Seems like John has an issue with this Iraq report.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
Ooh..
Last edited by التعريفات (2006-12-07 20:02:51)
Well, that I can agree with... It's not like having 3,000 of our soldiers killed makes our situation any better.Spearhead wrote:
Well, yes, I actually agree with you in your last paragraph......Turquoise wrote:
I actually agree with PureFodder. Invading Iraq has truly gotten the attention of the terrorists of the region. They attack our soldiers because they are sitting ducks, since flying all the way here is much more difficult and expensive.Spearhead wrote:
Pure. F*cking. Bullshit.
The important thing to keep in mind is that most of these terrorists just want us out of Iraq. If we leave, they won't follow, because they'll be too busy killing other Iraqis.
It's just, I get so tired of people saying "The only reason we don't have any attacks HERE, is because our soldiers are over there".
Oh boy, you know what we haven't been attacked? They have been busy with our troops, and just because we leave won't mean that they won't follow. I think it's better to have soldiers trained to fight be the ones getting shot at rather than some civilian getting blow to hell on a regurlar day of work.Turquoise wrote:
Well, that I can agree with... It's not like having 3,000 of our soldiers killed makes our situation any better.Spearhead wrote:
Well, yes, I actually agree with you in your last paragraph......Turquoise wrote:
I actually agree with PureFodder. Invading Iraq has truly gotten the attention of the terrorists of the region. They attack our soldiers because they are sitting ducks, since flying all the way here is much more difficult and expensive.
The important thing to keep in mind is that most of these terrorists just want us out of Iraq. If we leave, they won't follow, because they'll be too busy killing other Iraqis.
It's just, I get so tired of people saying "The only reason we don't have any attacks HERE, is because our soldiers are over there".
I'm sure the Iraqi people would agree with you. Sucks to be them, doesn't it?Miller wrote:
Oh boy, you know what we haven't been attacked? They have been busy with our troops, and just because we leave won't mean that they won't follow. I think it's better to have soldiers trained to fight be the ones getting shot at rather than some civilian getting blow to hell on a regurlar day of work.Turquoise wrote:
Well, that I can agree with... It's not like having 3,000 of our soldiers killed makes our situation any better.Spearhead wrote:
Well, yes, I actually agree with you in your last paragraph......
It's just, I get so tired of people saying "The only reason we don't have any attacks HERE, is because our soldiers are over there".
I understand where you're coming from, but America isn't any safer from what we've done to Iraq. If you specifically are referring to our civilians though, I guess you could say we're safer.