BF2S Forums Here's something YOU can do for our Military

dedelus wrote:

Bubbalo, how hard would it be for a country with a nuclear weapon, say Iraq if they ever had gotten one, to put one on a ship, sail it to a major United States port city, and detonate the weapon?  Not even a US port, how about one in Europe, or any where else in the world?

Very, actually.  Cargo ships capable of avoiding top end surveillance gear don't exactly grow on trees, y'know.

dedelus wrote:

Do you even know why we're sending care packages to our soldiers over seas?  becasue they aren't even fighting for us.  They're fighting for the rights of others............ Do you think that if we just pull out and leave the insurgents are just going to do the same?  If you do, you are a f*cking moron.

Right......sure........and you didn't move into Sudan because?

Oh yes, I feel much safer with the US antagonising China.  It's not like I'm worried about the fact that Australia is essentially a Western nation dumped in the East.  Oh no.  Not at all.  Please continue to piss everyone off.  We'll just die quietly in the background.

Bubbalo wrote:

Oh yes, I feel much safer with the US antagonising China.  It's not like I'm worried about the fact that Australia is essentially a Western nation dumped in the East.  Oh no.  Not at all.  Please continue to piss everyone off.  We'll just die quietly in the background.

well i feel safer that the US is antagonising china, stops them from invading my country

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

1 Iraq was the agressor 15 years ago, the resolutions that they agreed to were in place to stop them from being agressive. the fact that they broke and/or ignored the resolutions (peace treaty ) puts them in an agressive posture again.

Actually, they had disposed of all WMDs, as was proven later (and believed at the time by several key weapons inspectors), and defying these sanctions doesn't make them the aggressor.  Threatening to go to war would make them the aggressor.

lowing wrote:

2. Nope, I stand by my statements about the UN, there is no conflict there. The US happened to agree with the resolutions set forth. When they were broken, and the UN failed to act upon it, the US acted to protect US interests and its allies.

But yes there is.  You expect Saddam to do as the UN says and disarm, but the US does not have to abide by the UNs wishes.  If the US is able to go outside the UN provided it does nothing wrong, Iraq ought be able to aswell.  At present, all we know of Iraq doing wrong is related to the oil for food program, and that came out only recently, *and* is hardly basis for militaty intervention.

lowing wrote:

3.Iraq was a threat to US interests and its allies. How can a rogue govt. with a nuke NOT be a threat to the world?? the whole world is currently jumping through hoops because Iran is trying to build nukes. Tell me the difference. I never bashed the Irai army for defending themselves against our attack of their country. In fact I have more respect for them than I do people who will not take a stand for anything and tell the rest of us what we SHOULD be standing for.

Defending Americas interests is alot different from defending America.  Iraq did not have the capability to attack the US, and therefore was not a threat to it.  If I shoot someone who's trying to kill, I can claim self defense.  If I shoot someone because they own a rival business, I cannot.  Same concept.

1. They didn't "go to war".........they resumed it with the violations of the resolutions.

2.The US is not a rouge govt. and therefore does not require babysitting by the UN. Iraq is.

3.violating the "law" as written by the UN and agreed upon by Iraq is not a "rival business" . I don't even know where you got that one.

I served in the Military for 7 years, 2 different branches (Navy and Army).

I also adopted a soldier in Iraq, I met him online prior to his deployment while playing UrT, a Quake 3 mod.  I ended up spending about $400.00 in care packages total.  His troops totally appreciated it and for my efforts I got a genuine Iraqi flag signed by his platoon.  Fortunately he made it back, got married, and is back to gaming.

We never know what is going to happen to our soldiers over there, all we know is that they are there to serve an ideal they believe in, risking their lives to do so every day.  Anything you can do, whether it's paying for their coffee at a diner, or sending a package to them, is miniscule compared to what they are risking and doing for us over there.

If you have it in your hearts to do so, show them you appreciate them by doing something...it doesn't mean you agree with their politics, but rather, that you are letting them know their sacrifice isn't going unnoticed.

Last edited by HM1{N} (2006-05-14 05:35:59)

whittsend wrote:

"We are here to preserve democracy, not to practice it."

Looks like your president forgot that one

why do they have to post that garbage on this thread?  I wanted this to be like the Jerry Lewis telethon where we would band together and raise a few thousand, donate through paypal and bf2s.com to one of the web links listed in my post at the top.

whittsend wrote:

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

whittsend wrote:

"We are here to preserve democracy, not to practice it."

Looks like your president forgot that one

Care to expand on that? 

The context was that of a soldier speaking to a soldier.  Did you take a statement out of context....again?

It's not out of context, it's a context created to push a anti-bush/America view.

Torin wrote:

I'm really no fan of the military, and I'll reserve my opinions on why people go into the military, but if I ever had the opportunity you did to pick up their tab, I would. While I don't agree with their decision to join the Military and never would myself, don't agree with the war they are fighting and the people that command their actions, I do have an un-ending appreciation for what they do. It's a dirty job, someone has to do it, and they are  bigger men for it than I am.

yes they are alot bigger men then you

Bubbalo wrote:

I believe I heard a saying once along the lines of "Sometimes it takes more courage to walk away".  Now, how might that be applicable.  Hmmm.

In a situation where inaction allows you to stay nice and snug and safe in your home, it isn't applicable at all.  The men we are talking about go out of their way to place thier lives in danger for the good of the rest of us.

Your failure to risk ANYTHING for ANYTHING takes no courage whatsoever, and I find it offensive that you imply you have more courage than a soldier who dies for his country.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-19 07:20:40)

whittsend wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

I believe I heard a saying once along the lines of "Sometimes it takes more courage to walk away".  Now, how might that be applicable.  Hmmm.

In a situation where inaction allows you to stay nice and snug and safe in your home, it isn't applicable at all.  The men we are talking about go out of their way to place thier lives in danger for the good of the rest of us.

Your failure to risk ANYTHING for ANYTHING takes no courage whatsoever, and I find it offensive that you imply you have more courage than a soldier who dies for his country.

your soldiers doesnt die for your country tho, they die for bush and the iraq people.

What has this thread become?

please see;    http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=365941#p365941

and for those who MUST turn this in to a anti American rant I say FUCK YOU!!!!