# A good link to what's going on in Iraq



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

www.defendamerica.mil


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Oh come on its .mil you can't possibly expect that to give you credible information.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Heres a couple more good ones.

http://www.centcom.mil/

http://www.army.mil/


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You see MT that is what trooper was talking about. We all like that site, but you don't. If we wanted to convince you we would have to go to a left site that you respect. Do you understand now? We trust conservative sites, you trust liberal sites. Right?

I am confused you say mil. site like it was a bad thing. So soldiers you support, but everyone above them is untrustworthy? Serious question MT not poking fun. I asked it because you are giving off two different vibes. Like the military/don't trust the military.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

No, I don't. I told you that I will listen to anyone as long as they provide accurate and credible evidence. Editing out the nasty parts of war to help recruitment is not what I call accurate.



> So soldiers you support, but everyone above them is untrustworthy?


When did I say I supported the troops?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

How do you know they edit out the bad parts? I think you believe what you want and no amount of facts will change your mind. If statements don't fit your agenda you simply say they are not factual. You twist all new reporting to fit your pretend world.

My mistake on you supporting our troops. I should have known who checked do not support troops on your poll. Perhaps you do support troops, but not ours.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

All bad news for the troops is good news for MT. In the words of the my 9 year old, THIS GUY IS WHACKADOO.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> How do you know they edit out the bad parts? I think you believe what you want and no amount of facts will change your mind. If statements don't fit your agenda you simply say they are not factual. You twist all new reporting to fit your pretend world.
> 
> My mistake on you supporting our troops. I should have known who checked do not support troops on your poll. Perhaps you do support troops, but not ours.


I have heard multiple army officers speak out against the media for showing the truths behind the battles, as it is slowing recruitment. If you choose to believe that they are printing the whole truth on that site you are welcome to live in that world.

I stated that I don't support the troops, and I posted why. Evidently you still see thinking about someone as support. You support me eh plainsey?



> All bad news for the troops is good news for MT.


How so? Do you really think that I like seeing our troops get killed? Why exactly do you think that I oppose this war, for my own enjoyment?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT you talk about credible sources. I think you pick the worst sources possible. Do you remember the Guard papers that you believed? Do you remember you though Bush wanted the draft? Then you thought Bush was wired during the debate. You had enough egg on your face to make omelets for a small army. Maybe you remember these things. There was about a week running that you had some of the wildest theories. Here is a post that will help you find the others.

Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:43 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MT



> Indeed how dare I even question such things about the president, if only you could still challenge someone to a duel...*Plainsman I used to have some respect for you*.


Didn't you just call this theatrical a couple posts back? hehe

Just got back from Montana and seen your post. Lets pick this apart a bit shall we. Lets see now you jump on the bandwagon about Bush's National Guard service only to find the papers were a fraud. I was skeptical. You were wrong, I was correct to be skeptical. You have egg on your face, but disrespect me. You were one of the first good little parrots to chime in on the draft that Bush proposed only to find that two democratic clowns proposed it. I said I had never heard Bush talk about a draft, but if I was wrong someone please correct me. Again you were off base, I was right, but you disrespect me. Now you start with the Bush was wired chant, and again I am skeptical. I simply point out that your record is very poor, and you need new sources, but you disrespect me for that.? Do you disrespect me because you are wrong so often, or do you simply hate me because I have been correct? Or do you simply want to keep up the rhetoric without anyone pointing it out? We all know Bush's record, and Kerry's record by now. I wonder what your political agenda is? What do you want Kerry to do that you know Bush will not? You jump on every anti Bush scheme that comes along.

I can't remember all the times you have been wrong, but then you blame us for your credibility problems. Not only that you brag about how we all feel so bad loosing arguments to a 16 year old. Do you have any grasp of reality?

If you want to convince us try find some sites with a fragment of credibility.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> MT you talk about credible sources. I think you pick the worst sources possible. Do you remember the Guard papers that you believed? Do you remember you though Bush wanted the draft? Then you thought Bush was wired during the debate. You had enough egg on your face to make omelets for a small army. Maybe you remember these things. There was about a week running that you had some of the wildest theories. Here is a post that will help you find the others.


Its funny because you count ones against me where I said it might be possible, I didn't believe it, I just gave it the right chance it deserved. An example is with the draft. I thought it was possible, it hasn't happened yet, but it could still happen. Another is the wired during debate, I said something along the lines of "hey that does look funny" which apparently pledged my alliegance to the belief in blood.



> I can't remember all the times you have been wrong, but then you blame us for your credibility problems. Not only that you brag about how we all feel so bad loosing arguments to a 16 year old. Do you have any grasp of reality?


Why exactly then do you try to prove me a college student, if not for pride?



> If you want to convince us try find some sites with a fragment of credibility.


Gladly, but we will need someone to determine which sites are creidble, someone other than an old windbag like you. Chris?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

> Why exactly then do you try to prove me a college student, if not for pride?


We have questioned it because of recent slips you have mad. Anyone with half a brain cell would question it with the things you have stated. I'm not going to rehash them. Most of us know what they were. It's funny how you claim only your references are credible. Thinks again MT.

>


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Why exactly then do you try to prove me a college student, if not for pride?


Simple, I think you would claim to be 16 for a built in excuse for your behavior. People are more willing to forgive a kid for calling them an idiot. Then there is your tagline which is simply intended to embarrass someone. You're a gem MT. Like you kids say "not".


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > Why exactly then do you try to prove me a college student, if not for pride?
> 
> 
> Simple, I think you would claim to be 16 for a built in excuse for your behavior. People are more willing to forgive a kid for calling them an idiot. Then there is your tagline which is simply intended to embarrass someone. You're a gem MT. Like you kids say "not".


Well if that is/was his intentions he has again failed miserable. The cite he seems to hang the tag line to was a speech given by the President one week before the vote in the Senate to authorize military use by the United States in conjunction with the UN resolution or without if needed. The speech was a call to the senate to pass said bill, nothing more nothing less. No where in the cite does the President say we were/are going to war with Iraq. WMD's, nuclear weapons, and human rights violations were just some of the many the President said Saddam violated. If you read carefully you will see that the President was offering and actually calling for was Saddam and his two sons to leave Iraq. At the same time he called upon the UN to take additional action to accomplish the removal of the three. So if he thinks he is embarrassing someone, I don't know who it would be as he still hasn't provided such cite. Personally I think he has been watching and believing Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd to much.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon

There are many questions about this guy running through my mind. What kind of people, even if they do not support the war, would not support the troops. These guys die for freedom of others, for protection of our nation and innumerable other things. He claims to be pro gun, but doesn't support anything that supports the 2nd amendment. It appears he is here simply to throw a wrench in the conversation between people. I would think on a site like this he would convince very few people. Does he just want to squabble with people? I would not go to a liberal site, stir up trouble, then stay there to take the punishment.

It's good to have sportsmen talk together like this, but I am not convinced he is once of us. I was reading an article in a magazine at the chiropractors office the other day about how many sites have people lurking to disrupt. Mostly it is at political sites, but I suppose people like PETA would target sites like nodakoutdoors. I think we have had a couple on here. The guy who wanted to kill a deer with his bare hands made me wonder. I understand that sometimes they get on sportsmens sites and tell gory stories about hunting. They think this gives hunters a bad name. Earth first a few years ago advocated to their members to shoot cattle on government land. They said this would kill two birds with one stone. Kill ranchers cattle and blame it on hunters.

Oh well I imagine as time goes on we will get a better picture.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Typical 16 year old, you say it's green he says its black, why, because he's 16 years old and he can. Maybe I should have used the colors red and blue, ooops.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> We have questioned it because of recent slips you have mad. Anyone with half a brain cell would question it with the things you have stated. I'm not going to rehash them. Most of us know what they were. It's funny how you claim only your references are credible. Thinks again MT.


Since when have the conservatives become the conspiracy theorists? Conservative is switching places with liberal more each day. When did I state that only my sources were credible?



> Simple, I think you would claim to be 16 for a built in excuse for your behavior. People are more willing to forgive a kid for calling them an idiot. Then there is your tagline which is simply intended to embarrass someone. You're a gem MT. Like you kids say "not".


How true Plainsey, at the ripe age of fifty something you have never flung mud on this site, no no, that would be beneath you.



> No where in the cite does the President say we were/are going to war with Iraq. WMD's, nuclear weapons, and human rights violations were just some of the many the President said Saddam violated. If you read carefully you will see that the President was offering and actually calling for was Saddam and his two sons to leave Iraq. At the same time he called upon the UN to take additional action to accomplish the removal of the three.


To begin with smarty pants its a site, secondly I didn't post the site. Bush did state that the only reason for the invasion was to remove his supposed WMD's, not to liberate Iraqis, not for human rights violations.



> There are many questions about this guy running through my mind. What kind of people, even if they do not support the war, would not support the troops. These guys die for freedom of others, for protection of our nation and innumerable other things. He claims to be pro gun, but doesn't support anything that supports the 2nd amendment. It appears he is here simply to throw a wrench in the conversation between people. I would think on a site like this he would convince very few people. Does he just want to squabble with people? I would not go to a liberal site, stir up trouble, then stay there to take the punishment.


You missed the point of my support the troops thread, amazing. My point was that many of the people who claim to support the troops in fact do nothing to help them. As well, none of my freedoms were jeopardized with Saddam in power. It appears that anyone who doesn't do exactly as you do is terrible and only wants to ruin conversation, that wouldn't be more of your holier than thou attitude showing thru would it? No Plainsman I'm sure you wouldn't stay to take the punishment, that wouldn't be your style. Stirring things up though sounds to fit your bill perfectly.



> I was reading an article in a magazine at the chiropractors office the other day about how many sites have people lurking to disrupt. Mostly it is at political sites, but I suppose people like PETA would target sites like nodakoutdoors.


Oh boy, more of this crap that I am some sort of college student who is a secret undercover agent for PETA. Are you getting senile already?



> Typical 16 year old, you say it's green he says its black, why, because he's 16 years old and he can. Maybe I should have used the colors red and blue, ooops.


You have lost your moral values with time and replace them with futile attempts at morality which only denys constitutional rights, and I argue what I believe is actually right.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant Tiger

Even you name is deceptive. When I seen your first post I thought oh boy. I had watched the media talk about the Michigan Militia back in the 1980's and they made them out to be a bunch of nut cases. I worried that you would come out with off the wall pro gun statements and make all sportsmen look like radical extremists. Then your posts kept coming and I thought why does this guy call himself Militant Tiger. Even Militant Putty Tat would have been an overstatement. It perhaps made other people think also that here is a guy that is really a second amendment supporter.

Normally I do ok with first impressions, but I sure blew this one. 
MT, have you ever hunted anything?
You say you never said you support the troops. It would be interesting to know if you did or not.
You are upset about mistreatment of terrorists. Are you upset about our soldiers endangered, or just theirs?

Not being a smart a$$, just would like things straight in my mind. It would help me respond in the correct and fair manner. There are so many mixed signals, and I don't want to debate things that may be nonexistent.

Darn editor on here keeps changing my words. I guess it thought I useing bad language. I wasn't trying to sound like tweety bird in the first paragraph, honest. I did change it because it didn't make sense in the changed form.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Even you name is deceptive. When I seen your first post I thought oh boy. I had watched the media talk about the Michigan Militia back in the 1980's and they made them out to be a bunch of nut cases. I worried that you would come out with off the wall pro gun statements and make all sportsmen look like radical extremists. Then your posts kept coming and I thought why does this guy call himself Militant Tiger. Even Militant Putty Tat would have been an overstatement. It perhaps made other people think also that here is a guy that is really a second amendment supporter.


I didn't think of the name myself, I took the militant part from my friend's brother when I first started playing medal of honor. Nice try at the evaluation though.



> Normally I do ok with first impressions, but I sure blew this one.
> MT, have you ever hunted anything?
> You say you never said you support the troops. It would be interesting to know if you did or not.
> You are upset about mistreatment of terrorists. Are you upset about our soldiers endangered, or just theirs?


The repetitive questions that you already know the answer to are becoming tiresome. I will not answer something that I have already covered well, ala the first two questions. As to the mistreatment of terrorists, yes I do think they deserve to be treated like human beings. I really couldn't give any less of a damn if our soldiers are being shot at or not, thats war. I didn't support the war then, I don't now. It was supporters such as yourself who put them into harms way.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:
 

> > When did I state that only my sources were credible?


You don't need to state it. Your refusal to view other sources other than your own as credible speaks for itself. You sound like Kerry stating the complete opposite of your record.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> You don't need to state it. Your refusal to view other sources other than your own as credible speaks for itself. You sound like Kerry stating the complete opposite of your record.


Could you please point out some of the sources which I've rejected without good reason?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The site from the military that you said they gloss over the bad things that happen. To not be hypocritical I disregard many of your sites also. Like those American soldier hating buddies of yours at Iraqi Body Count.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

The reason has been in your mind.

Later...........


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> The site from the military that you said they gloss over the bad things that happen. To not be hypocritical I disregard many of your sites also. Like those American soldier hating buddies of yours at Iraqi Body Count.


How is it that you can't have a respect for two groups of people who are both human without helping the terrorists or hating soldiers? I guess you're either with us or you're again' us huh?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Back to the original post, I have looked at the site since it was started and did not see any obvious liberal or conservative bias. It is, after all, a military site that is designed to do a couple of things: Present the military point of view and recruit. Does it present facts? Yes, the facts the military wants to present. Does it present all the facts and does it present any facts that are detrimental to the military? He&^ no. The website supports the military and any facts that reflect badly on the military would not be there. As an example, there were no articles on that website since the beginning of the war about the Abu Graib prison or detainee abuse until it broke in the other media. On the website, there is no mention that poppy production in Afghanistan is 3 times higher since the US invasion than it was when the Taliban was in charge (note this is from a government report from DEA). I am NOT commenting on the abuse reports or poppy growing, but just pointing out that this website is like many of the others. 
As another example, how many articles about teen sex do you see on the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) website? Secondly, as I know for a fact, anything on a federal government or military website goes through multiple rounds of editing and review. It is reviewed for policy content, facts presented, statistics presented, ad nauseum. What finally gets to the website, particularly in policies or reports, is what reflects most favorably on the agency, or in this case, the military.


----------

