goldenster95 Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 -- Tillman Deployed -- from FFMastermind.com The Sun-Sentinel reports less than a year after giving up a lucrative NFL career to serve his country, former Arizona Cardinal S Pat Tillman has become an Army Ranger and has been deployed, presumably to the Middle East. Tillman and his brother, Kevin, a former minor league baseball player, are now part of the 75th Ranger Regiment, comprising three battalions and 2,300 men. The Tillmans had been stationed at Fort Lewis, Wash., but were deployed within the last two weeks. Even relatives do not know specifically where they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 When they start handing out medals for patriotism and true American awards, he should be at the front of the line. What a selfless act, to forgoe millions of dollars to instead defend the freedoms of our country. Good Bless Pat Tillman, and god speed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Murphaaay Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 He's the greatest of fools... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 He might be the only person I have heard of that would rather been in the military than a pro football player. To each his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Originally posted by rellim He's the greatest of fools... That's a list with YOUR name at the top of it, j@ckass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 He's the greatest of fools... You're a disgusting f#@k. Disagree with the Pres, the Govt, the issues, whatever. BUt at least have the sense to back the people that are out there fighting so you have the right to be the jackass you've shown yourself to be. Go to hell dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Quickly this board is become Igglephans - namecalling based on political and social expressions. Sad sad sad... To me - Rellim has as much right to express his feelings as say, Kilmer or Navy Dave does. Doesnt mean that they are acceptable (as in I or we agree with them) - but its not like he is referring to anyone by slurs either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 So he has the right to say whatever he wants, but I should stay silent? Free speech for all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 So he has the right to say whatever he wants, but I should stay silent? Free speech for all? Kilmer - did I really say that. But resorting to name calling and tell people to **** off is not a normal socially accepted behavior - now is it? Please - if anyone can understand that - you surely can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 There should be lines that no-one can cross. I wont stand by and let someone use racial slurs either. I can argue points with anyone on issues about the war. BUt anyone who would post disparaging remarks about a man who is protecting them deserves the attacks they receive. rellim is a worthless piece of sh!t for making a comment like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 There should be lines that no-one can cross. I wont stand by and let someone use racial slurs either. I can argue points with anyone on issues about the war. BUt anyone who would post disparaging remarks about a man who is protecting them deserves the attacks they receive. rellim is a worthless piece of sh!t for making a comment like that. agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 There should be lines that no-one can cross. I wont stand by and let someone use racial slurs either. I can argue points with anyone on issues about the war. BUt anyone who would post disparaging remarks about a man who is protecting them deserves the attacks they receive. rellim is a worthless piece of sh!t for making a comment like that. Then I expect everytime "towelhead" is used to describe an Iraqi or an Afghani or whoever - you will be there to criticize the person. Sure you will... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Murphaaay Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 When he joined after 9/11 it was more acceptable/understandable to me. Now he's throwing his life to the wind, for an extremely, extremely questionable cause. All of the personal insults are actually confirming. If you disagree with the masses, on most occassions you will be insulted and affronted. Am I supposed to back the people fighting if I disagree with "the Pres, the Govt, the issues, whatever." Hey, every man and woman has his own mind and way of thinking. Am I supposed to support or respect a man or woman who has a hand in killing an innocent man, child or woman, over oil? Hell no. This isn't a "feel good" story to me, but it is being made out to be this by the press. Every person has a right to his own opinion. My opinion is that if Iraq's greatest resource was tobacco, bananas, or rubber, this war wouldn't be taking place. This bull**** "Free Iraq" slogan being spit out by the media is the biggest joke going on right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Murphaaay Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 You're a disgusting f#@k. Disagree with the Pres, the Govt, the issues, whatever. BUt at least have the sense to back the people that are out there fighting so you have the right to be the jackass you've shown yourself to be. Go to hell dude. Believe this Killmer17, it's convenient that this is an internet forum/message board. If we were face to face you wouldn't make those comments to me to my face without repercussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzmuda Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Originally posted by rellim Every person has a right to his own opinion. My opinion is that if Iraq's greatest resource was tobacco, bananas, or rubber, this war wouldn't be taking place. This bull**** "Free Iraq" slogan being spit out by the media is the biggest joke going on right now. Don't tell me you've fallen into the "it's all about oil" herd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Murphaaay Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Originally posted by bobzmuda Don't tell me you've fallen into the "it's all about oil" herd. I guess I have. Since last time I checked, money made the world go round, and second on that list is oil. Defending or "Liberating" a country is the last thing on W's mind. Tell me bob? What is it all about? Freedom? 9/11/Nuclear Threat? God's Will? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 While I might not exactly agree with Rellim, I certainly understand his cynicsm. Here's a "what if" that I've been mulling over for the last few days. What if it were China going after Saddam and waging war in Iraq? Would we support China in the same fashion we've expected and demanded from U.N. members? I mean if the goals truly are as stated, liberating the Iraqi people, destroying weapons of mass destruction, removing Saddam from power; would it matter who was leading the fighting? Or would we view China with skepticsm and cynically question their motives? I don't know the answer to these questions, but it's been weighing on my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Consigliere Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 "Am I supposed to support or respect a man or woman who has a hand in killing an innocent man, child or woman, over oil? Hell no. " Think for a second. If this was actually about Oil we'd be taking the same stand France is. Selling their souls for oil contracts. Instead we're paying more than 100 billion to oust him, 100 freaking billion to oust him? If it were oil, we could simply discontinue the sanctions, and get oil on the cheap. The way we are dealing with Iraq is the most expensive means conceivable, and certainly makes no financial sense in terms of expenditures versus oil gains. That is absolutely nuts. You talk about "buying the book" as Sam Kinison put it, in how some eat up the rights argument that this is strictly a war on terror manuever, but you are just as lost in buying the hard lefts argument that this is strictly about oil. That's total non-sense when you look at how incredibly expensive the operation will be. There are inumerable other ways to get oil much, much cheaper, than it would be to follow through on this action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Murphaaay Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 There should be lines that no-one can cross. I wont stand by and let someone use racial slurs either. I can argue points with anyone on issues about the war. BUt anyone who would post disparaging remarks about a man who is protecting them deserves the attacks they receive. rellim is a worthless piece of sh!t for making a comment like that. :laugh: , Pat Tillman is protecting me now? The **** he is.... No one in Iraq has ever threatened me. Kilmer, you're nothing but a yellow-backed cornball with **** for brains. Get a life, a new brain and some perspective... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchogs Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 rel, i'm guessing that you think the bush white house made up the reports that saddam and OBL are in league with one another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Murphaaay Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 It is an investement. If the U.S. is able to fully control the Oil in Iraq, the profit would be immense. It would galactically dwarf the amount of $ the U.S. is spending on the war. I am not lost in any way, although you may be if you really believe it's about the "Fear"of terrorism, or the "Liberation" of the Iraqi people." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Murphaaay Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Originally posted by dchogs rel, i'm guessing that you think the bush white house made up the reports that saddam and OBL are in league with one another? Where is this proof and evidence of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabblerouser Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Rellim, So why is he a fool? Because he gave up some money to do something he believes. People do that quite often. Is money the only thing you value? The people who serve in the military don't get to pick and choose their fights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 God Bless Tillman. I have immense respect for him and for his sacrifice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzmuda Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Originally posted by rellim It is an investement. If the U.S. is able to fully control the Oil in Iraq, the profit would be immense. It would galactically dwarf the amount of $ the U.S. is spending on the war. What do you mean by fully control the Oil in Iraq? Are you saying that the US is colonializing Iraq for the Oil? And that the US would claim that oil and sell it as US oil, flying in the face of OPEC and incurring the wrath of all of OPEC and the middle east? All of the "it's all about oil" arguments leave off there. I have never really heard this idea fleshed out to some sort of logical end, so if you could it explain it to me that would be great. edit: Also, wouldn't it be cheaper to take a few republicans to lunch to persuade them allow Alaska oil drilling than to spend a few billion dollars and to have either the elimination or reduction in combact effectiveness of valuable military assets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.