Commander PK Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 I think it is seriously time for the kid gloves to come off. It is PAST time for the kid gloves to come off. I think we should institute a draft, invade and conquer any country that doesn't give us the terrorists we want in a resonable amount of time. I'm sick of this crap, and I'm upset and angry. When are we going to stop f*cking around with these a**holes!!! Let's go people, we are America, we should not be standing for this crap. They think we are the great Satan, let's be the great Satan. Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth. When I look at those pictures of Johnson and watch the video of Berg I feel physically ill. I plan to be a father someday, and I don't want my children growing up in a world where people have their heads sawed off for being an American. This is crazy. If we bring on WWIII, SO BE IT!! I don't care anymore. :cuss: :cuss: :soapbox: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 Why does the media uses the word "beheaded" in their headlines of Nick Berg and Paul Johnson. Why doesn't the headline read "American Hostage (Berg or Johnson) has head SAWED off in cold blood, for being an American!" (or more specifically, infidel) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Who needs more men and woman in uniform when we have nukes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 Originally posted by Phat Hog Who needs more men and woman in uniform when we have nukes? I say we need the men and women in uniform to wear haz-mat suits,and mop up any suvivors leftover from the nuclear attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 "There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." - General George Patton Jr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfanjoe Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 So are you saying we should invade Saudi Arabia? Because that's where Johnson was murdered. I understand your anger, I'm upset about it too, but we aint going to start bombing other countries because a few American civilians were murdered. I honestly don't know if there is a solution to what happened to Berg and Johnson. The only thing I know for sure is that they will have to answer before the Almighty and you can best believe that won't be rewarded with seventy two virgins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 I'm saying we draft and invade ANY country, which includes Saudi Arabia if they do not hand over the terrorists we want in a reasonable amount of time. If these people were really trying, they could erradicate the terrorists in their country within a month. I think they are just je*king us off personally, and I'm tired of it. They have no justified reason to do what they are doing to Americans over there. None at all, other than they can't face their own failures as a society and as people, so they need somebody to blame. Kid Gloves...off now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuck Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 If we did I can guarantee you none of the White House administrations kids or grand kids would go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 Originally posted by Zuck If we did I can guarantee you none of the White House administrations kids or grand kids would go. Why does somebody always have to turn these threads into a political argument? An American was killed in cold blood today, for being an American. Why can't we ever put politics aside in this country, and come together as a people, as Americans? I should have know some anti-Bush person was going to have to put a plug in here somewhere. I refuse to take the bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuck Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 I guess since I disagree with you that means I'm un-American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfdc Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 First the act. Next the outrage and hurt. Then the mourning. Then the blame. Then the counsel. Next the plan for the future, then the act......., We can add to the pain more than any nation could ever do by toppling entire governments, leaving or abandoning others that sap of us our #1 resource HUMAN BEINGS, take our tax dollars and laugh at us while they bomb us back or send money to others to do so, and of all things blame us for their iniquities, passions, lies, self destruction and lack of eduction, and a traveling destructive news media that swears they're not involved. Mark it. Now that we are face to face with you, what should I do with you. Let you live, as we only wanted to do and for your children, as well as ours, or should we bear the shame of destroying you once and for all from the face of the earth and ask the Almighty Living God to forgive us after you are gone. "But saved for the elect", that mankind should not perish. Again, what should I do with you. We shed our blood for people's freedoms and if we get back hate, we still loved you as our own. Now I must warn you, WE ARE HUMAN TOO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 Exactly, what part of my argument do you disagree with? I don't understand where you are coming from here. This is what you have stated in this thread thus far "If we did I can guarantee you none of the White House administrations kids or grand kids would go." "I guess since I disagree with you that means I'm un-American." Would you be for the draft, or would you be against the draft? I see what your implying, but your pretty vague. Yes, I believe to be against the draft in a time of war, when your country needs you is to be un-american. The victims of these terrorists attacks, are not just the rich, or the poor, or the middle-class. The terrorists do not discriminate against whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, or any other race. They do not attack only christians, and atheists; they attack muslims, buddhists, wiccans, and any other person who gets in their way. They kill Americans, only for being AMERICANS, and YOU my friend, are an American. How do you feel about that, cold hard truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Out of curiousity, are you a member of the military, G-Train? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 Originally posted by KDawg Out of curiousity, are you a member of the military, G-Train? No, I'm not, but If my country asks me to go to war and defend it, I will. No questions asked. I am advocating a draft. Are you, KDawg a member of the military? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 I'm angry and upset right now. I'm for the draft because I believe that is what it's going to take to win this war on terror. I believe we are all going to have to do our part. Whether or not we have a draft is up to those people that are smarter than I am, but if asked I will go. I already serve my country everyday, by guarding violent criminals, and keeping them off the streets so people like yourself can sleep a little easier at night. If I'm asked to kill for my country. I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 G-Train, I understand your anger and I feel it too. However, I think your proposed solution would kill far more Americans than it would save. I do believe that we need to put more economic pressure on countries like Saudi Arabia who are not doing enough to find and eliminate terrorists within their borders. We can’t start invading every country with terrorists in it. These terrorists are in Germany, Canada, Spain, and even in America. If we can’t find them in our own country, then how can we invade every country that doesn’t eradicate them within their own borders? If we find evidence of state sponsored terrorism, then military action is warranted. If that evidence is not there or it is of questionable validity then we can’t justify conquering other nations. We couldn’t even do it if we wanted to, we don’t have enough people even with a draft. Your solution to this problem will kill far more innocent people than terrorists ever will. Countries who are not currently considered hostile to us would defend themselves. If you are saying that a country is knowingly harboring terrorists, training them, or purposely equipping them, then I agree that we should act, preferably without having to use force, but with force if necessary. I am definitely not for a draft. If you were proposing quadrupling the size of our intelligence operations I would consider that. It seems like you are advocating taking over countries to try to smoke out the terrorists. It wouldn’t work and it would turn the world against us. We should increase our ability to find terrorists overseas and increase our pressure on other nations to do the same. Military action is only one way to do this and it may not be the best way in most cases. I have the same goal as you do G-Train, but I would advocate different means of achieving that goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 Originally posted by Nerm G-Train, I understand your anger and I feel it too. However, I think your proposed solution would kill far more Americans than it would save. I do believe that we need to put more economic pressure on countries like Saudi Arabia who are not doing enough to find and eliminate terrorists within their borders. We can’t start invading every country with terrorists in it. These terrorists are in Germany, Canada, Spain, and even in America. If we can’t find them in our own country, then how can we invade every country that doesn’t eradicate them within their own borders? If we find evidence of state sponsored terrorism, then military action is warranted. If that evidence is not there or it is of questionable validity then we can’t justify conquering other nations. We couldn’t even do it if we wanted to, we don’t have enough people even with a draft. Your solution to this problem will kill far more innocent people than terrorists ever will. Countries who are not currently considered hostile to us would defend themselves. If you are saying that a country is knowingly harboring terrorists, training them, or purposely equipping them, then I agree that we should act, preferably without having to use force, but with force if necessary. I am definitely not for a draft. If you were proposing quadrupling the size of our intelligence operations I would consider that. It seems like you are advocating taking over countries to try to smoke out the terrorists. It wouldn’t work and it would turn the world against us. We should increase our ability to find terrorists overseas and increase our pressure on other nations to do the same. Military action is only one way to do this and it may not be the best way in most cases. I have the same goal as you do G-Train, but I would advocate different means of achieving that goal. I respect your post, it's thoughtful. I'm advocating turning up the heat by any means necessary. Military Draft, Economic Pressure, Sanctions, whatever it takes to achieve our common goal, which is to eliminate terror. I'm talking about invading states that sponsor terrorism, and harbor terrorists. I'm not talking about countries that just happen to have terrorists in them, like Canada and Germany, but serious pressure needs to be put on these countries to locate and eliminate the terrorists within their borders. I think in order to win this war, we are going to have to give the impression that we are willing to use ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Perhaps, having a draft and quadrupling our uniformed military would frighten these people enough to help us achieve our goals. I use Lybia as an example of what can happen when these third world sh*tholes perceive a threat. Gadhafi knew he might be next, so he became all to willing to cooperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Well we don't need a draft yet on the war on terror. We also wouldn't need a draft to "Invade Saudi". Americans and Europeans already run the country and expatriots make up around half the adult population.... The f&ck&rs who killed Paul Johnston are criminals in Saudi and would be treated more harshly by the Saudi's when captured than we would. Saudi's claim they already killed the ring leader of the kidnapping and three or four of his followers. Anyway we don't need a draft for a war on terror although we may need a draft when we invade Iran in the next few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 Let's just do something. I saw red earlier when I saw those pictures. This is the third time this has happened in this manner. Pearl, Berg, and now Johnston. We don't have to stand for this, and we sure as hell don't have to put up with it. I'm for using any means necessary to win this war. Let's not half-a*s this thing. It's time to up the stakes a little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Let's just do something. I saw red earlier when I saw those pictures. This is the third time this has happened in this manner. Pearl, Berg, and now Johnston. We don't have to stand for this, and we sure as hell don't have to put up with it. I'm for using any means necessary to win this war. Let's not half-a*s this thing. It's time to up the stakes a little bit. Pearl was killed in Pakistan, a strong American Alley. Berg killed in occupied Iraq where we had 130,000 troops and 20,000 mercs at the time he was killed. Johnston was killed in Saudi a strong American, an Ally who's government is kept in power largely through American military and espianage assistance. Go to their secret police building, their army headquarters or their navy headquarters and there are loads of American "consultants" running those shows. Invading Saudi isn't the issue. We had a huge force their as recently as a year ago. We weren't asked to go, we left because we found a better base of operations in Quatar. Terrorism is a messed up thing. I don't think a blunt instrument will work to rid the world of it. Aren't enough bombs in the world to make a population like you. I think you have to defeat terrorism politically and socially. Address the issues in the world which makes the radical ideas resonate with the population. Al Quada is like the folks down south in the 60's who were killing freedom riders. The majority of southoners might have sympathized with them before they were exposed as blood thirsty terrorists but their numbers shrank when folks learned more about what they stood for. That should be our strategy with Al Quada Too. We need to block their apeal and stop the message from resonating. Then we can concentrate on the ringleaders. Killing innocents will just make their ranks grow stronger.. my opinion.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Originally posted by G-Train No, I'm not, but If my country asks me to go to war and defend it, I will. No questions asked. I am advocating a draft. you know you could just go volunteer if you actually feel this strongly about it. as long as they don't have you working near nukes or in a position of military authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TODD Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Although I don't believe Saudi Arabia is a country we need to "invade", it's only a matter of time before we start to focus on their terrorist networks. They have plenty of GW's "evildoers" there, and when Iraq clears up, I feel that Saudi and Syria will become very specific countries of interest, no matter what our oil prices have riding on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Originally posted by G-Train I respect your post, it's thoughtful. I'm advocating turning up the heat by any means necessary. Military Draft, Economic Pressure, Sanctions, whatever it takes to achieve our common goal, which is to eliminate terror. I'm talking about invading states that sponsor terrorism, and harbor terrorists. I'm not talking about countries that just happen to have terrorists in them, like Canada and Germany, but serious pressure needs to be put on these countries to locate and eliminate the terrorists within their borders. I think in order to win this war, we are going to have to give the impression that we are willing to use ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Perhaps, having a draft and quadrupling our uniformed military would frighten these people enough to help us achieve our goals. I use Lybia as an example of what can happen when these third world sh*tholes perceive a threat. Gadhafi knew he might be next, so he became all to willing to cooperate. I think if we are the only ones interested in this war on Terror (and so far it seems like we are alone for the most part), we will fail in a big way. It is impossible to root out terrorist groups, as their best defense is that they are invisible. When you really think about it.....the terrorists are using us to put fear into all nations......and as we invade foreign lands, the enemy knows we are taking the first step in fulfilling their prophecy. Can you guess what that might be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 No, GTrain, but then again I'm not in favor of a draft either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuck Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Originally posted by G-Train Exactly, what part of my argument do you disagree with? I don't understand where you are coming from here. This is what you have stated in this thread thus far "If we did I can guarantee you none of the White House administrations kids or grand kids would go." "I guess since I disagree with you that means I'm un-American." Would you be for the draft, or would you be against the draft? I see what your implying, but your pretty vague. Yes, I believe to be against the draft in a time of war, when your country needs you is to be un-american. The victims of these terrorists attacks, are not just the rich, or the poor, or the middle-class. The terrorists do not discriminate against whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, or any other race. They do not attack only christians, and atheists; they attack muslims, buddhists, wiccans, and any other person who gets in their way. They kill Americans, only for being AMERICANS, and YOU my friend, are an American. How do you feel about that, cold hard truth? I actually didn't think your original post posed a serious question that needed any kind of answer. What does it even mean? A draft? to invade who? Any country that doesn't hand over terrorists to us? You mean, England, France, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Switzerland etc. etc.. England, France, Switzerland at various times capture terrorists and do not give them to us because we have the death penalty. Are they on the list? The whole tone of your post is misguided. You make it sound as if every person in the middle east thinks of the United States as the great Satan. I understand it's much easier to think that way because then you have an easier target to attack. When you look at things realistically it becomes much more complicated and difficult, which it is. It's sort of like a kid in a school yard who looses his head and has a tantrum. What are we going to become terrorists so we can go after terrorists? Anyhow, you're 29. If you feel so strongly about routing out terrorrists, what's stopping you from going? You're only going to go if there's a draft? That's kind of weird. First of all you're past the draft age. You're still young enough to probably get in if you enlist though. You bio says you're a correctional officer. I'm sure they'd let you in. I'm posing a serious question though. You seem to have a strong conviction about this war on terrorism. Do you have a good reason not to enlist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.