Page 3 of 3
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:42 am
by raum
see, ruff... I knew you was wearin ruffrider for a reason.
I still got my I-108 VBSS Shirt in my dresser. "Rough Riders - Do your duty with a Biiiig Stick.
That gray rag with the blue ponyboy on it still fits, and I still wear it, as I have done since 1993.
So, let's see...
If you have seen an Iraqi women with severe acid burns on her legs and face for wearing a skirt that shows her calves, and not wearing a veil, raise your hands.
If you have seen an Iraqi child being given a grenade in his rite to manhood. If you have been hit with a co-sap chemical washdown so you don't cry and piss blood, If you have seen a building blown up because it was serving food during the day-time, or even if you have only seen a cab ride that you have to tip more for because the guy picked you up during evening prayer. - Raise your hand,.. otherwise, sit back and think about what you think you know a minute.
You forget, Brains, the Saddam of 73 is the Saddam that was still with *us* and starting to flex some oil muscle for the first time, and at the time, he was hardly even religious. The Ba'athist coup was not religiously motivated.
It wasn't until 1979, that he became President, and still a while yet until he became a tyrant.
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:44 am
by Buffmaster
Brains, Saddam will be tried for war crimes against Iran, it just hasn't come up in the pecking order. Maybe you should get YOUR facts straight before stomping on others.
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:13 am
by ruffriders23
Raum is right. The Saddam that once was is not the Saddam this is now. He has changed to fit his own needs, as all jackass leaders do. I've seen then things Raum spoke of and, in some cases, worse. I've been on every single continent at one point in my military career and I've got medals I can't even tell my own damn kids what they are for.
So, I can't only assume that Brains is short for "Shit for Brains", much like Jim is short for James.
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:16 am
by Brains
misschien moet ik maar in mijn moedertaal schrijven?! wie weet wordt dat beter begrepen dan hun eigen Engels?!
or - in other words - what the hell have I said about Saddam, rumprider? Saddam did good things before and fucked up some others!
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:36 pm
by ruffriders23
QUOTE(Brains)misschien moet ik maar in mijn moedertaal schrijven?! wie weet wordt dat beter begrepen dan hun eigen Engels?!
or - in other words - what the hell have I said about Saddam, rumprider? Saddam did good things before and fucked up some others!
"Perhaps I must but write in my mother language?! He who weet become that understood better than their own English?!"
Your views on world events is scewed Brains. You have less than half the facts but speak on a subject. I have seen the destruction that Saddam has caused. I was in Afghan on Sept. 12th, 2001. My job called for it and I did it for my country. But, I know what went on there and in Iraq.
P.S. Probeer niet spreek in uw inheems tounge, omdat ik het begrijp.
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:34 pm
by Brains
good. i knew you were going to translate it. more correct is: "I should perhaps write in my mother tongue?! Who knows, maybe that gets understood better than their own English".
that being said: I am not thinking that I know all facts. Less than half indeed. Probably only 5 to 10% if not less. I hardly remember political names, years or amount of deaths. I remember regions, factions (although not by name), time-frames and casualty mass ("a couple", "some", "dozens", "hundreds"...). I remember opinions as well and am able to judge when they fit into the bigger story. I am able to seperate one side's "bigger story", from the other side's and both from what actually happens...
BUT I do not know the facts: I fully agree there. ... raum could maybe confirm this (given our longer "history" from ieX), I do not care about facts; I care about policies, tendencies, routes. I have skill of assimilating tendencies and judging where they'll lead to. "War on Terror" (the way it is held now) goes nowhere. "Unbiased support for Israel" neither. "The Iraqi invasion", not a good idea... hmm... the latter... i am not seeing anyway out either.
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:36 pm
by Buffmaster
Your right, we should have nuked Iran first.
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:17 pm
by ruffriders23
What we should do is just drop a bunch of those nasty ass brown bag MRE's we have back in the 90's in Iran and they will just give up.
Brain: The facts are what make the story. It is that simple. Knowing what is going on underneath the news story is where the cream of this pie is located. You see Brain... I have an active security clearence... when I want to know something I just call in and find it out. My friends and family talk about something they saw on the news and I just laugh. The average citizen in Iraq thanks us for being there, BUT, that doesn't change my view on them. If they are too chicken shit to stand up for themselves, then we need to leave. We can't protect their country and our country, PLUS pay for everything in the U.S. plus Iraq. They need to stand up for themselves. If you don't want to know the facts, then why study the subject?