• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

Iraq Pics

Facetious

Moderated
Don't get me wrong, it's great that Saddam was removed and that the Iraqi people have a chance to rebuild their country in freedom but US soldiers were lied to about why they were send to Iraq. The whole world was lied to by Bush and he needs to be held accountable.
I hate to be disagreeable here but it wasn't just bush.

The following used to be posted as an audio link, but as these things go, it was deleted.




Top Democrats Support Attacking Iraq

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to
take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air
and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to
end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From
a letter signed by Joe Lieberman (D), Dianne Feinstein
(D), Barbara A. Milulski (D), Tom Daschle (D), & John
Kerry (D) October 9, 1998.

"This December will mark three years since United
Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no
doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has
reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate
that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.
In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery
systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit
missile program to develop longer- range missiles that
will threaten the United States and our allies." Bob
Graham (D), Joe Lieberman (D), Harold Ford (D), & Tom
Lantos (D) December 6, 2001.

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire
agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered
into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its
weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to
permit monitoring and verification by United Nations
inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of
mass destruction, including chemical and biological
capabilities, and has made positive progress toward
developing nuclear weapons capabilities" Tom Harkin
(D) and Arlen Specter (RINO) July 18, 2002.

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N.
sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not
and we will not let him succeed." Madeline Albright
(D), 1998.

"Saddam will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he
will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since
1983" National Security Adviser Sandy Berger (D), Feb
18, 1998.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to
completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction,
and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its
agreement." Barbara Boxer (D), November 8, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October
of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained
some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons,
and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare
capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he
is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved
nuclear capability." Robert Byrd (D), October 2002.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a
threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons.
He's had those for a long time. But the United States
right now is on a very much different defensive
posture than we were before September 11th of 2001...
He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear
capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads
yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think
our friends in the region would face greatly increased
risks as would we." Wesley Clark (D) on September 26,
2002.

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential
threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation
of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the
past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think
that, over the past four years, in the absence of
international inspectors, this country has continued
armament programs." Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the
very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with
weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or
provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond
today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his
footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." Bill Clinton
(D) in 1998.

"In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and
sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,
though there is apparently no evidence of his
involvement in the terrible events of September 11,
2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed
in that endeavor, he could alter the political and
security landscape of the Middle East, which as we
know all too well affects American security." Hillary
Clinton (D) October 10, 2002.

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I
saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the
inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a
warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and
then moving those trucks out." Clinton's Secretary of
Defense William Cohen (D) in April of 2003.

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess
weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation
with a leader who has used them against his own
people." Tom Daschle (D) 1998.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to
America and our allies, including our vital ally,
Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has
sought weapons of mass destruction through every
available means. We know that he has chemical and
biological weapons. He has already used them against
his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to
build more. We know that he is doing everything he can
to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he
gets closer to achieving that goal." John Edwards (D)
Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is
about national security. It should be clear that our
national security requires Congress to send a clear
message to Iraq and the world: America is united in
its determination to eliminate forever the threat of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." John Edwards (D)
Oct 10, 2002.

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with
Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." Dick
Gephardt (D) in September of 2002.

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of
the Persian Gulf and we should organize an
international coalition to eliminate his access to
weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons
of mass destruction has proven impossible to
completely deter and we should assume that it will
continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore
(D) 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling
evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a
number of years, a developing capacity for the
production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction." Bob Graham (D) December 2002.

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who
is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire
weapons of mass destruction." Jim Jeffords (I) October
8, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is
seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Ted Kennedy (D) September 27, 2002.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a
serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his
pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot
be tolerated. He must be disarmed." Ted Kennedy (D)
Sept 27, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the president of the United
States the authority to use force - if necessary - to
disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is
a real and grave threat to our security." John F.
Kerry (D) Oct 2002.

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It
has been with us since the end of that war, and
particularly in the last 4 years we know after
Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept
them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He
has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these
weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to
lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction
and the issue of proliferation." John F. Kerry (D)
October 9, 2002.

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We
all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is
miscalculating America’s response to his continued
deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction. That is why the world, through the United
Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice,
demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and
disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons
of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has
been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
John F. Kerry (D) Jan 23, 2003.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein
is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of
the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United
Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them." Carl Levin (D) Sept
19, 2002.

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical
weapons, biological weapons, and the development of
nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United
States." Joe Lieberman (D) August, 2002.


"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994,
despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and
dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that
Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various
reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing
nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to
think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has
actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N.
inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about
biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable.
In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and
later, against its own Kurdish population. While
weapons inspections have been successful in the past,
there have been no inspections since the end of 1998.
There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to
pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass
destruction." Patty Murray (D) October 9, 2002.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am
keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and
biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to
all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the
development of weapons of mass destruction technology
which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Nancy Pelosi (D) December 16, 1998.

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on
highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons
inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological
agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium
perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several
dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as
the means to continue manufacturing these deadly
agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the
highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas
and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery
shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And
Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial
infrastructure that can be used to rapidly
reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."
Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter (reg D) in 1998.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is
working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and
will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five
years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain
access to enriched uranium from foreign sources --
something that is not that difficult in the current
world. We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction." John
Rockefeller (D) Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons
capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now.
Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against
Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is
working to develop delivery systems like missiles and
unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly
weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the
Middle East." John Rockefeller (D) Oct 10, 2002.

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the
Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think
there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He
has systematically violated, over the course of the
past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that
has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical
and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the
mandate and authority of international weapons
inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
time against enforcement of the just and legitimate
demands of the United Nations, the Security Council,
the United States and our allies. Those are simply the
facts." Henry Waxman (D) Oct 10, 2002.
 
Don't get me wrong, it's great that Saddam was removed and that the Iraqi people have a chance to rebuild their country in freedom but US soldiers were lied to about why they were send to Iraq. The whole world was lied to by Bush and he needs to be held accountable.

could you please stop grilling the guy about this? he does not CARE. and no one else does here- its not about that. hes sharing some pics from combat duty- can we leave it at that and appriciate him?
 
We don't know that for certain given that tons and tons of yellow cake was found in Iraq (and shipped to Canada IIRC). Just why the bush administration didn't defend his "WMD" cause with the finding of this material puzzles the hell out of me. :confused: Most rational people would agree that the finding of said yellow cake revealed that Sad Huss was well on his way to eventually manufacture nuclear weapons, something clearly in violation of UN Resolution 1441.

This is the third time you've expressed your puzzlement over what you percieve as Bush fumbling the yellow cake ball and this will be the third time I've addressed it. I hope this time you'll see the response.

The reason Bush didn't try to make hay with this issue is because the yellow cake didn't demonstate Saddam's intent to manufacture WMD.

To wit:

The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, document, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a secret cache that was recently discoverd by the U.S. and the yellowcake had not been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades old nuclear reactor projects that had been put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Rose AKA Desert Storm in 1991.

Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts. Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containders since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp
 

jasonk282

Banned
Listen I will say it once and for all. I DON'T CARE IF YOU LIKE BUSH OR NOT, I DON'T CARE IF YOU THINK HE LIED TO THE WORLD OR NOT. All I wanted to do was show some of my pics from my tour of duty in Iraq. I answered the call when MY country needed me. Regardless of the politics I did my duty with Honor and if I had to I would do it all over again.
 

jasonk282

Banned
http://img154.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=98473_Iraq_04_122_391lo.jpg&loc=loc391# Taken outside a Mosque.

http://img200.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=98474_troopers_122_23lo.jpg Scanning for Insurgents

http://img266.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=98822_040116-A-2995R-016_122_436lo.jpg 3rd Squad, me with the SAW ontop the Humvee getting ready to role to a weapons cache, 2 hours later the first Humvee would be hit with an RPG, killing our Capt and Spc.


The names listed below are of the men that were KIA, Killed In Action, during our 14 month tour. All are from Company B. The company that I was in and 2, Spc. Ford, part of my squad and Capt. Kurth, commander of 2nd platoon. It says that they were KIA from explosions. What happened was that Kurth and Ford were in the lead humvee as we left FOB Danger going to the outskirts of Tikrit on a lead that we had on a weapons cache. About 30 minutes enroute our lead humvee gets hit with several RPG's. Me being in the 2nd humvee of the convoy, take cover next to the humvee's and start directing the squad to take a flanking position, while returning fire with my M249 SAW. Unable to flank them and taking heavy hits we eventually call the AH-64's in and pretty much leveled the building that were were reciving fire from.
 
Not gonna get into all that Bush and Iraq War debate, just want to show my appreciation for all the men & women serving for our country in countries aboard. You did all Americans proud with your bravery and valor. :)
 
Listen I will say it once and for all. I DON'T CARE IF YOU LIKE BUSH OR NOT, I DON'T CARE IF YOU THINK HE LIED TO THE WORLD OR NOT. All I wanted to do was show some of my pics from my tour of duty in Iraq. I answered the call when MY country needed me. Regardless of the politics I did my duty with Honor and if I had to I would do it all over again.

Sorry though, life ain't that simple.

I don't doubt that you avoided committing any war crimes or such per se, or doing anything but shooting when you were shot at, firing at known terrorists, etc., but soldiers needn't turn off their moral compass, as Boothbabe mentioned.

It is disingenuous to say "regardless of the politics".

How much credence could one give to a German soldier in WWII with a similar approach to military service?

Should we (or civilian Germans at the time) automatically, reflexively respect him for doing his duty with honor? [NO, I'm not comparing you with the Nazis, I'm just using an extreme example to stir the thought processes] Aren't there some duties that, even when done "by the book" are essentially, inherently, DIShonorable?

If Obama calls you up for active duty to participate in an invasion of Canada because he thinks that the Canadian Prime Minister is THINKING about kidnapping his wife Michelle and tying her up naked and taking naughty photos of her (a pre-emptive strike, if you will), will you just strap on your gear, cuz, hey, it's your duty?

Clearly, your service in the military is NOT "regardless of politics". You must have SOME limit, at which point you will not merely obey your superiors, or the CIC? Surely you can conceive of some war that would not be just, that you would refuse to participate in? (I presume Iraq was not that sort of war to you - or at least, it was morally gray enough that you decided to go with the flow, and gave your leadership the benefit of any doubt)

Personally, I think the Commander-in-Chief (former pres. Bush) and his closest advisors - and not much further down - must be held to account. We invaded a sovereign nation on bogus pretenses that were "sexed up" to sell the war - particularly to Americans, most especially to the soldiers who would be involved. We've wrought a lot of chaos there, brought a lot of death upon the non-terrorist Iraqi civilian population. Describing Iraq as anything akin to genuine democracy is a sad joke. Someone must be culpable, be held responsible for that.

We can't be charging soldiers for their participation in the war (assuming they weren't blatantly murdering civilians, raping, torturing, etc. - that's a different ballgame), many of whom - I think it's safe to include you - are along for the ride, so to speak (describe it as you wish), and are operating under the presumption that whatever their country does, whatever their "CIC" does/says, it must be right, it must be true, it must be correct.
And that sort of soldier, a killing machine with a set of rules for engagement, and little tendency or ability to think critically OR one who's been trained to shut it off, that sort of soldier is just fine during a just war (as is a soldier with a sensitive moral compass and who always thinks critically). The problem is when you've got corrupt and/or malevolent leadership, with political and military motives that aren't simply about "defending the homeland", who have no reluctance to engage their military in an unjust, unlawful conflict. That's when the automaton killing machine soldier presents a problem.

Personally, I don't think the military's involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan has effectively "served" the USA, nor made me or any other citizen one bit safer. If anything, it has probably increased the chances of future attacks of some sort. Yes, of course, that's just an opinion, but so is it when someone says that so-and-so has served, protected, defended, (etc.) America, by being in Iraq or Afghanistan. It isn't some kind of simple fact, like 2+2=4.

:2 cents:
 

jasonk282

Banned
Sorry though, life ain't that simple.

I don't doubt that you avoided committing any war crimes or such per se, or doing anything but shooting when you were shot at, firing at known terrorists, etc., but soldiers needn't turn off their moral compass, as Boothbabe mentioned.

It is disingenuous to say "regardless of the politics".

How much credence could one give to a German soldier in WWII with a similar approach to military service?

Should we (or civilian Germans at the time) automatically, reflexively respect him for doing his duty with honor? [NO, I'm not comparing you with the Nazis, I'm just using an extreme example to stir the thought processes] Aren't there some duties that, even when done "by the book" are essentially, inherently, DIShonorable?

If Obama calls you up for active duty to participate in an invasion of Canada because he thinks that the Canadian Prime Minister is THINKING about kidnapping his wife Michelle and tying her up naked and taking naughty photos of her (a pre-emptive strike, if you will), will you just strap on your gear, cuz, hey, it's your duty?

Clearly, your service in the military is NOT "regardless of politics". You must have SOME limit, at which point you will not merely obey your superiors, or the CIC? Surely you can conceive of some war that would not be just, that you would refuse to participate in? (I presume Iraq was not that sort of war to you - or at least, it was morally gray enough that you decided to go with the flow, and gave your leadership the benefit of any doubt)
Personally, I think the Commander-in-Chief (former pres. Bush) and his closest advisors - and not much further down - must be held to account. We invaded a sovereign nation on bogus pretenses that were "sexed up" to sell the war - particularly to Americans, most especially to the soldiers who would be involved. We've wrought a lot of chaos there, brought a lot of death upon the non-terrorist Iraqi civilian population. Describing Iraq as anything akin to genuine democracy is a sad joke. Someone must be culpable, be held responsible for that.

We can't be charging soldiers for their participation in the war (assuming they weren't blatantly murdering civilians, raping, torturing, etc. - that's a different ballgame), many of whom - I think it's safe to include you - are along for the ride, so to speak (describe it as you wish), and are operating under the presumption that whatever their country does, whatever their "CIC" does/says, it must be right, it must be true, it must be correct.
And that sort of soldier, a killing machine with a set of rules for engagement, and little tendency or ability to think critically OR one who's been trained to shut it off, that sort of soldier is just fine during a just war (as is a soldier with a sensitive moral compass and who always thinks critically). The problem is when you've got corrupt and/or malevolent leadership, with political and military motives that aren't simply about "defending the homeland", who have no reluctance to engage their military in an unjust, unlawful conflict. That's when the automaton killing machine soldier presents a problem.

Personally, I don't think the military's involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan has effectively "served" the USA, nor made me or any other citizen one bit safer. If anything, it has probably increased the chances of future attacks of some sort. Yes, of course, that's just an opinion, but so is it when someone says that so-and-so has served, protected, defended, (etc.) America, by being in Iraq or Afghanistan. It isn't some kind of simple fact, like 2+2=4.

:2 cents:


WTF I really just wanted to show off some pics of what I did but everyones has to get a political.

Ask a ww2 vet and they have LOTS of respect for the german soldiers they fought aganist. My grandfather untill 2002 went to Bastone every year with his unit, 17th airborne, and meet with the german soldiers that they fought aganist and tell old stories, sound like respect to me.

The DISHORONABLE duties as you call they are crimes aganist the military, so doing it by the book is not dishoronable. Thats like saying some company policies are in place so they can fire you.

Being a SNCO ( Senior Non-Commission Officer) e-6 I am on a perment reenlistment, meaning that I can re enlist at any time and to any service. Being called back into service is the draft and we don;t do that anymore.

Let's get to the obeying orders, you see in the military there is a strict chain
of command so when an order is given there is no deciding huh do I really want to do this. You do it because it's an order period no questions asked. You can not have "free thinkers" running around when shit hits that fan thats how people DIE. If I tell someone to give covering fire to a certian area when during fire and manunver and they decide to not do it, then several people will be wounded and/or killed. Point being there is no gray its black or white. We are told where to go and we go and do our job as professionals.

I guess your right cause over the Millions of weapons cache we found and destroyed not to mentiopn all the bomb making equipment we have destroyed really served no purpose at all.

Blantly murdering, raping and torturing WTF. Your right we are just driving through Baghdad like Crips looking for Bloods to kill. We just snatch anyone off the streets and detain them for months and god look out if there is a fine looking woman, just pull the hummer over and fuck her on the street.

GHod I really hope your not American, and if you are you should have been aline in the 60's protesting my baby kill father in vietnam!
 

Marlo Manson

Hello Sexy girl how your Toes doing?
Thanx for the awesome pix & the insight on this Iraq situation. very surreal if I may say so. well be safe & stay alive soldier. :bowdown::hatsoff:
 

Ace Bandage

The one and only.
I did my duty and proudly served my country and that is all that I care about.

:hatsoff: You, along with all the other troops, have my eternal gratitude. I don't know how often you hear it (probably not enough), but thank you!
 
WTF I really just wanted to show off some pics of what I did but everyones has to get a political.

Ask a ww2 vet and they have LOTS of respect for the german soldiers they fought aganist. My grandfather untill 2002 went to Bastone every year with his unit, 17th airborne, and meet with the german soldiers that they fought aganist and tell old stories, sound like respect to me.

The DISHORONABLE duties as you call they are crimes aganist the military, so doing it by the book is not dishoronable. Thats like saying some company policies are in place so they can fire you.

Being a SNCO ( Senior Non-Commission Officer) e-6 I am on a perment reenlistment, meaning that I can re enlist at any time and to any service. Being called back into service is the draft and we don;t do that anymore.

Let's get to the obeying orders, you see in the military there is a strict chain
of command so when an order is given there is no deciding huh do I really want to do this. You do it because it's an order period no questions asked. You can not have "free thinkers" running around when shit hits that fan thats how people DIE. If I tell someone to give covering fire to a certian area when during fire and manunver and they decide to not do it, then several people will be wounded and/or killed. Point being there is no gray its black or white. We are told where to go and we go and do our job as professionals.

I guess your right cause over the Millions of weapons cache we found and destroyed not to mentiopn all the bomb making equipment we have destroyed really served no purpose at all.

Blantly murdering, raping and torturing WTF. Your right we are just driving through Baghdad like Crips looking for Bloods to kill. We just snatch anyone off the streets and detain them for months and god look out if there is a fine looking woman, just pull the hummer over and fuck her on the street.

GHod I really hope your not American, and if you are you should have been aline in the 60's protesting my baby kill father in vietnam!

You clearly didn't read my post very carefully. Either that or you just didn't comprehend what I was saying. :dunno:
 

jasonk282

Banned
Thanks Jason. You keep that machine clean - in the very first pic! Quite a feat in that heat.

LOL thanks the pic was taken the day we arrived in Iraq so it has not see combat yet.
 
You have no free will in the military. If you never served you will never understand. No matter what my morals are when the bullets start flying I am shooting back. I am proud of what I did and would do it again. You never know how you will act unless your in that sistuation. I have seen soldier's come in talking all kinds of trash about how big and bad they are, only to break down and cry for momma when the shit hits that fan.

I fell that I did my duty and got my squad and men under my command home safe and sounds with just a few purple hearts going out. That my friend is all that I care about the saftey of me and my men.

Nicely said. Thanks to you and all our soldiers who have lived and died to serve our country and protect freedom throughout the world.
 

Facetious

Moderated
If Obama calls you up for active duty to participate in an invasion of Canada because he thinks that the Canadian Prime Minister is THINKING about kidnapping his wife Michelle and tying her up naked and taking naughty photos of her (a pre-emptive strike, if you will), will you just strap on your gear, cuz, hey, it's your duty?
Oh, yeah right :1orglaugh Into the penalty box for good with your condescending foaming at the mouth hypotheticals and demagoguery. :theboot: :D
IMO, you had some decent points to debate in another thread but you lost your cred revealing your true and complete contempt for the Armed Forces of the United States of America with the above ^ i.e. geesh !

Please do step down from "your " lectern of radical pompous assery and self examine some of your own perceptions why dontcha ?
 
Oh, yeah right :1orglaugh Into the penalty box for good with your condescending foaming at the mouth hypotheticals and demagoguery. :theboot: :D
IMO, you had some decent points to debate in another thread but you lost your cred revealing your true and complete contempt for the Armed Forces of the United States of America with the above ^ i.e. geesh !

Please do step down from "your " lectern of radical pompous assery and self examine some of your own perceptions why dontcha ?

"True and complete contempt for the Armed Forces..." - please.

That is utterly false, and if you had any intellectual honesty you'd admit it. I respect the Armed Forces, and the individuals who comprise it.

I don't respect bad leaders who ABUSE the armed forces by sending them in on pre-emptive, elective, unnecessary wars of questionable legality. I also think individual soldiers should, regarding the conflicts they are sent in on, do some independent ethical & moral contemplation, and not just fall lazily back on the "just following orders", "I have no choice" excuses.

A good family friend died from an IED in Iraq, so spare me your b.s., Facetious. :thefinger
 
Top