I was wrong...we are failing in Iraq...

[Proud Infidel]

I am not sure I agree. If we had support of the 27 million Iraqi's, it would seem to me that it would be a lot easier for us to track down the 20-30,000 who are engaged in fighting us.

What does your disagreeing have to do with the context of what I wrote? Try reading what I wrote again and get back to me. Thanks.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

OK, I re-read it.

I took your previous quote to indicate that you think a vast majority of the 27 million Iraqis are on our side, and only a small fraction, the 20-30 thousand you mention, are not.

Is that what you meant? Or am i misinterpretting it?

 

[mercedesrules]

(TaurusCIA) link......the oath that immigrants take ...

(MR) ...every little baby that is born in the current USA

Read my sig. I am not talking legalese; I'm making the point that it is immoral to proclaim that each person born anywhere owes a debt to the state. I'll defend my person, family, land, property and neighbors from imminent threats.

MR

 

[Proud Infidel]

Is that what you meant? Or am i misinterpretting it?

The latter.

I was responding to the sentence "The Iraqis are trying to fight off a superior invading force." Which contains no modifiers to suggest anything other than ALL Iraqis trying to fight off the Americans. I said nothing with regard to whether or not the remaining Iraqis - minus the pathetically small number of scum ambushing civilians - are on "our side."

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Requirements for community service such as that found in the oath of citizenship and that some States have adpoted for H.S. students have passed muster from SCOTUS over involuntary servitude objections.

 

[bountyhunter]

w4rma:

The original proclamation did not mention the Taliban. That bit was added in later by one of your typical shrill, anti-American leftists. It's very sad to see anyone stoop so low as to post a doctored version of this proclamation when the original is easially available.

Perhaps if you did a little reading in serious history from time to time instead of just doing the type of shallow, uninformed cut and paste of the leftist propaganda sites you frequent, you would know that the Taliban did not come into existance untill the mid 1990's, and therefore the Reagan procalamation of 1983 could not possibly have mentioned them.
:

Perhaps you should review history, because it would inform you that none other than Reagan both supported, armed, and groomed Saddam Hussein as the US enforcer in the region. Hussein was a Murdering Thug in Good Standing with the Reagan admin for his fine work in slaughtering Iranians, both as revenge for their arrogant seizure of US hostages and the threat that Iran posed in spreading islamic fundamentalism. Times change, but going back in time to find a president to blame invariably shows the great Republican heroes were blind fools as well as the Democrats.

 

[TaurusCIA]

Thug in Good Standing...

I agree that the US government has often chosen what it considers to be the lesser of 'X' evils when it was perceived to be in our strategic interest. Kind of like the way we elect our government officials.

 

[TheLastBoyScout]

As far as the upper classes go, they don't tend to join the infantry. They tend to find positions in the Fed, the IMF, corporations that receive large tax subsidies etc.

How high up does one have to be to become your "upper class"?

My mother is a politician. Before that she was a lawyer who argued before the US Supreme Court. My father was the CFO of an investment firm before the economy went south, and is now working as a consultant. I have been educated in private schools- K-11 so far.

Why does this matter?

Because right now I'm busting my butt to get into USNA, and from there into the USMC, INFANTRY in particular, because I want to be on the tip of the spear with the best my country has to offer.

Class has nothing to do with it. If anything, the military is an elevating force as far as socio-economic status goes in this country (both of my grandfathers were only able to go to college with the help of GI Bill benefits). Its a far cry from the "slave mercenary" force you mentioned earlier.

 

[longeyes]

Without "duty to country" we just might be a number of peaceful people living in north america.

I think someone needs to do a bit more reading about the rough edges of tribalism, both on this continent and elsewhere.

 

[mercedesrules]

(Longeyes) I think someone needs to do a bit more reading about the rough edges of tribalism, both on this continent and elsewhere.

Tribes kill dozens; governments kill millions.

MR

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Tribes kill dozens; governments kill millions.

True, to a point. In a very broad sense. Let's be specific. When has the modern US killed millions? Are you equating the US to Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Do you think this country would be as powerful if we were nothing more than tribes? We would be annexed by Canada

Get real.

 

[Drjones]

Boo Hoo! The invention of the "country" was a bad idea. They are always fighting each other.

Without "duty to country" we just might be a number of peaceful people living in north america. Do you contend that every little baby that is born in the current USA is saddled with an obligation to serve a group of strangers in Washington, D.C.?

Riiiiiiight.....people only fight because of the concept of "countries."

Just like guns cause violence, right?

 

[TaurusCIA]

Tribes kill dozens

But they kill them more often. Just look at the tribal issues in 2nd and 3rd world countries. Constant fighting over land and lineage...a real paradise of personal freedoms...right?

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

bountyhunter wrote:

Perhaps you should review history, because it would inform you that none other than Reagan both supported, armed, and groomed Saddam Hussein as the US enforcer in the region. Hussein was a Murdering Thug in Good Standing with the Reagan admin for his fine work in slaughtering Iranians, both as revenge for their arrogant seizure of US hostages and the threat that Iran posed in spreading islamic fundamentalism. Times change, but going back in time to find a president to blame invariably shows the great Republican heroes were blind fools as well as the Democrats.

LMAO. You're trying pretty desperately to bring me down a peg here. The reason why you fail is that you are trying to put words in my mouth that I never said, and then attempt to criticize me for them. Are you self-medicating again? LOL.

At no point have I defended the Reagan Administration's handling of US-Iraq relations. I have no need to review the history of the period because, unlike you, I lived through it and I am well aware of what transpired.

My comments in this forum regarding US assistance to Iraq during the 1980's have been limited to asking the strident, shrill leftists to provide some proof of their allegation that Reagan approved sales of chemical weapons and precoursers to Iraq during the period. Something which you, w4rma, and others have been unable to do as yet.

w4rma made himself look very foolish earlier in this thread by posting a doctored copy of a Reagan era proclamation. As a result, he demonstrated a very great lack of knowledge about the subject of the Taliban. He clearly didn't know that the Taliban didn't come into existance untill the early 1990's and therefore the Reagan proclamation of 1983 couldn't have mentioned them. But he's a big boy, how about you let him take his lumps himself instead of making yourself look equally foolish in defending him by undertaking the type of cheap tactics you used in your post to me.

 

[RGR]

No, a haven for those who harbor obvious anti-American sentiment.

Haven. n. A place of refuge or rest; a sanctuary.

This place hardly qualifies as a "haven" for anyone who dares criticize the Fatherland.

 

[RealGun]

Trolling

Be careful not to justify trolling. The thread started out pretty positive in my opinion. It's okay to be critical, but there then is a burden to have an alternative suggestion with some apparent merit. Simply dropping little negative bombs here and there, going against the grain, is trolling, plain and simple.

 

[TheBluesMan]

Actually, this thread has devolved into beating the proverbial deceased equine.

Closed.