warhawk

@MarkL. This is one statement I can not to this day understand. If it was for oil don't you think that the US would pick a country that provides more than just the measely 2% of the oil it imports? And if it is truely about oil then I guess you would be forced to admit that France's stance against the war is based on the same premise since they have a 40 billion dollar contract with Hussien for oil. Stout Hearts Warhawk

My question is when is Rosie O'Donnell and Alec Bladwin's plane leave? After all they said they would leave the country if Bush was elected why not send them over to Iraq as "human sheilds"? Stout Hearts Warhawk

Some one give piccolo a cigar. With reguards to Germany in 1938, no it wasn't too strong yet. The fact of the matter was is that no one wanted to fight another war with Germany and they mistakenly thought that appeasement was the way to go. It was the concept of avoid war at all costs. When is pretty much the same task that France, among others, are trying to take yet again. It's quite simple budgie some people don't learn from past mistakes. Stout Hearts Warhawk

Well I can't believe I am about to do this but I must I just heard today on CNN that one of Turkey's request is to be able to put troops far enough into Iraq so as to stem the flow of refugee's. I stand corrected Budgie I was wrong. And I think the US is wrong if they give into this demand. Stout Hearts Warhawk

@budgie I am sorry to say that you are mistaken on this. I did my Senior Mid Term Essay (high school) on this very subject. Prior to 1939 Hitler could have no more stood up to the French Army than I could go to the moon now. And it just wasn't Frances fault for this either. Every other major country of time sat back and did nothing while Hitler went about violating every term and condition set out by the Treaty of Versailles. Secondly when France surrendered to Germany in World War Two the government that was set up to run France by the French was pro Nazi. This is a fact. The F

I think the following quote from budgie sums up what most people do, who are on the side of gun control laws, when they run out of facts they resort to sterotypes, unfounded facts and sometimes even name calling (in reference to Bill Mahr). and @budgie Am I to take that this is a shot at the United States and it's policy towards Iraq? Or am I stretching a bit? Just want to make sure before I go off on some unfounded tangent. In case the rest of you are wondering what I meant by my shot at Bill Mahr (I am not sure if I am spelling his last name correct, he was the

I will repeat this again as I think it is worth doing so. (No I am trying to act all high and mighty). This issue over gun control in the states, with those that I have talked to who are against gun control, is not so much about not being able to own "any" weapon they want rather it is more about not having the government tell them what they can and can't own. It's about an individuals right to own private property. There is also another school of thought too. Don't let the government take away one freedom because what will be next? Freedom of speech? Freedom of assembly? Keep in min

@terp09 Not everyone has the amount of responsibility to own a car either and they are just as deadly. In some cases more so and yet any 16 year old can drive one. That is not to say that all 16 year olds are terrible drivers some older ones are even worse. The fight against gun control isn't so much about allowing people to own whatever firearm they want as it is about the right to own property. People don't need SUV's but they can have them because it is their right. We should apply this to people who want to own cars too then. Because a drunk behind the wheel of say a F

@Budgie Am I to understand that you are under the misconception that Turkey will be sending in forces inside Iraq? If so, let me remind you that the help Turkey will be providing is bases for US Forces to use in any invasion of Iraq. That's it. No ground troops. Too many Arab countries would have a major problem with this and the US knows this. That wouldn't do much to ensure the soverenity of Iraq would it? Stout Hearts Warhawk

@firefly Serving in the military helps a great deal. But yes some can be bought and legally I might add. Depends on what variant you get and what hoops you are willing to jump through to get some of them. Contrary to popular belief it is not illegal to own a fully auto weapon. In order to do so though you have to have a federal firearms permit, in the US mind you, to do so. Stout Hearts Warhawk

@300mag Yeah right! I have fired several different types inlcuding M16/M203, M60, .270, .243, 30.06,30.30, .303, .45, .40, .44, .357, .22, and serveral different guage shotguns from Weatherby, Remmington and Moosburg. Just to name a few. And no I don't belong to a militia either. Being a firm believer in the second admendment of the US Constitution I have tried to lay my hands on as many weapons as possible. But I'm not a gun nut. Not in the traditional sense anyways. Stout Hearts Warhawk

Yes I have. Have you? Well if you don't mind me saying so, that question is irrelevant... but the answer is no, not yet. @pyro You made the question relevent by asking me the same in the first place. Since you have yet to serve your country I would prefer that you not question my service record, rather I would prefer a thank you instead. A thank you for helping to ensure that you have the right to voice your opinion for one thing. It is such a simple thing that those of us who have served do not seem to take for granted. Everything that both you and I enjoy to this day is g

It is always nice to see a post where all you have to say is......... Enough Said Stout Hearts Warhawk

@pyro Yes I have. Have you? When people start talking about how collateral damage should be avoided. And yet I wonder what these same people would say about the US, who in World War II, for example, fire bombed Tokyo. Or how about how the British and Germans carpet bombed each others capitials. It's not like that is what is being done now. If Saddam builds military installations in urban areas then civilian deaths will be unavoidable. Just because the US and her allies use "smart bombs" does not mean that they will not somehow magically not hurt civilians. And not targeting

I received the following from someone I know just tonight. While I cannot positively confirm that what is stated below was said by the person quoted, I can say that I found myself saying ( at serveral different points ) "you got that right". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Provided by Joe Galloway, author of We Were Soldiers Once, and Young and is posted as an item of possible interest. This one is definitely NOT tongue in cheek. Sig, the author, was a teen-aged Marine who marched and fought as a rifleman to and from

@pyro First off to the last part of this statement. There is not one serviceman (or woman) who does not know the dangers of signing up for military service. They are in the service of their own free will. If they don't want to be or don't expect to be put in harms way then they are in the wrong line of work. That is not to say that I think that they should be thrown to the wolves over some stupid reason. But I hardly call Saddam a stupid reason. Terrorist like Usama have no problems with innocent men, women and children (be they Islamic or otherwise) being killed. Especia

@Pyro. Something puzzle's me here. In your response to Viper's last post you said: The thing that puzzle's me is you say you are against the war in Iraq because you want to protect it's people. Hmmm. Lets see, Saddam in defying the numerous UN resolutions keeps sanctions on his country that end up causing people to go hungry for instance. As if this isn't enough he also is known to excute anyone who speaks against him. Take his own son-in-law for example. You know who I am referring to. The one that defected and spilled the beans about his chemical/biological weapons programs

The "thousand yard stare" was a euphaism used during the vietnam war to denote someone who had seen too much combat. It was said that they were looking out ahead for enemies everywhere they were. Or so this is how it was explained to me. Those who know different may correct me as necessary. Stout Hearts Warhawk

@pyro The whole problem with this is, that according the UN Resolution 687 Iraq had only 90 days to do this. So why did it even take seven years? They should have been through with "weapons removal" long before then and would have had Saddam done what he was suppose to do. Why is it so hard to comprehend that if he hasn't complied by now he isn't going too. Stout Hearts Warhawk

@budgie We are not saying the UN is irrelevant at this point and time. What we are saying is that it is darn close to being irrelevant. The thing of it is, is it shouldn't take any pressure from the US to force Iraq to do what it is suppose to. It isn't just the responsibilty of the US or the UK to do this. It's the UN's responsibilty. That means all the countries represented have to stand united in holding Iraq to it's word. Otherwise what good is all the resolutions that they have passed. So you are saying that we should just forget about all it's failures? They sudd

@Pyro I would be very interested in hearing what your solution to the current crisis would be. Excluding the methods that have been tried already because quite frankly they haven't worked. If you can come up with an alternative like that to war I am sure I am not the only one who would like to hear it. Stout Hearts Warhawk

@budgie The following quote was taken out of another post of yours on a different thread. I brought it here to answer it in the proper place. So then we should give him more time? More time to let his people suffer under the UN sanctions that are meant to hurt and cripple him? If we allow Saddam to "run around trying to cover up his WMD's" then why bother in the first place with the resolutions demanding him to disarm? Why bother with sanctions to "keep him from getting more"? Why waste everyone's time with stuff that isn't worth the paper it's printed on? If this is the course

@budgie This is something that I can speak with some, please note the word some, authority on. The current government of Canada has spent the last approxiamtely the last eight years systematically underfunding it's military. The are still using aging Sea King helicopters as one example. Another is a complete debacle on the purchase of several submarines from Great Britian. Their military had to catch a lift to Afghanistan when the government sent troops there and once there they had to borrow desert cammo uniforms. Now I am not saying that the Canadian military can not do it's job

While non of my post have said the French Government, on France or the French, I do realize that it is the government that does make the policy. I do realize that the government is the one that is causing the problems. However it does seem from what I am seeing on t.v. that the people support their government in it's cause. Therefore that is why I haven't made that distinction between the government of france and it's people. Stout Hearts Warhawk

@budgie Since you want to bring it up yes lets look at it. The US was reluctant to enter into the frey over Yugoslavia. Look who was president then. Non other than King draft dodger himself. When the US did take a look at what the French tried to do to one particular serviceman. If you don't know what I am talking about rent the movie "Behind Enemy Lines". Just one more reason for me to dislike France. Stout Hearts Warhawk