My opinion doesn't matter. What matters most to me, is exposing how you've done nothing more to use them as your own tool. Offering a knife in their back one day, and a handshake the next, IF, it fits your agenda. Honor their service gworld, not just their words you use to promote your agenda of attacking America. BTW, I was a Sergeant. Since you've never served anything more than your own needs, you may not be aware that calling me a Corporal is actually a compliment, even though I was one rank higher. You see, at E-4 most soldiers in the Army are what is called a "Specialist." At least in my time. Corporal is a leadership position. You don't make that rank, you are given that rank as a Specialist by displaying exceptional leadership qualities, when there is a shortage of non-commissioned offers in a unit. So in the absence of enough NCOs within a unit, a Specialist may be given the rank of Corporal and designated as a non-commissioned officer in a leadership position. Just thought you would like to know that, while degrading yet another soldier's service to his country.
I tempted gworld last week by asking how his country dealt with terrorists. Apparently he didn't want to talk about Canada. Let's see, last time there was a discussion about Canada, we had all the "not everyone is," "not all are," "don't categorize and entire country by," "it should be about the individual" and a few other choice ones. Wonder where those people are today?
I never degrade your service, I am sure you have given out thousands of pamphlets to high school students and had many hand to hand combat with teenagers that were trying to avoid your pamphlets in the hallways. I understand that corporals are important in the army, just look at another mad corporal by the name of Hitler and what he achieved. Who knows, under the right conditions, may be you can form the fourth Reich and start WW III.
gworld, your post easily qualifies as "problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude)." You should apologize to GTech for being so rude.
Given gworlds last post about corporals and hitler, my comments hit the nail straight on the head. Nothing but a tool
Actually, from an economic perspective of defending the petro-dollar from being replaced by the petroeuro, invading Iraq was a complete success. The official reasons for going to war were a complete crock. The 'weapons of mass destruction' never existed. I wonder what the catchy soundbyte for a strategic nuking of Iran will be? "Burning out the center of the axis of evil" "Striking terror with terror" "Ooops!"
Old news: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...pons+of+mass+destruction."&btnG=Google+Search And suddenly, some anonymous group with anonymous people making anonymous claims about "their" report that David Kay didn't even know about, suddenly appear and say it's a lie, when two other teams said different? Makes sense to me Nothing like a three page story built completely upon anonymous souces!
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=790551&postcount=35 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=793590&postcount=53 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=283617&postcount=2 I'm pretty sure it won't be "Israel will be wiped off the earth."
The links are useless, Sgt. The 'weapons of mass destruction' reason was only to gain public support, surely even you can concede that? I dunno about your reference to Israel ... is that a parody of the Iranian leader saying he wanted to wipe Israel off the map? Or the Palestinians? Or, um, most of the Arab world?
Treat the links as if they are about molten steel Don't forget the link in my sig. No parody, just simply stating that I'm pretty sure that won't be the slogan. I think someone's already claimed it. Someone with nuclear capabilities.
The links only appear to be you banging on about how right you are. They don't really have anything to do with why 'weapons of mass destruction' were used as an excuse to go to war since they didn't exist. Which brings me back to my previous question: The 'weapons of mass destruction' reason was only to gain public support, surely even you can concede that? C'mon, you know that is a true statement. Do you concede the point? 'Weapons of mass destruction' was only a fabrication to make the war appear more palatable to the public. Yes or no? Actually, you mentioning Israel and wipings from earth and nuclear capability has just made me see how 'they' are going to do it. Implant special ops into Iran, smuggle in a small nuke or two and launch from Iranian soil on Israel. 'Retaliate'. Time to get the marshmallows.
They actually build a solid case for what I'm saying. How could I? http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=283676&postcount=4 No. http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ Sorry, I'm out of foil
Lol! No they don't. There aren't any 'weapons of mass destruction' and never have been. It isn't tinfoil you need, it's about 10 feet of lead lining.
Powell admits no link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0109-01.htm CIA Admits no weapons in Iraq http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Sa...weapons-in-Iraq/2005/02/01/1107228705488.html G-Tech, do you *really* believe that there were WMD's there?
You mean, in 2004, Powell admits (was he on trial?) no hard proof http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1 http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_..._U.S._Federal_Court_for_African_Bombings.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/780plthl.asp There's a lot more there, you just have to be willing to read it. Open minded goes beyond sites with "prison" in the url. Incorrect and misleading. A website suggests it has access to classified information about chemical weapons reports from the CIA. There is nothing that says no weapons in Iraq. Show the CIA documents. In the meantime: http://www.boston.com/news/world/ar...d_chemical_weapons_factory_uncovered_in_iraq/ And of course, more information here: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=283617&postcount=2
Weapons of massdestruction wasn't used against the kurds? That was obviously just a lie considering that there has "never have been" ('weapons of mass destruction')? Unfortunally, there's people that have experienced it. Should I trust them or should I trust you?
Man snap out of it. There were no terrorists in Iraq. And there were no WMDs. There is more terrorists now in Iraq than during the Sadam regime. And there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Don't you believe that?[/quote] Hind sight is always 20/20 witht his people.... Yawn.