(08-03-2017 05:57 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 12:10 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:20 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:04 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:46 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  Probably, but 16 years after there were probably some more important dates that people knew, like D-Day, VE Day, VJ Day etc... If the US wants to remember the day, then congress should declare it a federal holiday. If not, then people should just learn to move on.

I'd imagine there are families of at least 3,000 people that would disagree.

Unbelievable...just move on from a coordinated attack that killed thousands just working on a normal day. People jumped out of windows 100 stories high.

I'd rather think about the families of the 36,000 US soldiers who were (needlessly) killed or wounded in Iraq as well as the families of the 17,000 Iraqi security forces who were killed in a war that was fought due to propaganda that stemmed out of the 9/11 fervor that we still see to this day.

Having been apart of the 2003 invasion with the unit designated to find the WMDs (Task Force 20) your assertion that it was fought due to propaganda is on the far side of stupid.

Bad intel drove us into Iraq. It's not like the movies where ominous music and quirky but cute female intel analyst always discover the truth. Intel is information analyzed with a conclusion drawn from it. Most of the time we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong. We went in fully expecting to find WMDs based on the Intel. If not we would have brought WMDs with us, dug a hole, covered'em up, and then come back with the media and "found them" to justify the invasion.

Sorry to come off as harsh but I'm tired of seeing this revisionist bull**** since I was on the ground with the unit hunting for said WMDs in 2003.

Now, back to the looming football season....

Thanks for your service 8bit.


T


...

(08-03-2017 06:21 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 06:05 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 05:57 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 12:10 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:20 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Unbelievable...just move on from a coordinated attack that killed thousands just working on a normal day. People jumped out of windows 100 stories high.

I'd rather think about the families of the 36,000 US soldiers who were (needlessly) killed or wounded in Iraq as well as the families of the 17,000 Iraqi security forces who were killed in a war that was fought due to propaganda that stemmed out of the 9/11 fervor that we still see to this day.

Having been apart of the 2003 invasion with the unit designated to find the WMDs (Task Force 20) your assertion that it was fought due to propaganda is on the far side of stupid.

Bad intel drove us into Iraq. It's not like the movies where ominous music and quirky but cute female intel analyst always discover the truth. Intel is information analyzed with a conclusion drawn from it. Most of the time we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong. We went in fully expecting to find WMDs based on the Intel. If not we would have brought WMDs with us, dug a hole, covered'em up, and then come back with the media and "found them" to justify the invasion.

Sorry to come off as harsh but I'm tired of seeing this revisionist bull**** since I was on the ground with the unit hunting for said WMDs in 2003.

Now, back to the looming football season....

I didn't believe there were WMD's then. Those among us with half a brain could realize (easily) that the war was for oil. It was always oil. WMD's were the excuse that was used. It didn't matter if they actually had chemical weapons or not. There are plenty of countries with chemical weapons that we don't invade. Iraq just lies in a strategic position in the middle east that was very important to the US (especially pre unconventional / fracking boom US) I appreciate what you did, but you shouldn't have had to do it.

I don't take away from the guys that were over there at all. They did their job and they did it well.

Then the "half a brain" folks are ******* brain dead. If it was for oil why didn't we just stay in '92 and keep it then?

And because I had the joy of returning to Iraq a few times I know all about "we invaded for the oil" myth. I was stationed up in Kirkuk in 2006-2007 for 15 months. That's where the Northern oil fields are that provided oil to the Bayji refinery down south. Constant struggle to just get oil to that refinery and provide for the local populace. Exports were next to nil and none of it was going to the good ole'USofA even with thousand of US troops there. BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE! Actually worked in the US Embassy my third time in Iraq in 2011 when we went in to turn the lights out and leave. I worked with the economics section and dealt with, you guessed it, the oil industry and the Ministry of Oil. Again, increasing production for exporting was still a focus because of the antiquated equipment (Hussein didn't put any money into maintenance) and corruption. What oil was getting out wasn't going straight to the US or benefiting any US company. I know this for a fact because I would see data every week and sit in on the briefings.

So you've happen to choose two things I was personally and intimately involved in during my time in Iraq, the hunt for the WMDs and oil.

Again, not trying to be harsh but to to read this revisionist crap over and over again can wear a man down.

Everybody with a full brain knew America had good intentions when it invaded Iraq. No need trying to convince those with only half, soldier.

Today's generation is more concerned with their genitalia and melting icebergs than they are with the things that really matter like family, honor, and hard work. As they say, the children are our future.

Well, the future is screwed.


T


...

(08-03-2017 11:36 AM)geef Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:20 AM)CornellCoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 10:35 AM)geef Wrote:  Am I reading the same article as everyone else? The decision was made by the university. The College Dems and Feminist Equality Movement condemned the change, along with conservative student groups. The immediate jump to calling students snowflakes, whatever the **** that term means, is just as reactionary and divisive as the university's decision to move the location of the flags.

What? You actually expect people to read and use critical thinking? What are you, sleet, snowflakes' weaker cousin?

I like to think of myself as hail. I quickly solidify my decision, then come crashing into everyone and everything in sight.

Brilliant. Love it.

Smoo got Tomi riled up.

(08-03-2017 09:06 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  I'm honestly just tired of the 9/11 hubub. Yes, it was a tragedy, but at some point as a nation you have to move on to some degree. If you asked most Americans when Pearl Harbor happened they probably couldn't tell you the exact date. Same thing goes for the day Kennedy was killed. Can you tell me what day that was without looking it up?

I keep forgetting the date of 9/11 and I saw it unfold on TV. I think it was around September something... maybe the 10th?

I do know JFK was killed on November 22nd because it's my mom's birthday and she always brings it up.

(08-03-2017 09:06 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  I'm honestly just tired of the 9/11 hubub. Yes, it was a tragedy, but at some point as a nation you have to move on to some degree. If you asked most Americans when Pearl Harbor happened they probably couldn't tell you the exact date. Same thing goes for the day Kennedy was killed. Can you tell me what day that was without looking it up?

December 4th?

(I was close but wrong.)

(08-03-2017 06:09 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 05:57 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 12:10 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:20 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:04 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I'd imagine there are families of at least 3,000 people that would disagree.

Unbelievable...just move on from a coordinated attack that killed thousands just working on a normal day. People jumped out of windows 100 stories high.

I'd rather think about the families of the 36,000 US soldiers who were (needlessly) killed or wounded in Iraq as well as the families of the 17,000 Iraqi security forces who were killed in a war that was fought due to propaganda that stemmed out of the 9/11 fervor that we still see to this day.

Having been apart of the 2003 invasion with the unit designated to find the WMDs (Task Force 20) your assertion that it was fought due to propaganda is on the far side of stupid.

Bad intel drove us into Iraq. It's not like the movies where ominous music and quirky but cute female intel analyst always discover the truth. Intel is information analyzed with a conclusion drawn from it. Most of the time we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong. We went in fully expecting to find WMDs based on the Intel. If not we would have brought WMDs with us, dug a hole, covered'em up, and then come back with the media and "found them" to justify the invasion.

Sorry to come off as harsh but I'm tired of seeing this revisionist bull**** since I was on the ground with the unit hunting for said WMDs in 2003.

Now, back to the looming football season....

Thank you for your service, and I will believe there were WMDs til the day I die. Why the hell else would Sadam have refused the UN inspections like 19 TIMES. I believe Sadam moved them into Syria upon the pending invasion.

The man that interrogated sadam said he lied about to deter Iran and was very worried about them. He didn't think the us would intervene and he overplayed his hand like most dictators. Was he an awful leader yes, but he killed all the terrorirst and then we totally destabilized the Middle East. Easy to look back and criticize

(08-04-2017 06:48 AM)TheBigEastSucks Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 06:09 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 05:57 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 12:10 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:20 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Unbelievable...just move on from a coordinated attack that killed thousands just working on a normal day. People jumped out of windows 100 stories high.

I'd rather think about the families of the 36,000 US soldiers who were (needlessly) killed or wounded in Iraq as well as the families of the 17,000 Iraqi security forces who were killed in a war that was fought due to propaganda that stemmed out of the 9/11 fervor that we still see to this day.

Having been apart of the 2003 invasion with the unit designated to find the WMDs (Task Force 20) your assertion that it was fought due to propaganda is on the far side of stupid.

Bad intel drove us into Iraq. It's not like the movies where ominous music and quirky but cute female intel analyst always discover the truth. Intel is information analyzed with a conclusion drawn from it. Most of the time we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong. We went in fully expecting to find WMDs based on the Intel. If not we would have brought WMDs with us, dug a hole, covered'em up, and then come back with the media and "found them" to justify the invasion.

Sorry to come off as harsh but I'm tired of seeing this revisionist bull**** since I was on the ground with the unit hunting for said WMDs in 2003.

Now, back to the looming football season....

Thank you for your service, and I will believe there were WMDs til the day I die. Why the hell else would Sadam have refused the UN inspections like 19 TIMES. I believe Sadam moved them into Syria upon the pending invasion.

The man that interrogated sadam said he lied about to deter Iran and was very worried about them. He didn't think the us would intervene and he overplayed his hand like most dictators. Was he an awful leader yes, but he killed all the terrorirst and then we totally destabilized the Middle East. Easy to look back and criticize

Yeah Saddam was so worried about appearing weak to Iran that he wouldn't just come out and say he didn't have any WMDs to the UN. Turned out he was worried about the wrong threat.

Our intel guys think those semi-trucks heading into Syria we detected prior to and toward the end of the war were full of cash to fund the insurgency. Some might have had chemical weapons but remember, Assad was no friend of Saddams and accepting those would have incurred huge risk. He only allowed the Iraqi Ba'ath party folks to flee and set up shop in the eastern part of his country (which is a barren ******* waste land) because it would prevent Iraq from becoming a stable ally of the US. Worked like a charm too till ISIS emerged after the death of the insurgency. Third order affects biting him in the arse.

Now, back to football! Cowboys won last night!

(08-03-2017 07:24 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 05:57 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 12:10 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:20 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:04 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I'd imagine there are families of at least 3,000 people that would disagree.

Unbelievable...just move on from a coordinated attack that killed thousands just working on a normal day. People jumped out of windows 100 stories high.

I'd rather think about the families of the 36,000 US soldiers who were (needlessly) killed or wounded in Iraq as well as the families of the 17,000 Iraqi security forces who were killed in a war that was fought due to propaganda that stemmed out of the 9/11 fervor that we still see to this day.

Having been apart of the 2003 invasion with the unit designated to find the WMDs (Task Force 20) your assertion that it was fought due to propaganda is on the far side of stupid.

Bad intel drove us into Iraq. It's not like the movies where ominous music and quirky but cute female intel analyst always discover the truth. Intel is information analyzed with a conclusion drawn from it. Most of the time we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong. We went in fully expecting to find WMDs based on the Intel. If not we would have brought WMDs with us, dug a hole, covered'em up, and then come back with the media and "found them" to justify the invasion.

Sorry to come off as harsh but I'm tired of seeing this revisionist bull**** since I was on the ground with the unit hunting for said WMDs in 2003.

Now, back to the looming football season....

Thanks for your service 8bit.

T
...

Ditto that...thanks 8bit for your service!!

I too think WMD's were once there...as this goes way back to the Clinton Administration.

Quotes/statements from 1998-2003:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

(08-03-2017 09:30 AM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  VERY disappointing to see this kind of attitude trend in Texas which is historically a bastion of American patriotism. Texas is where I'd planned to flee if/when the great American class civil war ensues.


T


...

The rest of Texas doesn't really claim Dallas. [/u]

(08-03-2017 09:46 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:07 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:06 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  I'm honestly just tired of the 9/11 hubub. Yes, it was a tragedy, but at some point as a nation you have to move on to some degree. If you asked most Americans when Pearl Harbor happened they probably couldn't tell you the exact date.

16 years after Pearl Harbor, do you think people wouldn't be able to tell you the exact date?

Probably, but 16 years after there were probably some more important dates that people knew, like D-Day, VE Day, VJ Day etc... If the US wants to remember the day, then congress should declare it a federal holiday. If not, then people should just learn to move on.

This might be the most short-sighted, asinine things I have ever seen written on a sports message board.

History and misinformation for political gain are two different things my friends.

History tells us that December 7, 1941 is a day that will live in infamy based on FDR's speech to a joint session of Congress the day after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

While the bombing of Pearl Harbor might not mean as much to my Sons generation ( he's 27) it was extremely important to my 75 - 80 year old parents, that grew up during the war that it caused.

I see 9/11 as my generations (I'm 54) Pearl Harbor for the same reason my parents did, a cowardly peacetime act that spawned a war. As my generation ages and our numbers decline, the personal importance of "I remember where I was when it happened" will die with us.

Its not an example of our country's dying patriotism for a generation to place less importance on an event that they didn't experience personally.

I have no doubt that if there had been Internet message boards in the '60 our parents and grandparents would have been discussing the younger generations lack of patriotism because of our attitude toward Pearl Harbor.

What I am trying to say in a long winded manner is just because young people don't have a personal connection to a tragic event in our Nation's history, it doesn't mean they are less patriotic. My hope and prayer is that they never experience something like 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Remember The Maine or Remember The Alamo.

The moving of the monument is a result of the passage of time.
CJ

(08-03-2017 09:30 AM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  VERY disappointing to see this kind of attitude trend in Texas which is historically a bastion of American patriotism. Texas is where I'd planned to flee if/when the great American class civil war ensues.


T


...

Something like this is akin to tearing down the Alamo - which is now basically a proud Texas historical museum to honor those who helped established the state. Didn't those kids take history? Its a required subject BTW in Texas public schools.

(08-04-2017 08:55 PM)spaz Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:30 AM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  VERY disappointing to see this kind of attitude trend in Texas which is historically a bastion of American patriotism. Texas is where I'd planned to flee if/when the great American class civil war ensues.


T


...

The rest of Texas doesn't really claim Dallas. [/u]

Dallas? What about Austin? Texas will need to invoke Martial Law in Austin once the shooting starts. There's enough snowflakes in that town to flood the entire state if a meltdown ensues.


T


...

The irony is there are just as many conservative snowflakes as liberal ones, they just are triggered by different stuff and want different safe spaces.

(08-05-2017 01:53 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  The irony is there are just as many conservative snowflakes as liberal ones, they just are triggered by different stuff and want different safe spaces.

The term conservative snowflake is an oxymoron.


T


...

Snowflake:

An entitled millenial SJW-tard who runs to her “safe space” to play with stress toys and coloring books when she gets ‘triggered” by various innocuous micro-aggressions.


T


...

(08-05-2017 01:53 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  The irony is there are just as many conservative snowflakes as liberal ones, they just are triggered by different stuff and want different safe spaces.

I've never heard of a conservative that wants safe spaces. Those are super weak people that can't handle different opinions.