Shovelhead

I'm 51.
If they need a straight shooting Comm guy, I'll be available.

crobtex

Already tried, but they said I was a little too old.

bama

along this line of thinking,does this mean we need to also invade north korea,china,india,iran,syria,and i figure i missed a few that also have nuc capabilities??and im sure a few airplanes(whether buried or not)........where do we draw the line exactly?.........if iran and syria were worse than iraq as we are all being told daily now,why didnt we go there?.............."you are either with me,or you are my enemy".....quote from george?funny,also quote from anakin skywalker,as he went to the dark side as vader.......ever watched that?you knew he was completely insane as soon as you heard that.................bama

Begle1

By invading Iraq, we placed 100,000 troops and enough firepower to level any other country on Earth within striking distance of Iran, Syria, and the rest of the obnoxious Middle Eastern countries that we have to live with. (Not India; India is, in my opinion, a true ideological ally, and a very important one against a totalitarian China.)

The idea is plain-old, classic, vanilla projection of influence. We just had to invade one country, and then we make the rest of the area afraid to do anything stupid, because we could kick their butts' easily without going through troubles with logistics and deployment.

We invaded Iraq because we had the excuses that made us look less imperialistic; we could cite that we were enforcing the UN's mandates, and that we were spreading freedom, and preventing nuclear proliferation, and yadda yadda yadda. But those were just the excuses; the reasons for invading Iraq have to do with safegaurding our interests in the region, mainly oil.

And I support such imperialism 100%. Although, I believe it could be made much more mutially beneficial than it is now. I don't believe that the Kurds, for instance, are ever going to be "Iraqi's". And I fail to see why we don't allow the sects to divide themselves into three countries. There may be a migration like what happened between India and Pakistan/ Bangledesh, but I don't think it'd be that bad. And that way a country would have something to loose when it's citizens blow up an opposing holy site; it'd be like Hamas vs. Israel; government has a reason to try to prevent terror, because if they don't they get missiles up their butt.

I just hope we don't end up propping up a dictator. That never works worth a darn for us, you know?

PS. I'm still draft age, I wouldn't protest to being drafted at all.

Geico266

Katmanwannbe,

I enlisted for service during the Nam thing, and I'd go again. Just as long as you stay home. Your disrespect of our commander in chief during a time of war is reprehensible, and unfitting of continued service in any military I would want to be a part of.

bama

geico,,you appear to be downing kat and his 20 years service,is that the intent here?....20 years,and somehow you down him?........this disturbs me,please explain if i am misunderstanding you........bama

Shovelhead

And meanwhile, back at the ranch.........yet another politically themed thread goes down the porcelain pooper......

Begle1

But, but, he has 20 years of active duty service, and, but, he enlisted in Vietnam...


Kind of gives you an impression of the mentality that allows campaign after campaign in this country to turn into mudslinging and wedge-issue mediocrity. Makes you kind of think that the lack of depth in the American government has something to do with an underlying problem with the people in general...

MCMLV

...OUCH...

phox_mulder

Yup, I do believe it has.

I'm in a locking mood this evening.

The other politically themed threads, watch out, here I come.


phox