Iraq War

LORD MANN · Post by **LORD MANN** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:13 am

Lexon Avery wrote:
mr.turtle wrote:ooo thats more clear....i thought u disliked democracy....
I do, long live the Constitutional Republic! Republic! Republic!

some how i know this and why do i know this no idea

FThompson08 · Post by **FThompson08** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:06 pm

The thing about weapons in Syria is that if they have moved them already but we don't know it and go in, then everyone will think Bush is just a facsit warmonger. Another possibility is that since we were held up in the retarded U.N. for 6 months Saddam could have destroyed them just before we came in and.....let's just say wooped some Republican Guard shampoo

vantec89 · Post by **vantec89** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:46 pm

this thread has grown way to shampoo fast!!! lol.

mr.turtle · Post by **mr.turtle** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:30 pm

this thread has grown way to shampoo fast!!! lol.

yeha u can blame that on fthompson

LORD MANN · Post by **LORD MANN** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:03 pm

vantec89 wrote:this thread has grown way to shampoo fast!!! lol.

you say it as a bad thing lol

andrewrice07 · Post by **andrewrice07** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:20 pm

well damn i mean i will look at it one day and the next day it has another 5 pages added on to it

LORD MANN · Post by **LORD MANN** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:31 pm

andrewrice07 wrote:well damn i mean i will look at it one day and the next day it has another 5 pages added on to it

well keep up

Guess Who? · Post by **Guess Who?** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:35 pm

FThompson08 wrote:The thing about weapons in Syria is that if they have moved them already but we don't know it and go in, then everyone will think Bush is just a facsit warmonger.

We should send troops to Syria completely void of media attention or consultation of the UN. If people are unaware of the status of a mission to Syria then obviously they won't be against it. We could send small regiments just as Nixon did with Cambodia during Vietnam. I believe that we would have a successfull campaign without media swaying the populace.

LORD MANN · Post by **LORD MANN** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:00 pm

Guess Who? wrote:
FThompson08 wrote:The thing about weapons in Syria is that if they have moved them already but we don't know it and go in, then everyone will think Bush is just a facsit warmonger.
We should send troops to Syria completely void of media attention or consultation of the UN. If people are unaware of the status of a mission to Syria then obviously they won't be against it. We could send small regiments just as Nixon did with Cambodia during Vietnam. I believe that we would have a successfull campaign without media swaying the populace.

no turn the jews on them they will shampoo them up

andrewrice07 · Post by **andrewrice07** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:25 pm

LORD MANN wrote:
Guess Who? wrote:
FThompson08 wrote:The thing about weapons in Syria is that if they have moved them already but we don't know it and go in, then everyone will think Bush is just a facsit warmonger.
We should send troops to Syria completely void of media attention or consultation of the UN. If people are unaware of the status of a mission to Syria then obviously they won't be against it. We could send small regiments just as Nixon did with Cambodia during Vietnam. I believe that we would have a successfull campaign without media swaying the populace.
no turn the jews on them they will shampoo them up

keep that shampoo to yourself...it just makes you sound even more stupid

but i agree with guess who, if we can keep the media out of the war we would probly have a attitude towards the war in Iraq or anywhere. b/c like always the media feeds on the negative things...never the good. they may put in there oh 5 innocent civilians were killed in Iraq today....but what they didn’t mention is that there were 100 innocent Iraq children saved today by US Soldiers from a group of armed insurgents.

LORD MANN · Post by **LORD MANN** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:09 am

andrewrice07 wrote:
LORD MANN wrote:
Guess Who? wrote: We should send troops to Syria completely void of media attention or consultation of the UN. If people are unaware of the status of a mission to Syria then obviously they won't be against it. We could send small regiments just as Nixon did with Cambodia during Vietnam. I believe that we would have a successfull campaign without media swaying the populace.
no turn the jews on them they will shampoo them up
keep that shampoo to yourself...it just makes you sound even more stupid

but i agree with guess who, if we can keep the media out of the war we would probly have a attitude towards the war in Iraq or anywhere. b/c like always the media feeds on the negative things...never the good. they may put in there oh 5 innocent civilians were killed in Iraq today....but what they didn’t mention is that there were 100 innocent Iraq children saved today by US Soldiers from a group of armed insurgents.

so you think that Iseral is not a good fighting well never heard that before but guess what Syria would get their ass kicked if they went to war with Iseral and we could easliy turn them lose on them and they would genocide them all

DJ_007 · Post by **DJ_007** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:29 pm

well as far as keeping the media out of war.. well sometimes its good.. but as we all know the media is only going to show what the government will allow them to show.. of corse thats all the bad things

FThompson08 · Post by **FThompson08** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:21 pm

Keeping the media out is a good idea, but to say that you can keep the public from knowing about is stupid. In the age of the internet the news will get out, plus it will come from foreign media which hates us, so then the news will be even worse. On top of that the people will be even more upset they were lied to, we know how that turned out for Nixon

mr.turtle · Post by **mr.turtle** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:23 pm

ya know the only thing that can fix all this is...........child soldiers. lol

Guess Who? · Post by **Guess Who?** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:34 pm

American media (for the most part), especially news coverage, has completely destroyed our sense of support for the war. This seemed extremely prevalent in Vietnam and it still is today. If it wasn't for the media we would have a much greater support in the war effort and Bush would also have a higher approval rating.

During the wars before Vietnam, we had nearly full support of the American citizens, and that is why we won wars. This is most seen in World War II, with the usage of propaganda and things of that nature. It is because of things such as television and the internet (both of which are still great things) that America has gotten this way. Without the news media, douchebags wouldn't be so easily swayed into thinking a certain manner because it's what they believe in. Any news in the country that is reported is always going to be in some way shape or form biased one way or another, and with the media being predominantly liberal then the majority of the populace is obviously going to be swayed toward the left. So anytime you hear some retard say "I hate Bush" or "war is wrong" then you can thank the media, unless they can actually back their claim (which most likely they can't). My favorite line is after they say "they hate Bush" and you ask why, their response usually consists of "uhh... uhh... cause he's dumb!?"

If media didn't exist in our modern day fashion we could be so much more successful as a country. We would have already been done and over with Iraq, but since we have to shampoo around all the time to help appease a few winers, to make sure no one gets their poor little feelings hurt, if we have a casualty, because God forbid someone die in a War, because we all have to go home in the afternoon and listen to some long drawn out story on the dead. Don't get me wrong, every soldier lost is a very terrible loss, but that soldier proudly died for his country, and I couldn't think of a more noble way to die.

Casualty numbers in Iraq, when spoken of, is put as though we had lost a million soldiers. 3,000 casualties is a lot, but not when you compare it to one battle, for instance at Iwo Jima we had a count of 4189 dead, 441 missing, 15308 wounded (courtesy of Time magazine). So when we look at it the number of dead in Iraq is inconsiderably smaller than that of the single battle of Iwo Jima.

So to conclude, I completely blame the liberal media for the prolonged amount of time in Iraq. Sorry for pulling a JD and writing an excessively long post...

thefordmccord.com

Iraq War

Who is online