SEAL Falls on Grenade to Save Comrades

by **Ballsyone** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:07 pm

This is something that you steve would know absolutely nothing about:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2563877

**Sponsor**

by **rationality** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:54 pm

A true american hero.

by **Lonewolfe2015** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:15 pm

That takes real courage to sacrifice yourself and everything that you are. He is a very brave man to have saved his friends in such a manner.

by **steve1633** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:47 pm

haha ballsy how does that have anything to do with me? Have I ever talked s bomb on any soldier? Have I ever blamed a soldier or even a branch of the armed services for anything? no. Not once. You're just an ignorant ass.

by **Ballsyone** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:40 pm

Just your general ANTI-AMERICANISM you jack-off.

by **StormnMormon** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:53 pm

Forgive me for bringin scripture into this but...

John 15: 13
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends

by **steve1633** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:01 pm

Just because you can't justify the war in the context of global politics doesn't mean it's ok for you to exploit a tragedy like this to make it seem as if the war is right. The man was obviously very courageous, but that doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't have had to show his courage in that way, it's really just a tragedy that instead of his courage being used to raise his children or work to improve his neighborhood it had to be used in a war that will only result in more young Americans having to sacrafice their lives for friends. The bravery of soldiers doesn't prove the righteousness of a conflict and for you to use this incident as some kind of attack against the anti-war crowd is a pathetic attempt to exploit a tragic event for your own purposes.

by **Lonewolfe2015** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:13 pm

This war is just the beginning Steve, people whom oppose it can't see the larger picture generally. Had we not stepped in, and began the first march into the middle east, then we would never be poised to start on Iran. Unfortunately, we did take longer than expected in Iraq, and we did lose one too many people (but consider the numbers over the past conflicts/wars, we are doing well). The one biggest regret I feel, is that we have spent too much on weapons. A half a million dollar shoulder fired rocket, used to take out a crew of 3 terrorists, is not worth it. Esspecially when a bullet costs as low as 10 cents.

I would have a higher respect for the anti-war activists (mind you, thats slightly higher than dirt) if they didn't damage the confidence in our troops and make us look bad to the rest of the world.

by **Ballsyone** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:23 pm

steve1633 wrote:Just because you can't justify the war in the context of global politics doesn't mean it's ok for you to exploit a tragedy like this to make it seem as if the war is right. The man was obviously very courageous, but that doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't have had to show his courage in that way, it's really just a tragedy that instead of his courage being used to raise his children or work to improve his neighborhood it had to be used in a war that will only result in more young Americans having to sacrafice their lives for friends. The bravery of soldiers doesn't prove the righteousness of a conflict and for you to use this incident as some kind of attack against the anti-war crowd is a pathetic attempt to exploit a tragic event for your own purposes.

What makes you think that the war ISN'T JUSTIFIED?

by **flyohiou** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:42 am

Lonewolfe2015 wrote:I would have a higher respect for the anti-war activists (mind you, thats slightly higher than dirt) if they didn't damage the confidence in our troops and make us look bad to the rest of the world.

let's keep it straight. most people are not anti-war. they are anti-iraq war. and a great many of those "slightly higher than dirt" people include many soldiers returning home to denounce the war. it also includes many generals that quit under bush's command

by **Ballsyone** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:44 pm

flyohiou wrote:let's keep it straight. most people are not anti-war. they are anti-iraq war. and a great many of those "slightly higher than dirt" people include many soldiers returning home to denounce the war. it also includes many generals that quit under bush's command

ohio, the main reason why the soldiers are complaining is because they aren't being allowed to do their jobs. They are KILLERS! Pure and simple. And they are fighting the war with one hand tied behind their backs JUST LIKE IN VIETNAM! It is VERY FRUSTRATING for the fighting men. This invasion should have been over 2 years ago. Bush and Rumsfield are the modern day johnson and mcnamara.

by **Ballsyone** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:47 pm

Was talking to a 12 year Navy Seal yesterday and he left the military BECAUSE of his frustration. He said MANY GREAT MILITARY MEN are leaving the military because of their frustration. It is VERY DIFFICULT to replace a 12 YEAR NAVY SEAL! Can you imagine the experience that this guy has?

by **flyohiou** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:02 pm

Ballsyone wrote:ohio, the main reason why the soldiers are complaining is because they aren't being allowed to do their jobs.

that's not true and you know it

Ballsyone wrote:JUST LIKE IN VIETNAM! It is VERY FRUSTRATING for the fighting men.

that's true though

Ballsyone wrote:This invasion should have been over 2 years ago.

it was. mission accomplished, remember?

Ballsyone wrote: Bush and Rumsfield are the modern day johnson and mcnamara.

i don't know what that means, but it's funny that you think bush is like a democrat

by **steve1633** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:16 pm

You all seem to completely miss the fact that agressive wars don't work. I'm trying to think of the last war in which the instigator succeeded in accomplishing their goals or was even better off in the end but I certainly can't name one since WWI. In this modern day you cannot make a foreign policy that puts a premium on military strikes against other countries work. And with the advent of nuclear weapons there are higher risks than ever when we fail.

by **oxymoron** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:48 pm

So one man's courage makes the war seem justified? He wouldn't need to get killed if we had the war. In fact, none of us would be in danger. Especially becuase nobody except the extremists would mess with our country. And we should have only acted in defense against the extremists, not invaded a country just to find Saddam, when the f bomb CIA failed to capture Osama. Iraq needed to be free? What s bomb. I do admire that this guy was a hero, and I find it tragic that he died, but I still don't think it justifies the war.