Iraq - A US Soldiers view

  • Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!

    Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.

No, its not serious and relevent. U was being sarcastic and confrontational.

Now either add something constructive to the thread or leave it. Noone is forcing u to read it.
 
Alf Roberts said:
No, its not serious and relevent. U was being sarcastic and confrontational.

Now either add something constructive to the thread or leave it. Noone is forcing u to read it.
Click to expand...

Yes I was being sarcastic and confrontational, but that doesn't hide the fact that you still have yet to back up any of your opions with any form of evidence. Asking nicely doesn't seem to have any effect on you so I've given up that technique.

I'm reading this thread because I am interested in the subject and would like to see both sides of the debate constructed in a manor that makes them worth reading, so far yours has failed miserably...
 
Spirit said:
Yes I was being sarcastic and confrontational, but that doesn't hide the fact that you still have yet to back up any of your opions with any form of evidence. Asking nicely doesn't seem to have any effect on you so I've given up that technique.

I'm reading this thread because I am interested in the subject and would like to see both sides of the debate constructed in a manor that makes them worth reading, so far yours has failed miserably...
Click to expand...
I think uve lost the plot with regards to this thread...and i also think ur just looking for a ruck with me now.

The initial post is a view from an American soldier serving in Iraq and him questioning the reasons as to his deployment in such a place and what his leaders objectives are. With this in mind, what kinda fucking proof are u looking for?? Theres no proof to provide...its an opinion...an opinion of some1 in the eye of the storm.

Now as ive asked before, either add something constructive or leave it.
 
That’s what `not open to tender' means
that’s what you meant by "not open to tender" not what it means as it was open to tender , just not open to other countries to tender... but I understand and agree with what you are saying

Other things to clarify I doubt you hate the US as that’s simply racist etc etc you hate the US government and its policies

As for the whole Info row this is really going nowhere posting sarcastic provocative posts isn’t going to go anywhere Dave and arguing whose information is the most correct is almost impossible to prove.

Also the first POP to be thrown was from Alf to Spirit "ahhh the naivety of youth"
Condescending, dismissive and arrogant, unwillingness to take on someone else’s point of view. From which the whole thread escalated into this.

With Spirits sarcastic come backs etc

“U was being sarcastic and confrontational.

Now either add something constructive to the thread or leave it. Noone is forcing u to read it.”
That applies as much to Spirit as it does Alf

SO
Let’s get back to the original thread and the opinions expressed by the piece in the guardian and your views on it
 
Last edited:
Well that being the case, I am of the opinion that the American solider in the article is probably a low ranking (and more than likely, lower ranked as a result of the article :lol:) solider or an NCO. I am of the opinion that he would have very little knowledge of the C&C's grand plan for Iraq and thus I am of the opinion that he can comment all he wants on the presence of the US in Iraq, if he wasn't prepared to fight for his country whenever he was ordered to, then he shouldn't have joined up in the 1st place.
 
Rich said:
other things to clarify i doubt you hate the US as thats simply racist etc etc you hate the US government and its policys
Click to expand...
Yeah well i kinda assume that ppl with there head screwed on know what i mean...altho saying that im not too keen on the American public but thats an educational issue cos at the end of the day they vote ppl like Bush into office. Infact every President that comes along always seems to leave with blood on his hands but money in his pockets....but yeah its the administrations that i have a problem with and the `system' which allows them to be created. Regan set the knew standard on proving any1 can get in the White House if theyve got the right `package' behind them.

Rich said:
Also the first POP to be thrown was from Alf to Spirit "ahhh the naivety of youth"
Condescending, dismissive and arrogant, unwillingness to take on someone else’s point of view. From which the whole thread escalated into this.
Click to expand...
Well im sorry `Rich' but i strongly object. `Ahhh the naivety of youth' is a phrase that many, shall we say, mature citizens use towards younger folk. It was said to me plenty as a youngster and i never took if for `Condescending,
dismissive and arrogant' at all. Ur taking me out of context here. Ur being a bit too `PC' i think. I meant no harm at all.

Rich said:
as for the whole Info row this is really going nowhere posting sarcastic provocative posts isnt gonna go

anywere Dave and arguing who's information is the most correct is almost impossible to prove.
SO
lets get back to the original thread and the oppinions expressed by the piece in the gardian and your views on it
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Alf Roberts said:
Well im sorry `Rich' but i strongly object. `Ahhh the naivety of youth' is a phrase that many, shall we say, mature citizens use towards younger folk. It was said to me plenty as a youngster and i never took if for `Condescending,
dismissive and arrogant' at all. Ur taking me out of context here. Ur being a bit too `PC' i think. I meant no harm at all.
Click to expand...

Actually it is condescending and arrogant because you know nothing about me. It's fine to say that to someone when you know them and know you are right, but when you say it to someone you don't know and are just taking wild shots at them then it's patronising and childish and of course the person is gonna react to it and you know that damn well. Especially when that person is older than the vast majority of people in this community and probably a damn site more street wise.

Anyway, I agree with 90% of what Rich said although we're still waiting for you to back up any of your arguements :rolleyes: I remember why I'd stopped posting in this forum, cos there are too many people that are to quick to criticise and can't construct a decent debate. It's a big shame for the majority of people who do wish to have a serious discussion... I'll leave you to air your (or should I say the Guardian's) opinions in peace :)
 
Last edited:
I would be interested to know what you think about my posts Spirit - I'll have a no name calling debate with you.:D
 
i think enuf blaming here :)
back to topic:

1st stupid action from america:
A war in such a dangerous and unstable area.

2nd:
They cut the world in "good" and "bad" countries.

3rd:
For a war Bush refers to the Christianity.

4th:
USA said: "But that plan worked in Germany after 1945 too, so it must work in Iraq"

So if you see that 4 points i doubt if the USA really got brain-healthy government in power.
America never interested in health of other countries or other non-american people, they just wanna increase their political-power and profits.
The main reason was oil in Iraq, America wanna get independent from the OPEC.

Another reason was, that the son Bush want to complete what his father failed to do, "free Iraq".

And of course Bush (jun.) wanted to change the subject, after he led the USA in bad economy phases.

Yeah i am proud, that Germany said "no" to that dumb war. But i'm afraid that we can pay now...

Btw I saw on TV how America treat Iraqi-soldiers. All i can say the poor guys have to life in inhuman conditions. thx America

But i'm confident that the power of the US-empire will be over someday, cuz no empire (Egypt, Nazis, Napoleon, CCCP, Roma) can rule the whole world(its too different)
 
The people who start and edge on the wars arnt the ones fighting them so to be honest i dont think the USA gives a shit about how many of its own or other countires and familys are losing as long as they come out "Victorious" or it dosnt back fire

There are 2 counties with technology that i know could bring any serious war to a screeching halt and the USA isnt one of them nether is Iraq

The technology is based deep underground in 2 countries

so if the USA really started to get seriously out of hand they would not get that far and it would be finished quickly if it got verry serious "Global"
 
*Crash* said:
There are 2 counties with technology that i know could bring any serious war to a screeching halt and the USA isnt one of them nether is Iraq

The technology is based deep underground in 2 countries

so if the USA really started to get seriously out of hand they would not get that far and it would be finished quickly if it got verry serious "Global"
Click to expand...

please tell me more - this sounds fascinating.....
 
grizz said:
please tell me more - this sounds fascinating.....
Click to expand...

Im not sure which the countries are

but i heard 1 is China as it has a weapon that could literly "Stop" which i think that means disable everything in a gven area (not a nuke) its probly the sort of weapon that would disable your body and any vecheals eg tanks for a period of time

which means they could disable any countries waring i beleve

nukes make the place radioactive but disableing everything in a certan area means you could take everything in that area without resistance eg planes tacks weapons programs and terotory ect giving you land and a verry efective arsonal in a short period of time

so any war with them would be pretty usles and they would just disable you and everything around you

im not sure about the other countrie or the weapon but i beleve China is one of those countries
 
grizz said:
wow this thing / stuff sounds mental!

is it called valium? that tends to *stop* me
Click to expand...

since most countries are focusing on what the USA / Middle East is developing most of the time. The rest can develop what they like as they dont have people constantly spying on them
 
i think what Crash is talking about is a form of neutron bomb
that is very harmfull to living tissue but has a small blastrange so it doesnt distroy large amounts of equiment and buildings, it basically wipes out anything living in an area but the radiation disipates quickly and leaves buildings and technology intacts so the invading force can use it.

i THINK was a long t ime ago i read about them.
 
Rich said:
i think what Crash is talking about is a form of neutron bomb
that is very harmfull to living tissue but has a small blastrange so it doesnt distroy large amounts of equiment and buildings, it basically wipes out anything living in an area but the radiation disipates quickly and leaves buildings and technology intacts so the invading force can use it.

i THINK was a long t ime ago i read about them.
Click to expand...

No m8 i dont think its a neutron bomb as i think its only the country which poseses it and as far as i know the USA dosnt know/posses it all i know is its verry deep underground and could stop a war instantly

I know the USA had a project a while back to do with "Time" and to try and make an Invisibility cloak technology tested on a ship it overall failed as several people suposingly caught fire and others went mad but it suposingly works for a few seconds

http://www.viewzone.com/philadelphia.html

This is a Chinese Cloaking Device in betta stage i think its on the right path i beleve

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_747591.html

so maby its something to compeat with the origanal USA project
 
Last edited:
Is that not the bomb which releases some form of electronic pulse that disables anything with circuitry in the vacinity? I know there was something along those lines in testing a while ago, there was quite a few articles about it :D

A good description is here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/ebomb.html

The EMP Effect

The ElectroMagnetic Pulse (EMP) effect was first observed during the early testing of high altitude airburst nuclear weapons. The effect is characterised by the production of a very short (hundreds of nanoseconds) but intense electromagnetic pulse, which propagates away from its source with ever diminishing intensity, governed by the theory of electromagnetism. The ElectroMagnetic Pulse is in effect an electromagnetic shock wave.

This pulse of energy produces a powerful electromagnetic field, particularly within the vicinity of the weapon burst. The field can be sufficiently strong to produce short lived transient voltages of thousands of Volts (ie kiloVolts) on exposed electrical conductors, such as wires, or conductive tracks on printed circuit boards, where exposed.
Click to expand...
 
This is my opinion :)

First off all: who are we - western societies -to judge if the regime
under Saddam Hussein is good ore bad? Who says that democracy
is the solution for all countries?

I do agree to the point that saddam as a dictator ruled his contry
in a way that most of us could only look at in disbelief.

But I do not agree to that the invasion of US was ok.
Who are US to interfear and attack another country, without
even proving them to be a danger ore even threat to US? - ore
any other country.

If we felt Saddam was a threat to freedom and peace...well..North Korea
is just as big a threat. For the human rights..well...wat about China?

Nope..they attack a country thats beein deeply controlled by
themself for yrs.

That the soldier says that they send soldiers to Iraque for no reason
i agree.....the reasons that US/UK gave for having to attack Iraq
all showed up to be build on statements made out of the blue.
 
'First off all: who are we - western societies -to judge if the regime
under Saddam Hussein is good ore bad? Who says that democracy
is the solution for all countries?'

People have freedom of speech (mostly) in these western societies, which means they can judge whatever they like and have opinions on any subject. Whether those opinions are popular is another question. The thing is, while most people would judge Saddam's regime to be frightening and think stuff like 'someone should do something about it', they wouldn't necessarily agree that we should go to war with Iraq in order to stop him. To have a valid reason for doing that, we would need proof that Iraq was a direct threat to our society, but we all know what happened to that idea.

'But I do not agree to that the invasion of US was ok.
Who are US to interfear and attack another country, without
even proving them to be a danger ore even threat to US? - ore
any other country.'

Well the U.S. are the greatest super-power in the world (whatever that means) and they can basically do what they want as long as the end result is more money. It might not be moral, ethical, reasonable or even sane, but if it will get them more money then hey why not? They can of course rig elections, distort and blatantly lie about facts through their media, and count on unflinching support from Britain, whose government is too gutless to stand on its own. After it was found that the reports of WMD in Iraq had been exaggerated, and after everyone in Britain heard about this, it should have been obvious that precise proof of their presence would be the only acceptable reason for Britain going to war. But incredibly Blair went ahead anyway. Even in the face of all the (lack of) evidence and the consternation of the majority of British people, it still happened. How can anyone trust politicians after this? Blair might as well have gone on T.V. and told the British public that he didn't give a fuck about their opinions.

'If we felt Saddam was a threat to freedom and peace...well..North Korea
is just as big a threat. For the human rights..well...wat about China?'

I don't remember reading about Korean or Chinese oil fields recently :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back