[Mongoose]

You know what I think about the tanks?

[an0n]

I think it's fair to say that Liberator can be ignored.

And I've seen entire convoys of trucks, APC's, tanks and choppers go rolling/buzzing by before. It's no big deal. Tanks and **** need a way to move around too, so why the **** should they have to go through 50miles of marshland just to avoid rolling through an urban area?

[Rictor]

cause...RPGs in alley-ways.
oh, you mean in America.

[an0n]

The UK actually, but the point still stands.

[Cniinc]

Originally posted by Mongoose
You know what I think about the tanks?

nice. very nice.

[Cniinc]

Originally posted by Rictor
1. The gassing of the Kurds (who incidently were Saddam's enemies, not his own people) took place in 1988, 3 years before Desert Storm, and well before the US stopped supporting Saddam.

2. I don't complain to Uncle Sam when foreigners kill each other, only when the US is directly or indirectly the reason for those killings.

3. Please stop talking out of your ass, and try to come up with something better than "You filthy terrosist appeaser, go kiss Saddam's boots along with Michael Moore!!!!"

1.  You are right, my mistake, he did gas the Kurds in '88. However, after Desert Storm, he did massacre the Kurds with his retreating army. He continually exterminated non-Sunni Muslim religious groups, and did all of this with no concept of atrocity. His injustices aren't limited to gassing, and besides, what difference does it make if it was before or after Desert Storm (besides my incorrect assumption)? He still did the atrocity, the point still stands.

2. How do you define indirect? is refusing to help an attacked group 'indirectly the reason for the killings?' (ie the Kurds thing above)

3. Please be more original, and don't be so quick to flame. talking out of my ass? Please. Nowhere did i say anything about appeasing terrorists. I know it's standard operating procedure to label anyone with a conservative argument as an agenda-hungry moron, but maybe you should look deeper before you fling accusations.

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by Cniinc




3. Please be more original, and don't be so quick to flame. talking out of my ass? Please. Nowhere did i say anything about appeasing terrorists. I know it's standard operating procedure to label anyone with a conservative argument as an agenda-hungry moron, but maybe you should look deeper before you fling accusations.

That works both ways these days.

[Cniinc]

Originally posted by Rictor
cause...RPGs in alley-ways.
oh, you mean in America.

Originally posted by an0n
The UK actually, but the point still stands.

no, rictor's right. it was in the US. LA's Westwood. After all, it was the LAPD that shooed them out according to the article.

Oh, and just a side note, did you notice that the poster of the article called himself 'ich bin ein un fallujan?" pretty clever. I almost expected him to put in the 'ask-not-what-your-country-can-do-for-you' quote somewhere in there.

[NGTM-1R]

I see LAVs, just like that one, on the highway here in San Diego quite often. It's not really unusual. I've seen them driving around downtown too, on occasion. In pairs...just like that. The Marines send them to some types of community events, like fairs and stuff, just like the police will have some guys, a few cars, and a booth.

They show up by accident at a protest and people think the world's $#^&ing ending.

[Bobboau]

the name of the road they were on is veteran ave, this makes me think that it's near a base of some sort, meaning that the chances of an accedental meating are better

[an0n]

Originally posted by Cniinc
no, rictor's right. it was in the US. LA's Westwood. After all, it was the LAPD that shooed them out according to the article.

Go back to France, hippy!

[Flipside]

Actually, we go more for mines in the UK, RPG's stand out, and theres always a pylon or telegraph pole or something in the way....

Anon's right, a vehicles gotta move.

I suppose we have to look at this cold bloodedly really, why do American, and British and other Western soldiers fight? Is it for love of country? Is it to protect friends and family, or is it because it's a good wage, with and excellent health and retirement plan.

I mean no disrespect to America's army, since ours is identical, but the long and the short of it is that a large percentage of these armies are defined as 'mercenaries'. They fight for money. I think that before 9/11 many of them never really expected to see serious combat. That is why many of them are freezing or hesitating,

During WW2, the soldiers knew, particuarly European ones, that for every day the War continued, their freinds and family were dying in air-raids back home. Those days they were really fighting to survive, not to dominate. Terrorism is the US's phantom blitz, but the glamour is wearing off. And the cracks will start to show as the country polarises.

[Vanguard]

Well, if you've seen the military pay scale it's not what I'd call "mouth watering".  Plus I'd trust the defense of the country to the soldiers we have now long before I'd trust a "trained" contractor.  The big difference between the two is more often than not one fights out of patriotism, the other is in it for the big payoff.  The former group would likely do it even without pay, I sincerely hope.  The latter are the true mercenaries.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Well, if you've seen the military pay scale it's not what I'd call "mouth watering".

Compared to other 'unskilled' jobs, like working in a supermarket, as a builder, etc, though?

[vyper]

[q]How do you define indirect? [/q]

Actions carried out via mechanisms like the world bank and imf?

[Gank]

Originally posted by Liberator
Wretched mess in Fallujah?  

Virtually the whole city has been taken with 25 confirmed fatal casualties for the Coalition Forces and over 1200 confirmed dead terrorists in a period of less that 72 hours.  

You really need to learn how geurilla wars are fought.

[Nico]

Originally posted by redmenace
What person with the minimum IQ of a rudebega would step infront of an tank.

A chinese guy that everybody now sees as some kind of hero, for exemple? You know, that guy:

[Ford Prefect]

Well, if you've seen the military pay scale it's not what I'd call "mouth watering". Plus I'd trust the defense of the country to the soldiers we have now long before I'd trust a "trained" contractor. The big difference between the two is more often than not one fights out of patriotism, the other is in it for the big payoff. The former group would likely do it even without pay, I sincerely hope. The latter are the true mercenaries.

The ranks of the military are filled with people who don't have a pot to piss in, and have absolutely no hope of a post-secondary education because of their financial situations. The military is the only way they can earn the money.

Wars are fueled by poverty and testosterone.

[Cniinc]

Originally posted by an0n



Go back to France, hippy!

what are you talking about? where'd that come from? read my previous posts, and you'll see i wasn't for the protest, thank you.

WWII wasn't fought for poverty. It wasn't really for testosterone. It was to destroy a tyrant and stop him from controlling Europe. Ironically, though, the war with Japan was initially fought for oil. Funny how those things work out, itn't it?  Wars with good causes can have 'oil' as a cause in it somewhere.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Ah, World War II....

Makes me want to watch Band of Brothers again...