The shift in the military

[mchlwalters]

Lemme guess: They were peaceful diplomats from a friendly nation engaged in wholesome activities for the children until the evil United States showed up, right?

I never said that. Don't put words into anyone's mouths and then argue against something you guessed.

Tell me...... Are you going to post something useful for the folks applying to the Service Academies, or are you here just to be a thorn in our side

i think the truth is very useful to education in an Academy or anywhere, for that matter. You should be careful about "our", many individuals here won't want to be grouped with someone like you who believes that soldiers want to kill all of the Iraqi people.

 

[mchlwalters]

I'd be willing to bet that if a poll was run as follows:

"What do you, Mr. Soldier, think we should do in Iraq: Continue nationbuilding or simply wipe them off the map?"

...the answer would horrify the same people who are now touting this poll, because I can guarantee you they'd want to wipe the slate clean and come home.

In case you try to delete it. Here it is . Mr. Patriot Z. He believes that the troops want to kill all the Iraqi men, women, and children.

 

[jamzmom]

i think the truth is very useful to education in an Academy or anywhere, for that matter.

Your letting your true agenda fly again being the troll you are. Your obsession with trying to provoke is over the top.

 

[bossf51]

JM up early and fired up!

 

[jamzmom]

I know! I was waiting on my super slooooowwww coffee maker so I was a bit grumpy. Gotta look into buying a Bunn. 3 minutes & WHOOP! there's a whole pot, ready to go.

 

[Zaphod]

In case you try to delete it. Here it is . Mr. Patriot Z. He believes that the troops want to kill all the Iraqi men, women, and children.

I'll just answer with your own quote.

I never said that. Don't put words into anyone's mouths and then argue against something you guessed.

This is getting fun. I see Confused's alter-ego time-on-the-board counter quickly counting down to zero.

 

[jamzmom]

Yep. Pretty fun indeed. I liked the round-a-about version of the CIA gassing the Kurds. That one made me smile in a "Confused" sort of way. Atleast he's just picking on the CIA this time & not "our" academy kids yet. yet. yet. yet. Ooops. My keyboard got stuck.

 

[Zaphod]

Too much coffee?

 

[mchlwalters]

Your letting your true agenda fly again being the troll you are. Your obsession with trying to provoke is over the top.

What are my provocations? Can you find something that I posted that I made up?

Oh and about the Kurdish genocide, Hussein obviously was the one that gassed the Kurds and the Shia during the Iran-Iraq War but remind me, can you tell me who funded Saddam Hussein and gave him the chemical weapons to do this? A google or yahoo search would help you if your history is rusty.

 

[mchlwalters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

After the Iranian Revolution, enmity between Iran and the U.S. ran high. Realpolitikers in Washington concluded that Saddam was the "lesser of the two evils", support for Iraq gradually became the order of the day.

"In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982," said the "Teicher Affidavit," submitted on 31 January 1995 by former NSC official Howard Teicher to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.[3]

According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." He claimed that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival"[4], however, despite this allegation, Reagan’s administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.[5][6][7]

By contrast, Alcolac International, for example, a Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, to Iraq. Alcolac was small and was successfully prosecuted for its violations of export control law. The firm pleaded guilty in 1989. A full list of American companies and their involvements in Iraq was provided by The LA Weekly in May 2003. [13]



There's more details in the rest of the article. You can read them when you grow up and start making ad hominem attacks. I won't hold my breath to wait for Super Moderator to attack someone for going against the rules.

 

[raimius]

You can read them when you grow up and start making ad hominem attacks. I won't hold my breath to wait for Super Moderator to attack someone for going against the rules.

Making ad hominem attacks while complaining about them...that's one I don't see every day.

Both sides need to scale back the attacks here. Let's explore/argue some points rather than identities, personal attacks and maturity.

 

[Zaphod]

I won't hold my breath to wait for Super Moderator to attack someone for going against the rules.

Really? Watch this...