Thread Tools
Apr 18, 2016, 11:01 AM
Registered User
rockyboy2's Avatar
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny McGhee
The most advanced and well equipped military in the world, taking on a dirt poor 3rd world country that had no real ability to fight back is not what I consider "real hero stuff".

But hey, if it makes you feel all patriotic and proud, then go for it.
Here is the the deal Sonny , my " hero" is the young American who probably joined the military to get college money and then finds him self in a "Kill or be Killed " situation , he is still here and so are guys he saved . In no way was i making a "statement" about US foreign policy , why would you jump 500 miles past the point of the post ? Aaa , never mind , think i know .
Apr 18, 2016, 11:31 AM
Registered User
rockyboy2's Avatar
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty1000
Do you have any accounts of Iraqi troops who you would say are "heroes" for having killed invading US, Australian or British troops?




Or is your definition of "hero" completely subjective?
Did i say the young man was a "hero" for killing people ? He is a hero in my view for staying alive and saving lives .
Apr 18, 2016, 11:37 AM
Flower of Scotland
Dusty1000's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyboy2
Did i say the young man was a "hero" for killing people ? He is a hero in my view for staying alive and saving lives .
Saving lives? The title of the article in the OP clearly says:

"The Tactical Air Controller Who Laid Waste To The Iraqi Republican Guard "#

Soldiers are sent to invade countries primarily to kill people. Not to save lives.

If we had wanted to save lives, we would have sent doctors and nurses instead.
Apr 18, 2016, 11:41 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2SO4
That's nonsensical. Iraq was not a threat to either of us, nor were they particularly implicated in AGW.
Neither was Libya but that did not stop Obama from going in there, uprooting the leader, and effectively handing it to ISIS so that the French could have cheap oil.
Apr 18, 2016, 12:37 PM
Registered User
rockyboy2's Avatar
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty1000
Saving lives? The title of the article in the OP clearly says:

"The Tactical Air Controller Who Laid Waste To The Iraqi Republican Guard "#

Soldiers are sent to invade countries primarily to kill people. Not to save lives.

If we had wanted to save lives, we would have sent doctors and nurses instead.
"Soldiers are sent to invade countries primarily to kill people"
your statement tells me i need not waste my time discussing this with you , not calling you a name or insulting your way of thinking, just saying we are way to far apart on this topic , i could compile a list of non killing people motives that required military "Help" but i feel it would be a waste of my time .
Apr 18, 2016, 12:40 PM
Flower of Scotland
Dusty1000's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyboy2
"Soldiers are sent to invade countries primarily to kill people"
your statement tells me i need not waste my time discussing this with you , not calling you a name or insulting your way of thinking, just saying we are way to far apart on this topic , i could compile a list of non killing people motives that required military "Help" but i feel it would be a waste of my time .
The invasion of Iraq certainly isn't one of them.

We could not have invaded Iraq without killing people.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools