Skip to comments.
Rescued U.S. soldier put up fierce fight - Wash Post
Reuters
| 4/03/03
Posted on 04/03/2003 3:03:29 AM PST by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-179 last
To: FreedomPoster
You picked the username, not me. Indeed, I did ... let me tell you why: The username draws the attention of posters, like you, who have no intelligent criticism to offer; they resort to attacking my username. You fell for the bait.
161
posted on
04/03/2003 12:14:20 PM PST
by
bimbo
To: Dower
The reports are already out ... Thanks, but I'll read the reports before I comment.
162
posted on
04/03/2003 12:17:40 PM PST
by
bimbo
To: Poohbah
One more time: are you accusing serving US Army officers of lying, or suborning false statements from PFC Lynch? No one (except maybe you) is accusing anyone of anything... we're commenting on possibilities.
163
posted on
04/03/2003 12:21:34 PM PST
by
bimbo
To: bimbo
here You more than proved yourself on your original post. I'm done.
To: bimbo
Keep digging.
To: bimbo; Chancellor Palpatine; hchutch
No one (except maybe you) is accusing anyone of anything... we're commenting on possibilities.A remarkably Clintonian answer, and one that doesn't hold up with the record.
Are you saying you didn't write the post I'm quoting below, over here?
Officials told the newspaper that the precise sequence of events was still being determined and further information would emerge as Lynch is debriefed.
Translation: We are still concocting this story for maximum heroism, and Lynch still doesnt have it straight.
Now that I've refreshed your memory, are you accusing serving officers in the US Army of lying about the actions of PFC Lynch, or attempting to extract false statements from PFC Lynch?
166
posted on
04/03/2003 12:25:58 PM PST
by
Poohbah
(Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
Comment #167 Removed by Moderator
To: Chancellor Palpatine
But you agree, then, that placing women in line of fire is a liberal/socialist policy. I couldn't care less if you think I was a Marine or not.
168
posted on
04/03/2003 1:38:40 PM PST
by
William Terrell
(People can exist without government but government can't exist without people.)
To: William Terrell
No, I disagree. Women can serve, as proven, with distinction, and leaving the armed forces open to people who want and can serve their nation in a fighting capacity is neither socialist nor liberal.
169
posted on
04/03/2003 1:42:23 PM PST
by
Chancellor Palpatine
(going into an election campaign without the paleocons is like going to war without the French)
To: Chancellor Palpatine
No, I disagree. Women can serve, as proven, with distinction, and leaving the armed forces open to people who want and can serve their nation in a fighting capacity is neither socialist nor liberal. Women have served in history as clerical/support, not in line of fire or other front line roles. Also this has been found in all other civilizations (that were healthy). Not putting women in dangerous front line roles is conservative, that is, to conserve ways that have proved to be compatable with the way men and women are, as proved time and time again throughout history.
Therefore putting women in harm's way in armed conflict, especially when there are so many men available, is a liberal position. The fact that socialism and it's more intense progeny, communism, are built on such as that make it a socialist position.
If you support that idea, which you do, you must be a liberal/socialist.
170
posted on
04/03/2003 2:12:05 PM PST
by
William Terrell
(People can exist without government but government can't exist without people.)
To: William Terrell
Therefore putting women in harm's way in armed conflict, especially when there are so many men available, is a liberal position. The fact that socialism and it's more intense progeny, communism, are built on such as that make it a socialist position. If you support that idea, which you do, you must be a liberal/socialist.
That might be the most moronic slippery slope argument I've seen yet.
Besides, "General", nothing in your trick bag makes you an expert, and according to a friend of mine I just got off the phone with, a female reserve major and veteran of GW1 (who incidentally participated in combat), she could likely kick your butt (fighting woman to weasel). The lady was unimpressed by your statements or credentials, in fact, kinda laughed.
171
posted on
04/03/2003 2:18:20 PM PST
by
Chancellor Palpatine
(going into an election campaign without the paleocons is like going to war without the French)
To: bimbo
My 'argument', as you call it, is that your comments fit your screen name well. Bimbo style comments coming from a Bimbo screen name. Do you know what a bimbo is?
Have a delightful day.
To: Chancellor Palpatine
Bark, bark. No need to be an "expert" when logic and history is on one's side.
173
posted on
04/03/2003 4:15:37 PM PST
by
William Terrell
(People can exist without government but government can't exist without people.)
To: Chancellor Palpatine
STFU, paleo moron. FU a-hole.
To: Chancellor Palpatine
Some people fall for anything, you idiots never learn.
To: A2J; William Terrell
I've read this whole thread, and you two seem to be the only ones making sensible arguments based on the article. The rest either have a real problem with basic reading comprehension, or know they have nothing to rebut you with, so they resort to
ad hominem attacks.
Of course, there are those who manage to combine both, such as asking such idiotic questions as: "...are you accusing serving officers in the US Army of lying about this event?"
You two have made this thread an interesting read.
176
posted on
04/03/2003 4:38:19 PM PST
by
xsysmgr
(REMF who never saw a rear area.)
To: xsysmgr; A2J; William Terrell
Bumpity Bump
It seems as if somebody has tainted these peoples water supply. Looks like more and more sheeple are gracing FR, blindly knee jerking as they follow the rest of the flock.
177
posted on
04/03/2003 5:58:54 PM PST
by
VMI70
(...but two Wrights made an airplane)
To: ping jockey
From what I'm hearing now is that some of the Washington Post story is suspect. I'll save my judgement for latter.
To: Outrance
179
posted on
04/03/2003 8:18:54 PM PST
by
Humal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-179 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson