Last edited by ATG (2007-07-11 13:15:38)
I believe he was thinking about the men under his command.usmarine2007 wrote:
Having survived two wars, I cannot imagine what was going thru his mind when he jumped on a grenade.
Afghan and IraqATG wrote:
I believe he was thinking about the men under his command.usmarine2007 wrote:
Having survived two wars, I cannot imagine what was going thru his mind when he jumped on a grenade.
Not everyone in war makes the bonds of brotherhood the writers talk about.
GW1 & GW2 Marine?
Props my brotha.
North Korea is more a threat to the world than all the country in the entire middle east combined (except ISRAEL). Why are you not taking care of that crazy NUCLEAR state?ATG wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070111/ids_photos_ts/r3828336413.jpg
President Bush is virtually alone.
He sees himself as like Winston Churchill in 1932. He was telling the whole world that Adolf Hitler was a threat to the entire world and he had to be dealt with. That is what Bush is doing now.
Many apparent fumbling in the Iraq situation attributed to Bush are actually situations brought about by internal politics here in America. See, the democrats are willing to have the United States suffer a military defeat in the Middle East as long as it can be laid at the feet of the current president.
I will never forgive them for this.
My issues with Bush have to do with border policy, for the most part.
I have raged because we are doing nothing, or so it seems. But maybe, we are doing all that can be done, what with the gaggle of idiots in Washington, aka the loyal democratic party, loyal that is to nothing but opposition.
Empty headed fools.
lol?....[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
North Korea is more a threat to the world than all the country in the entire middle east combined (except ISRAEL). Why are you not taking care of that crazy NUCLEAR state?ATG wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070111/ids_photos_ts/r3828336413.jpg
President Bush is virtually alone.
He sees himself as like Winston Churchill in 1932. He was telling the whole world that Adolf Hitler was a threat to the entire world and he had to be dealt with. That is what Bush is doing now.
Many apparent fumbling in the Iraq situation attributed to Bush are actually situations brought about by internal politics here in America. See, the democrats are willing to have the United States suffer a military defeat in the Middle East as long as it can be laid at the feet of the current president.
I will never forgive them for this.
My issues with Bush have to do with border policy, for the most part.
I have raged because we are doing nothing, or so it seems. But maybe, we are doing all that can be done, what with the gaggle of idiots in Washington, aka the loyal democratic party, loyal that is to nothing but opposition.
Empty headed fools.
Sorry but the democrats are the good guys in your country. Bring back Clinton.. at least he was having fun in the white house and nobody got killed
Check your facts son.[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
Sorry but the democrats are the good guys in your country. Bring back Clinton.. at least he was having fun in the white house and nobody got killed
Most people do not take the time to thank guys like you.usmarine2007 wrote:
Afghan and IraqATG wrote:
I believe he was thinking about the men under his command.usmarine2007 wrote:
Having survived two wars, I cannot imagine what was going thru his mind when he jumped on a grenade.
Not everyone in war makes the bonds of brotherhood the writers talk about.
GW1 & GW2 Marine?
Props my brotha.
The total disaster in Iraq is because of the dems?ATG wrote:
Many apparent fumbling in the Iraq situation attributed to Bush are actually situations brought about by internal politics here in America. See, the democrats are willing to have the United States suffer a military defeat in the Middle East as long as it can be laid at the feet of the current president.
I will never forgive them for this.
Maybe if Bubba would have been more aggressive with the UN to enforce the conditions of the cease fire........who knows.BN wrote:
The total disaster in Iraq is because of the dems?ATG wrote:
Many apparent fumbling in the Iraq situation attributed to Bush are actually situations brought about by internal politics here in America. See, the democrats are willing to have the United States suffer a military defeat in the Middle East as long as it can be laid at the feet of the current president.
I will never forgive them for this.
I dont know who bubba is. Bush should have removed him in gulf war version 1.0.usmarine2007 wrote:
Maybe if Bubba would have been more aggressive with the UN to enforce the conditions of the cease fire........who knows.BN wrote:
The total disaster in Iraq is because of the dems?ATG wrote:
Many apparent fumbling in the Iraq situation attributed to Bush are actually situations brought about by internal politics here in America. See, the democrats are willing to have the United States suffer a military defeat in the Middle East as long as it can be laid at the feet of the current president.
I will never forgive them for this.
how is he attempting to tie george bush to that mans act?Bubbalo wrote:
Wow. You accuse me of having respect for those fighting the wars, yet you shamelessly attempt to tie George Bush to this man's act. You attempt to glorify a man who's never seen combat, through associating him with a man whom he's never met, who may have disagreed with everything he said. I'd comment further, but I suspect it would just fall on deaf ears.
Bubba is Clinton.BN wrote:
I dont know who bubba is. Bush should have removed him in gulf war version 1.0.usmarine2007 wrote:
Maybe if Bubba would have been more aggressive with the UN to enforce the conditions of the cease fire........who knows.BN wrote:
The total disaster in Iraq is because of the dems?
Bush 2.0 has had an open chequebook, very little oversight and the help of several other nations and he still cant get it right.
I am not a supporter of the dem but you cannot blame them.
What relationship is there between George Bush and Jason Dunham?Parker wrote:
how is he attempting to tie george bush to that mans act?Bubbalo wrote:
Wow. You accuse me of having respect for those fighting the wars, yet you shamelessly attempt to tie George Bush to this man's act. You attempt to glorify a man who's never seen combat, through associating him with a man whom he's never met, who may have disagreed with everything he said. I'd comment further, but I suspect it would just fall on deaf ears.
he is the CINC. that is his job.
the medal of honor was awarded at the white house....im not sure if your aware of this or not, but that is where george bush lives, eats, sleeps etc.Bubbalo wrote:
What relationship is there between George Bush and Jason Dunham?Parker wrote:
how is he attempting to tie george bush to that mans act?Bubbalo wrote:
Wow. You accuse me of having respect for those fighting the wars, yet you shamelessly attempt to tie George Bush to this man's act. You attempt to glorify a man who's never seen combat, through associating him with a man whom he's never met, who may have disagreed with everything he said. I'd comment further, but I suspect it would just fall on deaf ears.
he is the CINC. that is his job.
None. Yet ATG is glorifying George Bush using Jason Dunham's death.
The Medal of Honor is traditionally presented by the President.Bubbalo wrote:
What relationship is there between George Bush and Jason Dunham?Parker wrote:
how is he attempting to tie george bush to that mans act?Bubbalo wrote:
Wow. You accuse me of having respect for those fighting the wars, yet you shamelessly attempt to tie George Bush to this man's act. You attempt to glorify a man who's never seen combat, through associating him with a man whom he's never met, who may have disagreed with everything he said. I'd comment further, but I suspect it would just fall on deaf ears.
he is the CINC. that is his job.
None. Yet ATG is glorifying George Bush using Jason Dunham's death.
Last edited by imortal (2007-01-11 20:17:29)
thats the problem, we need to give no justificaton.Bubbalo wrote:
So? He presented a medal. Big whoop. ATG is using that to justify his waging a war. The discrepency between the title and the content of the first post is evidence enough.
And no, I have never made a point whilst honouring heroes. At best, I was honouring heroes to make a point, assuming you took what I said seriously.
Of course. That's politics. The Republicans would do the very same if roles were reversed. The thing is, having a technical military defeat in Iraq now is better than when the death toll reaches unimaginable heights. I don't see how the US forces can achieve a victory, not because of the faults of the soldiers or high command, but because there are no terms of victory. When Saddam is captured? Done, still no end to the war. When the country is controlled, (to use a term loosly,) by Coalition forces? Done, still no end. When Iraq is peaceful and free? No amount of force will achieve this - who determines when Iraq achieves these things? Regardless I don't see how it is going to happen any time soon in Iraq anyway.ATG wrote:
See, the democrats are willing to have the United States suffer a military defeat in the Middle East as long as it can be laid at the feet of the current president.