Welcome To P8ntballer.com
The Home Of European Paintball
Sign Up & Join In

A letter to Bush

JoseDominguez

New cut and carved spine!
Oct 25, 2002
3,185
0
0
www.myspace.com
Silly me, but I was relying on information from an English serviceman (Peter Ridley, an old school friend so it's not from a freind of a friend or discovery) who saw one being used for recon during his service in the gulf. ( He found it quite amusing).

I can understand that people are often misinformed, after all a UK warrior APC was mistaken for a T55 and blown apart by an A10 warthog last time, a Tornado was mistaken for a Scud yesterday and downed by a patriot, so accidents happen.


I don't believe a word of what I read or see on the news, I've heard plenty from troops who were there last time, and none of their horror stories were ever shown on CNN.
 

Mark/Static

New Member
Originally posted by Burb
Monday, March 17, 2003
A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War


George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC


Dear Governor Bush:

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Yours,

Michael Moore
James S. Robbins
National Review
March 24, 2003, 8:30 a.m.
Daze of Rage
Wartime performance art in American cities.


I read with interest a report out of San Francisco about the "rough" treatment some antiwar demonstrators got at the hands of the SFPD. Some complained that their hands were bound too tightly. Others noted the use of scare tactics, such as threatening to withhold bathroom privileges from a protester who refused to identify herself. ("That is not right," one survivor commented.) Some were forced to sleep overnight on cell floors, others on mats in a gymnasium. The sandwiches they were given to eat "didn't taste great." Some women were called "little girl" or "hon." The horror, the horror. Contrast these accounts with the latest revelation about the treatment of dissidents in Iraq, namely being fed through industrial-grade plastic shredders. The lucky ones go in head first. Imagine it. Seriously, take a minute and try to conceive it. What would be going through your mind the instant your feet made contact with the whirling metal? Bad sandwiches?

I don't take the peace movement seriously, certainly not as seriously as it takes itself, which is far out of proportion to reality and best analyzed through the lens of social psychology alá Eric Hoffer. Michael Moore's selfish performance at the Oscars last night is a case in point. What interest could possibly be served by this intellectual leader of the Left mouthing off in his usual way, other than to satisfy some sort of quest for self fulfillment? It certainly did not help shorten the war, and nullified the impact of the much classier statements by other Academy members focusing on the safety of the men and women in uniform. Another moment of high sanctimony took place over the weekend at a federal courthouse in Baltimore, where UMD students staged a "funeral for democracy." One young woman flat on her back on the grass stated, "We are mourning the deaths of innocent Iraqis who have no responsibility for anything their government may have done." But did she ever have the urge to make a public spectacle of herself mourning the innocent Iraqi victims of Saddam's tyranny? Did it ever cross her mind that a funeral for democracy has been appropriate vis-à-vis Iraq every day of Saddam's rule?
Peace enthusiasts use the expression "not in our name" without irony, although it can most properly be applied to the antiwar movement itself. The last CNN poll I saw showed 76% approval of the use of force to disarm Iraq, and only 20% disapproval. Moreover, of those 20%, I wonder how many would sign on to the radical left agenda of International A.N.S.W.E.R? The fact that this is a vocal minority seems even to be finally understood by the media, though coverage of weekend demonstrations was nonstop. The same old demonstrators voiced the same old phrases. The war is illegal. It is immoral. It is racist. No blood for oil. (How many arrived in cars, one wonders?) The money spent on the war would better be spent on education. One self-described New York schoolteacher made this point; basically, she was demonstrating for a raise. Some protesters brought their children, even babies, draped with slogans — children who can have no idea why they are there, other than as props in their parents' life-theater. It will be the shock of their lives when the rebellious child comes home after a year in college and confesses to being a Republican.

The ubiquitous expression "we support the troops" is a long way from the more traditional "baby killers." Today's protesters are forced by necessity to take this approach since these days most Americans respect the military, and spitting on the uniform is not something likely to generate public approval. One might wonder if the troops want their support, or rather consider them to be a nuisance and an impediment to their mission. Luckily for the protesters, the men and women in uniform do not enjoy the same First Amendment freedoms, and can't express how they feel on political issues. The related question of "patriotism" came up in every report I saw, and in each case, it was a reporter who brought it up. In fact I have never heard anyone but a reporter raise the issue. It has become a cliché, something the antiwar crowd flogs for their own benefit, allowing them an extra dose of umbrage as they boldly assert their Americanism in the face of public boredom. I was very amused when in Chicago both demonstrators and counter-demonstrators chanted "USA! USA!" Nice everyone can agree on something.

New York protesters shouted "tell it like it is" to reporters whom they feel are shills for the Defense Department. In response, al Jazeera told it exactly how it is, airing Iraqi video of the corpses of American soldiers, some with suspicious gunshots to the head, along with American prisoners of war being abused and humiliated. I recall an earnest protester stating over the weekend, "People need to realize what's going on [in Iraq]." Well, now they know.

Many peace marchers invoked Gandhi and King, but they will never be subjected to the purifying sacrifices necessary for true satyagraha. They can afford to do this because of their confidence that they will be treated humanely. This is in part because no one takes them seriously and everyone knows what they are doing is performance art. But it is also because the United States is the freest country in the world, and the system is committed to their rights of self-expression. I would respect the antiwar demonstrators much more if they volunteered to be human shields in Baghdad, because at least then they would be putting themselves at genuine risk for their beliefs. (Can we refer to those who do not go overseas for peace as chicken doves?) If they did so they might have an epiphany like the one recently visited on Kenneth Joseph. According to UPI, Joseph, a former human shield and pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, was "shocked back to reality" by contact with average Iraqis who spoke to him privately without Saddam's secret police present. He was told "they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill." He has it all on video, so perhaps PBS could edit it down for a Bill Moyers special.

The set of evidence used in the Nuremberg trials was published in a multivolume work entitled Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression. Soon a similar anthology will be assembled for war-crimes trials in Iraq, either under international auspices, or by the new Iraqi government. Saddam's archives will not only demonstrate his defiance of the U.N. by producing weapons of mass destruction, and document his regime's links to terrorist groups including al Qaeda, but will also lay bare the workings of the apparatus of oppression of Saddam's police state, as heartless and brutal as any in history. All of this will prove the case for conflict. In victory, the conditions which have made Iraq a human-rights nightmare and a global pariah state will be removed. And in years to come Iraqis will enjoy peace and freedom in their homeland, will build civil society, will have the right to speak and worship freely without fear of reprisal, as well as the ability to profit from the natural wealth of their country. They will no longer have to bow to images of a corrupt and heartless megalomaniac, will not have to fear execution for thinking freely, and generally will be able to enjoy lives of opportunity and personal fulfillment. And all of these blessings will come about with no thanks whatsoever to the peace movement.
 

Buddha 3

Hamfist McPunchalot
Originally posted by JoseDominguez
Silly me, but I was relying on information from an English serviceman (Peter Ridley, an old school friend so it's not from a freind of a friend or discovery) who saw one being used for recon during his service in the gulf. ( He found it quite amusing).
Trust me, it could not have been a T60. Servicemen are notoriously unreliable when it comes to these things. Allied troops in WW2 saw a Panther or Tiger in every German tank they met.
 

L J

big big titties
another amusing thing i saw/heard, 2 nights ago when they fired like 3000 cruise missiles. somehow the o great powerful Americans managed to get one to fly to another country!!!! what the hell!!!!?????

i am totally for the war, although we should not have gone with the americans, in the gulf....we lost like 6 men, one soldier was KIA i believe and 5 engineers(dudes that drive the tanks) were killed cos an American plane dropped a bomb on it!!!!although the tank was not destroyed becaused the challenger 2 is the best tank in the world and the onyl way it is put out of action is if the crew are subject to severe concussion (from say...a bomb)

u hear when the American aor force killed some canadian hikers while on a training mission??? they 'believe' they were the enemy so killed them...the reason???? wel......

the americans think it is smart to give pilots SPEED!!!! on long missions so they stay awake, even though speed makes your paranoid (i dont know from experience!!:D )


Man T-34's really sucked!!!
 

P8ntbllr99

Long live the Matrix
May 4, 2002
745
0
0
USA all the way
Visit site
Heres my letter not as good but a bit younger, and hey we didnt elect bush



Mark Dayton
U.S. Senator
Washington, D.C. Office
SR-346, Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, District of Columbia 20510

Dear Senator Mark Dayton,
Hi, my name is Brian Kranz, I am 15 years old and I am from Century Junior High School in Lakeville, Minnesota. I play many sports. I read the newspaper and the current news on the Internet. I am writing to you about the very critical issue of the war with Iraq which is upon us right now. I am in every way against the war against Iraq and I will state the reasons in the letter.
My first reason I am against the war is that there is not enough support from the U.S. citizens. There is only a 60% support in the U.S. (http/.rferl.org/nca/) That is only half which in any case should not be enough.
Even the U.S. government is not unified in support of invasion. Some senior elected officials, including member of President Bush’s own Republican Party such as Representative Dick Army(TX) and Senator Chuck Hegel, do not support a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Major media outlets have been reporting for several months on widespread opposition to an invasion of Iraq among senior officers in the Pentagon, including several or all of the Chiefs of Staff. The decision to go to war should have the full support of the U.S. Congress, the Secretary of State, and the commanding officers of the armed forces.
Once again another reason is that the Iraq threat is not credible. The opposition to an invasion among senior U.S. government and military leaders as well as most U.S allies in the Middle East and all through Europe suggest that the U.S. has not shown enough evidence of the Iraqi progress toward making nuclear weapons. If they have such evidence, they should have presented it by now in the face of a dividing country and the domestic opposition to an invasion of Iraq.
An invasion of Iraq would be illegal under the Charter of the United Nations, to which the U.S. is a part of. According to the Charter, only the Security Council has legal authority to start wars, with the single exception of national self-defense against armed attack (www.un.org/Overview/Charter/.html). If the U.S. is a land of laws, then our government should listen to the basic principles of the Charter, which is intended to watch over the relationships between nations for the security of all people.
For these reason I oppose a U.S. invasion of Iraq, and I urge others to do so also. Now Mr. Dayton, I would like you personally to speak out against the war against Iraq and write me back please. A final thought for you, writer Ronan Bennett who speaks out against the war once said “any fool can make war. Peace requires greater vision and courage.”

Yours truly,

Brian Kranz
 

Mark/Static

New Member
Originally posted by cockersrule
another amusing thing i saw/heard, 2 nights ago when they fired like 3000 cruise missiles. somehow the o great powerful Americans managed to get one to fly to another country!!!! what the hell!!!!?????
**** happens.
Originally posted by cockersrule
i am totally for the war, although we should not have gone with the americans, in the gulf....
Uh, sure. You have plenty of support for it at home don't you?
Originally posted by cockersrule
we lost like 6 men, one soldier was KIA i believe and 5 engineers(dudes that drive the tanks) were killed cos an American plane dropped a bomb on it!!!!
Yeah and your helo pilots killed 2 of our boys because they can't fly. Do you have a point?
Originally posted by cockersrule
u hear when the American aor force killed some canadian hikers while on a training mission??? they 'believe' they were the enemy so killed them...the reason???? wel......
The canadians were conducting weapons trainning. Our pilots saw the tracers, and dropped their bombs thinking it was the Taliban. If it helps you to hate Americans though feel free to believe they were hiking with the local girl-scout troop, on their way to rebuild an orphanage, for blind children with aids.
Originally posted by cockersrule
the americans think it is smart to give pilots SPEED!!!! on long missions so they stay awake, even though speed makes your paranoid (i dont know from experience!!:D )
On that note, maybe you should cut back some.
Originally posted by cockersrule
Man T-34's really sucked!!!
It was just the best all around tank of WWII.
 

headrock6

Bloody Yanks!!
Jun 5, 2002
591
0
0
Strong Island
Visit site
Originally posted by P8ntbllr99
, and hey we didnt elect bush
Now while the President certainly didnt win the popular vote,he certainly had all the electoral votes he needed and thats all that counts at the end of the day:) ..He is the legitimate President,like it or not...


Originally posted by P8ntbllr99
, My first reason I am against the war is that there is not enough support from the U.S. citizens. There is only a 60% support in the U.S. (http/.rferl.org/nca/) That is only half which in any case should not be enough.
Now I only completed math up until the 10th grade and didnt really understand anything past basic algebra but I was pretty good at percentages and im positive that 60% is a little more than half..;)..In the last gallup poll that I saw,76% of Americans favored military action in Iraq..Now by my estimates that would leave a whopping 24% of the US against it...I figure you could have found all 24% marching along oh so happily last Saturday in LA,Ny,and San Francisco..Now thats about a quarter of the US's 280,000,000 currently residing in the US..Dominant numbers in support in my view..Maybe you could find something current that says otherwise..



Originally posted by P8ntbllr99
, Even the U.S. government is not unified in support of invasion. Some senior elected officials, including member of President Bush’s own Republican Party such as Representative Dick Army(TX) and Senator Chuck Hegel, do not support a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Major media outlets have been reporting for several months on widespread opposition to an invasion of Iraq among senior officers in the Pentagon, including several or all of the Chiefs of Staff. The decision to go to war should have the full support of the U.S. Congress, the Secretary of State, and the commanding officers of the armed forces.
Brian,Congress in overwhelming numbers voted to give President Bush all the power he needed to wage war against Iraq..Somewhere between presidential bids,party lines,and partisionship,is every politicians reason for objecting to a war..Its never for the right reasons...And I just saw Colin Powell in an interview today fully supporting war..His job is to engage in diplomacy to avoid a war..His attempts unfortunately were in vain..But dont mistake his bold attempts at working with the UN for a peaceful solution as not agreeing with war..And I think you might be mistaken on the Pentagon also..Any report you may have heard on TV was the Pentagon in disagreement over the size of the invasion force and nothing else..


Originally posted by P8ntbllr99
, Once again another reason is that the Iraq threat is not credible..
What do you consider a credible threat??Because a credible threat in my eyes after 9/11 is a man who supports terrorists,has WMD's,and has started 2 wars in the last 20 years..The only credible threat we'll recieve is when 30,000 people are laying dead in the street..He cant invade us..But he can pass on WMD's to terrorists who are so deperately seeking them..Resolution 1441 that was passed by every member with a vote at the UN explicitly stated that Saddam HAD WMD's and was up to him to dilvulge where they were and to destroy them or face serious consequences if he didnt..He chose not to..What do you think those serious consequences were??A spanking??Every nation that voted knew that it meant war..Sadly,for a myriad of reasons that you can find on the 10 threads that have emerged on this topic,other countries choose to disregard resolution 1441 and everything it meant and made themselves irrelevent in the process..And he probably doesnt have a nuclear weapons program..But he did in 81 and would have had nukes had Israel not blown up Iraq's reactor..Time has shown he's hell bent on aquiring WMD's whether nuclear or chemical and biological.And whats to say in 10 years after the UN left that he just wouldnt start a new program..Can you honestly say you would feel comfortable with Saddam having a nuclear weapon??If he did,we would be bribed and tugged along just like we are today by North Korea..


Originally posted by P8ntbllr99
, An invasion of Iraq would be illegal under the Charter of the United Nations, to which the U.S. is a part of. According to the Charter, only the Security Council has legal authority to start wars, with the single exception of national self-defense against armed attack (www.un.org/Overview/Charter/.html). If the U.S. is a land of laws, then our government should listen to the basic principles of the Charter, which is intended to watch over the relationships between nations for the security of all people.

Brian,do you know how many of the oh say, 150 military operations or wars that have been sanctioned since the creation of the UN??Heres the answer..Two..Korea and the last Gulf War..President Bush has decided that Iraq is a credible threat to the US,its Allies and neighbors in the Middle East...Under resolution 1441 and prior resolutions,he has all the necessary authority to wage war..And did you know as a condition of the cease fire that Saddam signed in 91,he had to destroy all his WMD's..Well obviously he hasnt done that which would also make the cease fire invalid..The war hasnt just started..It never ended..Now while I agree that the president maybe could have done a better job convincing other nations of the threat,many nations for personal reasons werent going to support this war no matter what the situation..



Originally posted by P8ntbllr99
, For these reason I oppose a U.S. invasion of Iraq, and I urge others to do so also. Now Mr. Dayton, I would like you personally to speak out against the war against Iraq and write me back please. A final thought for you, writer Ronan Bennett who speaks out against the war once said “any fool can make war. Peace requires greater vision and courage.

Brian I commend you for boldly stating your views..Not 2 many 15 year olds take the time to find out whats going on in the world..But a majority of people believe in this war...Do you know in Iraq I would have my tongue removed and possibly killed for writing this post??Not everybody is born into freedom..You,me and everyone else on this board have been..We can speak what we want,do what we want,and most importantly live without fear of doing these things..Iraqis are killed for not agreeing..Woman and children are raped because thier husbands oppose Saddam..How do you think you would you feel if your mother lived in Iraq..How would you like knowing your father would be killed for voting for Gore.is that not worth fighting for??How is a country with all that oil starving and desperately seeking medical attention while Saddam sits in one of his 10 palaces????They are tortured and killed for no reason at all..We treat serial killers more humanely than Saddam does his Olympic teams for poor performances..Im not making this up...This has all been documented about this brutal regime..And should we only fight when our freedom is threatened??Dont people deserve better??We can give that to them..That might not be the reason for the war,but it certainly is the final result when all is said and done..Who are you or me to deny them that right??There no different than you and I except that they were born into dictatorship...Right??Right!! :)


Now while I fully agree with your right to disagree,dont you think its time to forget all about whether we do or dont want this war and start supporting the people who are half a world away fighting in a hell of sand for the freedoms that you,me and the Iraqi people are about to enjoy now and in the future...Our countrymen and the Brits,Poles,and Australians(public opinion or not)are putting thier lives on the line because they are told its the right thinh to do..They have more heart than I think a 1000 of us could accumulate in a lifetime...Wars not fun...But its very effectively ended slavery,communism,and fascism throughout the world..Peace just doesnt have that power to end the hatreds that have engulfed the world...War is a way to peace..Peace wouldnt have stopped Hitler,nor will it have stopped Hussien...What we would have is is the exact opposite of Peace..Misery and destruction..And I know you dont want that....



-6
 

Buddha 3

Hamfist McPunchalot
Originally posted by cockersrule
1) i am totally for the war, although we should not have gone with the americans, in the gulf....we lost like 6 men, one soldier was KIA i believe and 5 engineers(dudes that drive the tanks) were killed cos an American plane dropped a bomb on it!!!!
2) although the tank was not destroyed becaused the challenger 2 is the best tank in the world and the onyl way it is put out of action is if the crew are subject to severe concussion (from say...a bomb)
1) Get your facts straight. The British lost 9 men when their Warrior APC was attacked by US aircraft. Most of the men onboard were infantry. And engineers don't drive tanks.
2) That Warrior APC was ripped to bits. It never stood a chance. And what you say about the Challenger 2 is utter rubbish. First of all, it didn't even exist yet when Gulf War part one kicked off, and even though the Challenger 2 is great piece of equipment, on par with the Leopard 2A6, and the M1A2 Abrams (but better than the M1A1), it is still very easy to knock out from the air. The top armour on these vehicles is a lot thinner than it's front and side armour, and is a lot easier to penetrate. For this reason, most modern infantry carry anti tank weapons that attack tanks from the top, and have no difficulty slicing through even the likes of a Challenger 2. Avarage life expectancy of a tank on a modern battlefield where it's side does not hold control of the air is a whopping 20 seconds, and that goes for your glorious Challenger too.
 

Mario

Pigeon amongst the cats
Sep 25, 2002
6,044
40
133
Location, Location.
Yeah and your helo pilots killed 2 of our boys because they can't fly. Do you have a point?
actually seeing as it was a sea king (maritime chinnook) which the british armed forces don't use i believe it is your own pilots who can't fly....:rolleyes:

nice to see the americans blame us for their own accidents....helps them sleep at night......


p.s. i have nothing against americans at all. However ppl who look for convenient scapegoats i do.