liberal" by Bush's shoeshine boys. Since when did protecting the soldiers fall under liberalism?


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

Fargo said:


> I supported the war, until I saw it was going to be dragged out indefinitely by policy makers who are too wussed out to get the job done quicker. And as far as the armour goes, I believe that represents an investment decision on the part of the pentagon as to how quickly and regularly they upgrade the soldiers equipment. But I suppose if you complain about this you're tagged a "liberal" by Bush's shoeshine boys. Since when did protecting the soldiers fall under liberalism?
> [snapback]817148[/snapback]​


According to asshole Rumsfeld, soldiers should "make due with what they have".

Call me a liberal.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

pablosthename said:


> we are there?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We = the USA.

i think that is common sense.. although im unsure.. you seem to be rather serious, so you probably did not make the connection..

here it is again.

We = USA.

now does this make sense? are you able to make the connection within the atmosphere that is in place of your so called brain?


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

Peacock said:


> We = the USA.
> 
> i think that is common sense.. although im unsure.. you seem to be rather serious, so you probably did not make the connection..
> 
> ...


lmao. we=usa X sum of the world % Iraq..= lol...


----------



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

Filo said:


> According to asshole Rumsfeld, soldiers should "make due with what they have".
> 
> Call me a liberal.
> [snapback]817681[/snapback]​


Lets keep in mind, someone whos been defense secretary of state 3 times isnt exactly lacking experience. Actually Rumsfield was right, you go to war with what you have and not what you wish you have. On another note about the humvee armor issue. Logistically the armor they are putting on these humvees dont stop 95% of what they are facing. You cant put 1 1/2" to 2" steel panel on these things. Thats what you would need to have some protection. They are getting like 1/2" to 3/4" steel panel. Any RPG or road side bomb will rip threw this armor like butter. But I think the comments Rumsfield said where nothing less, then the press and the anti war protestors. Getting on the wagon and making him out to be the villian and insensitive jerk. It was Bush and Cheney who ordered the action to oust Saddam. And they ever learning to remain flexible and change to whatever it takes to win this thing. What we really need is about 500k troops over there in Iraq to settle things down.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

BraveHeart007 said:


> Lets keep in mind, someone whos been defense secretary of state 3 times isnt exactly lacking experience. Actually Rumsfield was right, you go to war with what you have and not what you wish you have. On another note about the humvee armor issue. Logistically the armor they are putting on these humvees dont stop 95% of what they are facing. You cant put 1 1/2" to 2" steel panel on these things. Thats what you would need to have some protection. They are getting like 1/2" to 3/4" steel panel. Any RPG or road side bomb will rip threw this armor like butter. But I think the comments Rumsfield said where nothing less, then the press and the anti war protestors. Getting on the wagon and making him out to be the villian and insensitive jerk. It was Bush and Cheney who ordered the action to oust Saddam. And they ever learning to remain flexible and change to whatever it takes to win this thing. What we really need is about 500k troops over there in Iraq to settle things down.
> [snapback]817807[/snapback]​


Actually it was Bush and his cabinet (that ordered the action to oust Saddam). Also I disagree. With the ammount of money the U.S. spends on deffense, there should be no excuse for insuffecient (sp?) equiptment. If you are gonna do something, do it right. Rumsfelds comments where his alone, came from his mouth. It was clear he has no interest in really answering soldier's questions properly.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

What we f*cking need is Bin Laden, this bastard just pops up when ever he likes, runs his mouth and steps on the nuts of any type of progress. All I hear and read is Bin Laden might be in Pakistan, Iran, underground government facility in Utah, or up Rumsfields ass.

So here we all are, headed into 2005.. Where's Bin Laden? I need a f*cking T-Shirt man. I'm personally pissed off at this situation.

And there's no comment, remark, or excuse for un-armored vehicles. Look at our damn military budget for one. Take some of money we're using on "mini-nukes" and put that on armor.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

User said:


> What we f*cking need is Bin Laden, this bastard just pops up when ever he likes, runs his mouth and steps on the nuts of any type of progress. All I hear and read is Bin Laden might be in Pakistan, Iran, underground government facility in Utah, or up Rumsfields ass.
> 
> So here we all are, headed into 2005.. Where's Bin Laden? I need a f*cking T-Shirt man. I'm personally pissed off at this situation.
> 
> ...


OMG





















I actually want TWO T-shirts. One will be "Where Is Bin Laden" and "Where are the WMDs?" One thing has changed about Bin Laden tho. He is scared. Notice how he used to make videos of him outside in the sun shootin targets. Now he only makes videos in dark rooms in doors...I wonder why


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Filo said:


> According to asshole Rumsfeld, soldiers should "make due with what they have".
> 
> Call me a liberal.
> [snapback]817681[/snapback]​


F**king liberal. Marines and soldiers ALWAYS make due with what they have. It was taught at basic training to live off of what you have and were given to you. It was also taught during basic training that you dont ask for more, you don't run up to your CO 1Sgt and bitch about not having enough warmth, not having enough food, not having enough cover. I guess since these faux soldiers live and work in a civilian world, they forgot most of their training that was taught, and replace what they can't have in the military world with what they can have in the civilian world. Do you honestly think that if the military men and women got what they wanted, you think they'd fight better? Do you think the men who fought ww2, if they got that extra ration, they got that extra armor, you think they'd have the urgency to fight? I say no, because when you get what you want, you become fat, lazy and dependent on the necessities. The military is an indepent organization of men and women who are trained to fight and live to survice.

That man that you call "asshole" is probably doing everything he can in his power to help the military. He's doing everything in his power to keep this countrys military strong and not become a band of pussies and little bitches. His tough, uncaring image goes much more than what you see. So quit flaming him for doing whats right, you goddamn liberal!


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

ProdigalMarine said:


> F**king liberal. Marines and soldiers ALWAYS make due with what they have. It was taught at basic training to live off of what you have and were given to you. It was also taught during basic training that you dont ask for more, you don't run up to your CO 1Sgt and bitch about not having enough warmth, not having enough food, not having enough cover. I guess since these faux soldiers live and work in a civilian world, they forgot most of their training that was taught, and replace what they can't have in the military world with what they can have in the civilian world. Do you honestly think that if the military men and women got what they wanted, you think they'd fight better? Do you think the men who fought ww2, if they got that extra ration, they got that extra armor, you think they'd have the urgency to fight? I say no, because when you get what you want, you become fat, lazy and dependent on the necessities. The military is an indepent organization of men and women who are trained to fight and live to survice.
> 
> That man that you call "asshole" is probably doing everything he can in his power to help the military. He's doing everything in his power to keep this countrys military strong and not become a band of pussies and little bitches. His tough, uncaring image goes much more than what you see. So quit flaming him for doing whats right, you goddamn liberal!
> [snapback]817824[/snapback]​


Goddamn Marine. You realize those values are f*cking ancient and we CAN afford and SHOULD be providing the armed forces with everything they need. I do know that more battles could have been won in the past, had the forces had the sh*t they needed. I don't want that to happen again.


----------



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

Filo said:


> Actually it was Bush and his cabinet (that ordered the action to oust Saddam). Also I disagree. With the ammount of money the U.S. spends on deffense, there should be no excuse for insuffecient (sp?) equiptment. If you are gonna do something, do it right. Rumsfelds comments where his alone, came from his mouth. It was clear he has no interest in really answering soldier's questions properly.
> [snapback]817810[/snapback]​


your looking for anything to criticize. You dont even have the life experience to even have a right perception on these matters. Plus this is a differant war unlike the cold war with Russia. So equipment changes are happening to adapt to this type of war.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Yes soilders have always made do with what they had, and some died for what they didn't have. If I personally was in Iraq, I'd like to think out of respect that Arlington would atlease give me the tools and necessities to preform at 100% for my country.

This reminds me of how Saddam's soilders didn't have shoes but was suppose to stand and fight on hot ass sand, they were smart to surrender.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

BraveHeart007 said:


> your looking for anything to criticize. You dont even have the life experience to even have a right perception on these matters.
> [snapback]817837[/snapback]​


So now you decide who can have a say in matters and who cannot? I pay taxes for the armed forces. I have a say.







My uncle has told me countless stories about if his platoon had the equiptment they needed, they would have won a lot more battles and had less KIA. Sorry for having concern for U.S. troops.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

BraveHeart007 said:


> your looking for anything to criticize. You dont even have the life experience to even have a right perception on these matters. Plus this is a differant war unlike the cold war with Russia. So equipment changes are happening to adapt to this type of war.
> [snapback]817837[/snapback]​


i dont believe one needs a life experience to be able to understand Braveheart.

all one needs is knowledge about the subject.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Filo said:


> Goddamn Marine. You realize those values are f*cking ancient and we CAN afford and SHOULD be providing the armed forces with everything they need. I do know that more battles could have been won in the past, had the forces had the sh*t they needed. I don't want that to happen again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those values are ancient but those values were bred into us. Those values were taught from the day we stepped on the yellow footprints. Those values are what makes this country military what it is. However, those values are slowly wanning and being replaced with "me, myself, I". Wars in the past were fought and won because men and women didn't bitch about what they should have and what they should get.

So based on your thoughts, you think that the Marines at Bellau Wood should've sat there and waited for supplies to come, hoping the Germans wouldn't run across that line? Little history lesson fido, Battle of Belleau Wood. Marines came into it with very little, came out of it with a victory that proved a vidal asset to winning that war. Again, lets try vietnam. You think the soldiers and Marines in vietnam could sit around on their asses waiting for reinforcements to come, wait for the helos to drop supplies in while the NVA charged and assaulted?

Not everything in this world is "At Burger King, Have it your way". You learn to survive and fight with what you have. Don't bitch at what you dont have because when you do, you won't be around to have it. It should be a value that is taught to everyone, instead of the "me, myself, I" values taught to you damn liberal brats.


----------



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

Peacock said:


> i dont believe one needs a life experience to be able to understand Braveheart.
> 
> all one needs is knowledge about the subject.
> [snapback]817853[/snapback]​


knowledge, judgement, wisdom all come with time. I was in my 20's and you think you know everything. Pfftt you dont know jack sh*t, you realize this only as you get older. Which comes with time and life experience.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

BraveHeart007 said:


> knowledge, judgement, wisdom all come with time. I was in my 20's and you think you know everything. Pfftt you dont know jack sh*t, you realize this only as you get older. Which comes with time and life experience.
> [snapback]817861[/snapback]​


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

ProdigalMarine said:


> Those values are ancient but those values were bred into us. Those values were taught from the day we stepped on the yellow footprints. Those values are what makes this country military what it is. However, those values are slowly wanning and being replaced with "me, myself, I". Wars in the past were fought and won because men and women didn't bitch about what they should have and what they should get.
> 
> So based on your thoughts, you think that the Marines at Bellau Wood should've sat there and waited for supplies to come, hoping the Germans wouldn't run across that line? Little history lesson fido, Battle of Belleau Wood. Marines came into it with very little, came out of it with a victory that proved a vidal asset to winning that war. Again, lets try vietnam. You think the soldiers and Marines in vietnam could sit around on their asses waiting for reinforcements to come, wait for the helos to drop supplies in while the NVA charged and assaulted?
> 
> ...


Interesting you mentioned the word Hamburger after Vietnam. Im sure you are familiar with the battle of Hamburger Hill. You do know that men had to fight hand to hand combat because they had no more bullets...yeah it wasn't a good thing. I just don't want that to happen to our troops in Iraq. It would not only be embarassing, but they would get slaughtered.


----------



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

Peacock said:


> [snapback]817866[/snapback]​


Dood your not even 25 lol

Shake your head all you want. Your peacock pride is your own worst enemy. Im not attacking you personally. But this is a truth about being prideful. You either deal with it or it will rule you and shape your life into fools destiny.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Filo said:


> Interesting you mentioned the word Hamburger after Vietnam. Im sure you are familiar with the battle of Hamburger Hill. You do know that men had to fight hand to hand combat because they had no more bullets...yeah it wasn't a good thing. I just don't want that to happen to our troops in Iraq. It would not only be embarassing, but they would get slaughtered.
> [snapback]817869[/snapback]​


We'd get slaughtered? What? The insurgents found a new way to kill us? Are they going to unleash liberal jackasses like you onto a platoon of Marines or Soldiers? You dont want a lot of things happening to our troops in Iraq, but then again, you stand on the sidelines saying "good praises to our troops", "godbless our troops" and all that bullshit. Actions speak louder than words. Maybe if you did more than bitch, you could POSSIBLY help my Marines, help those Soldiers, but until you actually see combat and/or get shipped over, why don't you go to your local BK and ask to have a whopper any way YOU want it, because you live by those "me, myself, I" values.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

ProdigalMarine said:


> We'd get slaughtered? What? The insurgents found a new way to kill us? Are they going to unleash liberal jackasses like you onto a platoon of Marines or Soldiers? You dont want a lot of things happening to our troops in Iraq, but then again, you stand on the sidelines saying "good praises to our troops", "godbless our troops" and all that bullshit. Actions speak louder than words. Maybe if you did more than bitch, you could POSSIBLY help my Marines, help those Soldiers, but until you actually see combat and/or get shipped over, why don't you go to your local BK and ask to have a whopper any way YOU want it, because you live by those "me, myself, I" values.
> [snapback]817877[/snapback]​


Wait uh did I miss something. Have you seen live combat? Oh sorry thats a whole notha thread...

and since when is saying "god bless out troops" a bad thing?? And why do you seem to think U.S. troops cant be slaughtered? They already have been...


----------



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

Filo said:


> Wait uh did I miss something. Have you seen live combat? Oh sorry thats a whole notha thread...
> 
> and since when is saying "god bless out troops" a bad thing?? And why do you seem to think U.S. troops cant be slaughtered? They already have been...
> [snapback]817882[/snapback]​


Slaughtered









We have under 1100 deaths in a major war. Thats not a slaughter you better go learn what that word means. We are facing difficulty in light of that fact we have to few troops there. But the few troops that we do have over there are kicking ass


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

BraveHeart007 said:


> Slaughtered
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Turning a blind eye to things like Falujah? Bush: "Bring it on" Iraqis: SLAUGHTER/mutilate/burn/drag troops around like rag dolls. I think that counts. The deaths in this war were far nastier IMO than other wars. We need more troops there, we under estimated Iraqi insurgents.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

> Dood your not even 25 lol


correct.



> And still living at mommy and daddys


incorrect



> Your peacock pride is your own worst enemy.


yes, i know this.



> And will be till you either deal with it. Or it will deal with you as you end up being a prideful fool your wholelife.


true.

______________________________

BH- we have alot in common so lets not let this little debate/argument get between us.

IMO- to say one "knows jack sh*t" is ignorant and completely incorrect. I have spent and still spending many hours researching fish.. But, because im only 18, i dont know jack sh*t about them? If your concept is correct, then i must know absolutly nothing about everthing.. With your concept some one under the age of 25 is a child who, because they are not older, knows nothing.

With your concept- one could say an 80 year old man, who has never done a drop of research but has kept 3 guppies in a 10 gallon tank for 40 years, knows more about this hobby then me.. he has more time invested..

You are basicaly suggesting TIME is more important then information..

Newton once said "i stood on the shoulders of giants".. This ment that he was picking up where others have left off.. instead of starting over he took over and kept going..

if your concept was correct.. newton would not have been able to do this because he would not have done/experienced the work that was allready laid out infront of him.

If your theory is correct, he would have had to start from the very begining to become knowledgable in the subjects he excelled in.. but he didnt, he took over the work that was allready completed and went on from there.. He researched the work that was allready laid out and went on from there....


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Filo said:


> Wait uh did I miss something. Have you seen live combat? Oh sorry thats a whole notha thread...
> 
> and since when is saying "god bless out troops" a bad thing?? And why do you seem to think U.S. troops cant be slaughtered? They already have been...
> [snapback]817882[/snapback]​


Hm...Have I seen combat? Well lets see. I'll answer honestly. 
No. 
Will I be going to combat or to Iraq in the next couple months, I'll answer honestly.
Yes, when I get the orders from my command.

Now lets play it this way.
Have you seen combat? Well, I'm going to say. BIG f*cking NO.
Will you ever see combat or goto combat, again, I will answer honestly

No. Because you chose to help you country by paying its taxes and deplete its resources by sitting on your ass. Why do I think US Troops can't be slaughtered? Because I have faith and confidence that put in any situation my Marines, my fellow soldiers will come through and kick the sh*t out of ANY enemy. Why makes you think our troops are being slaughtered? 
How long did it take us to go into Iraq, oust Saddam? 
3 weeks. 
How long did it take us to go into Fallujah and take out insurgents? 
A month in april and about 2 weeks in October.
In Afghanistan, how long there?
I don't remember, but I'd say 3 months to rid an ENTIRE country of the Al Queada rule and establish a new government

Lets try history. I'll take WW2 for $100 Fido.
How long after we entered the war in 42 (we declared war at the end of 41) did it take us to take out a German Nazi Empire as well as a Japanese Empire? 
3 years (technically 2, 1944-Germany, 1945-Japan)

Lets try another one, shall we? WW1 for $1000 liberal punk.
How long after we wentered the war in 1915 did it take the US to take out germany and the ottoman empire?
Hm, 4 years.

Point is, our troops DO NOT get slaughtered. We fight until the mission is complete with WHAT WE HAVE.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

ProdigalMarine said:


> "me, myself, I" values.
> [snapback]817877[/snapback]​


hey now.. for me its more like "me myself, and my fish"


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Filo said:


> Turning a blind eye to things like Falujah? Bush: "Bring it on" Iraqis: SLAUGHTER/mutilate/burn/drag troops around like rag dolls. I think that counts. The deaths in this war were far nastier IMO than other wars. We need more troops there, we under estimated Iraqi insurgents.
> [snapback]817892[/snapback]​


Hm, since you seem not to know the definitions of slaughter, I will be happy to define it for you, ala dictionary.com. You should go there, it helps with vocabulary, but it might not help in terms of NFL betting.

Slaughter
slaugh·ter -noun-

1. The killing of animals especially for food. 
2. The killing of a large number of people; a massacre:

-----------------------

Mutilate
mu·ti·late

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. 
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. 
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Our troops didn't get slaughtered. There was no "massacre" of troops, just a fire team here, a single kill there...no massacre. Our troops weren't mutilated either, those were contractors. Troops-Contractors...different things. One is trained to protect and kill, the other is trained to build and create. No where near the same.

I always thought Vietnam was a nastier war. sh*t, the things they did in that war is uncompareable to what they do in this war. Oooo, they behead a couple civilians, whoop-di-doo. Ever hear of Hotel Hanoi? I think thats before your time, but I'll educate you again. It was a POW camp, you know where they capture MILITARY and not CIVILIAN CONTRACTORS. Yea, they only tortured them to death...no biggie, they just didn't video-tape it thats all.

So what BK you going to?


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

ProdigalMarine said:


> Hm...Have I seen combat? Well lets see. I'll answer honestly.
> No.
> Will I be going to combat or to Iraq in the next couple months, I'll answer honestly.
> Yes, when I get the orders from my command.
> ...


omg lol. You are comparing apples and oranges here. WW1 AND WW2 we had some bigass allies with us, its not at all how it is now. Not only that but we jumped in nice and late after the major fighting was already started.

Another thing: How am I depleting resources by paying taxes. That is an oxymoron. If anything I am helping build resources and pay off debts. It is interesting how you have the seem range of thought as Bush.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED







you mention how quick Saddam was removed, but don't recognize that we have lost way more troops after he has been removed than before.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

ProdigalMarine said:


> Hm, since you seem not to know the definitions of slaughter, I will be happy to define it for you, ala dictionary.com. You should go there, it helps with vocabulary, but it might not help in terms of NFL betting.
> 
> Slaughter
> slaugh·ter -noun-
> ...


Sad how you do not think more than 1000 American Soldiers KIA is not a large number (RE: Slaughter)

Here is a history lesson for you (Re: Mutilate) http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...601_iraq24.html

Was Vietnam before your time? You seem to act like it wasn't. I know all about Vietnam.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Filo said:


> omg lol. You are comparing apples and oranges here. WW1 AND WW2 we had some bigass allies with us, its not at all how it is now. Not only that but we jumped in nice and late after the major fighting was already started.
> 
> [snapback]817917[/snapback]​


The big ass allies was exhausted from fighting. Majority of allies of WW days are gone and rotten. Allies never stay the stay dude, we don't have to have France and Germany to be successful in war.


----------



## BraveHeart007 (May 19, 2004)

Peacock said:


> correct.
> incorrect
> yes, i know this.
> true.
> ...


The few words that i said was not enough information for you to come to that hypothesis but thats ok. Lets take science for instance. Information, is gathered by careful observation of the phenomenon being studied, whatever it is....
On the basis of that information / data a preliminary hypothesis, is formed, usually by inductive reasoning, and this in turn leads by deductive logic to a number of implications that may be tested by further observations and experiments. If the conclusions drawn from the original hypothesis successfully meet all these tests etc, the hypothesis becomes accepted as a scientific theory or law; if additional facts are in disagreement with the hypothesis, it may be modified or discarded in favor of a new hypothesis, which is then subjected to further tests. Even an accepted theory may eventually be overthrown if enough contradictory evidence is found. Such is life, learned experiences seem to be more often philosophical. And cannot be measured by the laws of physics. So eitherway per our discussion even our own ideas and many of our theories will and do change with time just like in science. So again if science allows for theorys to be overtrown in time. How much more in life will our own ideas change as we mature and grow older. Things that i cared alot about when i was your age i dont care about anymore. And things i didnt care about at your age i care about now. Lets take for example you say $$ is the key to happiness. Then that means 2/3 of the entire world are unhappy because its primarily 3rd world by our standards. Let me tell you... There are some very happy souls even more happy then you and i possibly could ever be. Yet in there poverty these people have great riches. I come from $$$ my father made his first million before 30. And at my fathers zenith he had 25 homes 7 shopping centers (strip centers) 45 retail stores doing about 3-6 million pers store. He is no Trump but let me tell you this idea of $$ buying happines is BS. For you it might be theory but i grew up in the $$$ bubble. I grew up in Newport Beach where there are alot of rich pretentious people. As well as others who are just of an average disposition but are very wealthy. So yea we had the best vacations the finest clothes. All nice things one would ever want....but it didnt buy happiness. Knowing experientially that there is a God who loves you and accepts you with your flaws and all. That myfriend is the beginning steps to a happy fullfulling life.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

User said:


> The big ass allies was exhausted from fighting. Majority of allies of WW days are gone and rotten. Allies never stay the stay dude, we don't have to have France and Germany to be successful in war.
> [snapback]817926[/snapback]​


True, but it is MUCH easier on our economy when the burden of War/DEBT is shared. (Bush Sr.)


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

im sorry man.. thats just extremely funny.

i cannot argue with that.. i cant.. LOL!!

i like you BH.. LOL.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Filo said:


> omg lol. You are comparing apples and oranges here. WW1 AND WW2 we had some bigass allies with us, its not at all how it is now. Not only that but we jumped in nice and late after the major fighting was already started.
> 
> Another thing: How am I depleting resources by paying taxes. That is an oxymoron. If anything I am helping build resources and pay off debts. It is interesting how you have the seem range of thought as Bush.
> 
> ...


WW1 we had Britian as our main ally. WW2 we had Britian as our main ally. Iraq we have Britian as our main ally. I still don't see your point. WW1 we entered the war after our ships got attacked and we finished it there. WW2 Britian was fighting alone with some French resistance, Russia was fighting its ass off on the east. Still, no progress was being made until the US joined. After the US joined, the results changed. 
See, my point: US joined ww1 & 2 and won it, if it weren't for us, the results would be different. 
Your point: WW1 and 2, the US had major allies, namely the Brits......uh, ok? Lets see if I can poke a hole through your agruement again. We went into Iraq, whos are ally that went in with us and stuck it out with us while the UN and France played "point the finger"....Ooo, Oooh, I know, I know. The British.

We lost waaaaay more troops after the oust of saddam. Uh, ok. We had about 500 coming into the removal, and we had about 500 after the removal. How is that more? And then, I ask you this again. How is this CONFLICT nastier than vietnam? I dont see there being such a thing as HOTEL BAGHDAD where they tortured our troops. So fido, how is this much nastier? Is it because they run around in civilial clothing and shoot our troops? The vietnamese did the same Is it because they set up IEDs to blow up our troops? The vietnamese did the same as well, but it was FAR worse. Ever hear of punji sticks?

While you're at your Burger King stand, can you put an order in for me. An order of "shut the f*ck up, I'll protect america, you stuff your face"

Edit: Wheres Judazzz/Jonas?


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

Peacock said:


> LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!
> 
> im sorry man.. thats just extremely funny.
> 
> ...


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Braveheart cracks me up.. Hes definitely one Church go-er i respect.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

ProdigalMarine said:


> WW1 we had Britian as our main ally. WW2 we had Britian as our main ally. Iraq we have Britian as our main ally. I still don't see your point. WW1 we entered the war after our ships got attacked and we finished it there. WW2 Britian was fighting alone with some French resistance, Russia was fighting its ass off on the east. Still, no progress was being made until the US joined. After the US joined, the results changed.
> See, my point: US joined ww1 & 2 and won it, if it weren't for us, the results would be different.
> Your point: WW1 and 2, the US had major allies, namely the Brits......uh, ok? Lets see if I can poke a hole through your agruement again. We went into Iraq, whos are ally that went in with us and stuck it out with us while the UN and France played "point the finger"....Ooo, Oooh, I know, I know. The British.
> 
> ...


Why must you be so hostile? No need to include that last stab. Plus I don't like BK. What is this nonsense about "main ally". An ally is an ally, we have lost allies because of POOR foriegn relations. Why do you bash France so much? THey were not the only one opposing the removal of Saddam. --Germany, Russia...and more--dont feel like listing all.

This war is nastier because there are terrorists involved. The backlash of attacks over there can lead to attacks on U.S. soil. Unlike Vietnam. I have heard of punji sticks btw.

Note: The number you listed before removal of Saddam is accurate, the number after is not accurate.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Filo said:


> Why must you be so hostile? No need to include that last stab. Plus I don't like BK. What is this nonsense about "main ally". An ally is an ally, we have lost allies because of POOR foriegn relations. Why do you bash France so much? THey were not the only one opposing the removal of Saddam. --Germany, Russia...and more--dont feel like listing all.
> 
> This war is nastier because there are terrorists involved. The backlash of attacks over there can lead to attacks on U.S. soil. Unlike Vietnam. I have heard of punji sticks btw.
> 
> ...


Me hostile? No way. Im just a smartass-type person, quick on the draw. As for your nonsense about an ally is an ally, true but which of our allies have stuck with us through thick and thin? Britian. Your point about ww1 and 2 the US had some "bigass allies" was matched with my point about how we went into Iraq witha "bigass ally". Its the same concept. Britian is our "bigass ally", they helped us in w1 and w2, and now they're helping us in Iraq. I was trying to disprove your whole "apples and oranges" concept. Why do I bash the french? Because its easy. They have proven to be nothing but snivling little hypocritical asses. They let the bigs do the fighting and then when the fighting is done, they come and say "oui, oui, We helped!"

This little conflict is NOT nastier. The only difference is, as Jonas stated in an earlier debate with me, instead of fighting an enemy that hides behind trees and tunnels, we're fighting an enemy that we cannot see and comes and goes as they please. Its not nastier, its difficult. Fighting and dying because you can't spot an enemy a klick out is nasty. Fighting and dying because your men got ambushed and then driven to a booby trap and thus dying there is nasty. Fighting a man who hides in a damn mountain only to surface and run his mouth is difficult because you want to shut him up sooo badly. Its difficult, not nasty. Having your men tortured in front of you while you hang by your arms is nasty. Watching a contractor get beheaded online is difficult.

Whats your favorite value #?


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

ProdigalMarine said:


> Me hostile? No way. Im just a smartass-type person, quick on the draw. As for your nonsense about an ally is an ally, true but which of our allies have stuck with us through thick and thin? Britian. Your point about ww1 and 2 the US had some "bigass allies" was matched with my point about how we went into Iraq witha "bigass ally". Its the same concept. Britian is our "bigass ally", they helped us in w1 and w2, and now they're helping us in Iraq. I was trying to disprove your whole "apples and oranges" concept. Why do I bash the french? Because its easy. They have proven to be nothing but snivling little hypocritical asses. They let the bigs do the fighting and then when the fighting is done, they come and say "oui, oui, We helped!"
> 
> This little conflict is NOT nastier. The only difference is, as Jonas stated in an earlier debate with me, instead of fighting an enemy that hides behind trees and tunnels, we're fighting an enemy that we cannot see and comes and goes as they please. Its not nastier, its difficult. Fighting and dying because you can't spot an enemy a klick out is nasty. Fighting and dying because your men got ambushed and then driven to a booby trap and thus dying there is nasty. Fighting a man who hides in a damn mountain only to surface and run his mouth is difficult because you want to shut him up sooo badly. Its difficult, not nasty. Having your men tortured in front of you while you hang by your arms is nasty. Watching a contractor get beheaded online is difficult.
> 
> ...


Hmm ur right about that stuff all the way. Hold the pickles hold the lettuce...lmao.

Yeah dude thats messed up about the videos they relase







I hope we can get some bigass allies back tho














<--allies rule


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

ProdigalMarine said:


> Edit: Wheres Judazzz/Jonas?
> [snapback]817938[/snapback]​


I'm not gonna touch this with a 10ft pole, especially biased BS polls like this one...









This is Republican America's war - let them do the talking: it's not that I have things to explain/justify...
Besides that, I think my opinion is known.


----------



## syd (Nov 6, 2004)

why is this a partisan thing. it has nothing to do with what party is in control so take your stupid liberal sh*t out of here. this was is illegal and they are building a pipeline from central asia through the middle east. this war was going to happen regardless. 9/11 is a form of synthetic terrorism


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

syd said:


> why is this a partisan thing. it has nothing to do with what party is in control so take your stupid liberal sh*t out of here. this was is illegal and they are building a pipeline from central asia through the middle east. this war was going to happen regardless. 9/11 is a form of synthetic terrorism
> [snapback]818252[/snapback]​


Well if it is not a partisan thing, why is it everytime a democrat speaks up, he is called names and put down. Why is it that if anything bad is said of Bush/his cabinet, all Republicans defend, no matter how bad it is.


----------



## the grinch (Feb 23, 2004)

One thin i do agree with is the France is a big pile of p*ssy sh*t. When they are in trouble who do they go to. U.S. I hate the french. They just try to complicate sh*t but in the end they need us.


----------



## Gordeez (Sep 21, 2003)

the grinch said:


> One thin i do agree with is the France is a big pile of p*ssy sh*t. When they are in trouble who do they go to. U.S. I hate the french. They just try to complicate sh*t but in the end they need us.
> [snapback]818335[/snapback]​


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> This is Republican America's war - let them do the talking......
> Besides that, I think my opinion is known.
> [snapback]818030[/snapback]​


Don't republicans talk until next congressional recess where they can stuff their face with liquor and underage prostitutes, or was that the democrats?

I know your opinion, Jonas.....send in the dutch right?


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

i just bit my f*cking tongue off, where the hell did ww's or vietnam of all f*ck ups come into play here, you know what..i dont have the time nor the patience to address this many contempts in one thread. bottom line some of you should run head first at top speed right into your t.v sets....

but i will say, if you have your hands guarding your belly and someone insists on smacking you in the head with a baseball bat,over and over again, sooner or later it would be a smart idea to protect your grill.. terrorists like to set landmines, C4 wrapped in shrap, use rpg's..and they love moving vehicles because not only do they get the element of surprised but a moving vehicle not properly armored is a moving death trap and personally i'd rather face 20 of them by myself in the wide open then 3 of them have me trapped inside an immobilized good for nothing f*ck hole vehcle, and i then have to rely on that vehicles armor and if they slip to be able to have a chance to get my self in a position to counter. this is what they do..they blast the living hell out of your humveeso that it is immobile, now who ever survives the innitial blast cannot just jump out and uuuhhh become the invincable "rambo" who ever your convinced you or whoever is.

because i can gaurentee your simple ass the only reason why it is quiet is because they are waiting for you to show your head and then before you can completely open the door you will be rushed with heavy assault fire, all hell will break loose and you will be a friggin memory.. so there is no reason to even assume " we dont need no stinkin armor" i dont care if your a goddam navy seal, your full of sh*t and need to go speak to someone you know who's had experience with these people before..there aint a drill in this world that can prepare you for the actual slaughter they will try to bring on to you and yours.. and this is the very reason not to take pity on the enemy and so help me point the finger at our troops, because for these very methods that these people use, that it tickle me when ever a survivor was caught, me my self i like to get up close and personal.


----------

