Doc. Zaius 0 Posted December 21, 2003 Quote[/b] ]Time Magazine's cover for the Dec. 29- Jan. 5 issue shows three American military personnel representing the 'Anonymous American Soldier' chosen by Time to be the magazine's 2003 Person of the Year. The American soldier, who bears the duty of ``living with and dying for a country's most fateful decisions,'' was named Sunday, Dec. 21, 2003 as Time's Person of the Year. Yahoo news Edit: Wrong link (sort of.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted December 21, 2003 Yeah, very bad choice. TIME magizine is obviously losing it's balls. The "TIME Man of the Year" is supposed to be a person who got most publicity in the past year or who made the biggest impact in some way. Earlier recipients have been for instance Winston Churchill, Stalin and Hitler. This year it should have been Bush or Saddam. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Frenchman 0 Posted December 21, 2003 I agree with Denior. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blackdog~ 0 Posted December 21, 2003 it should have been...................................... suchey & earl :] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Acecombat 0 Posted December 22, 2003 LOL a american soldier as the Person of the year whats next ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted December 22, 2003 LOL a american soldier as the Person of the year whats next ? Â A flamewar. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted December 22, 2003 Yeah, it should of been me. j/k Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TexMex Leprechaun 0 Posted December 22, 2003 Hmm surley it is not......Lynch? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
acidcrash 0 Posted December 22, 2003 last time i checked, Lynch wasnt a man Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Frenchman 0 Posted December 22, 2003 Hmm surley it is not......Lynch? For being a POW? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted December 22, 2003 Quote[/b] ]For being a POW? Has she ever been a POW ? The Time magazine result only shows me whom I don´t trust and rely on anymore. US soldiers are betrayed when it comes to the reasons for the US war. A lot of them have to die until the US public finally recognizes what everyone else knew prior the war. Hey FS, what´s up with the WMD´s? Ah forget it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TexMex Leprechaun 0 Posted December 22, 2003 Quote[/b] ]For being a POW? Nah, for all that atention. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted December 22, 2003 Quote[/b] ]Nah, for all that atention. Don´t you think that all about her story is a lie ? I´m sorry, but she was NOT attacked by Iraqi forces. She was injured because they got lost, although they had GPS. They got lost and had an accident. She was taken to Iraqi hospital and the medical team tried to bring her back to US forces.  But the US forces refused to take her. Instead of that they dramatized her rescue with the right cameraman and NV pictures, that were totally unnessesary, because the hospital was lit al over. IT WAS A FAKE ! goddamnit! If you check out the camera man´s name and search a Lucas Arts webpage you´ll get an idea... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TexMex Leprechaun 0 Posted December 22, 2003 Her story no, the story about her very likely. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted December 22, 2003 Quote[/b] ]Nah, for all that atention. <snip> Balschoiw, have you ever heard the American phrase, "There's no such thing as bad publicity"? In this case, just modify it to read, "There's no such thing as fake publicity". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NJN 0 Posted December 22, 2003 I would think it would be far more appropriate to award the title to the Iraqi republican guard. Severely outclassed, no air support, with constant bombardment and probably no sleep for close to 2 weeks, they still managed to hold out from a vastly superior army for weeks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killagee 0 Posted December 22, 2003 Yeah this one is wierd... Last thing I expected of time magazine... I aggree with Denoir. It should dhave been bush as most influencial person of the year ( in a bad way) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toadlife 3 Posted December 22, 2003 I would think it would be far more appropriate to award the title to the Iraqi republican guard. Severely outclassed, no air support, with constant bombardment and probably no sleep for close to 2 weeks, they still managed to hold out from a vastly superior army for weeks. Umm yeah...ok. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted December 22, 2003 I would think it would be far more appropriate to award the title to the Iraqi republican guard. Severely outclassed, no air support, with constant bombardment and probably no sleep for close to 2 weeks, they still managed to hold out from a vastly superior army for weeks. Whatever. Give me a couple companies of South Carolina militiamen and I'll lock down an area the size of Iraq for at lest 3 months (depends on whether I can get Bubba to exercise proper fire discipline). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blackdog~ 0 Posted December 22, 2003 Yeah this one is wierd... Last thing I expected of time magazine...I aggree with Denoir. It should dhave been bush as most influencial person of the year ( in a bad way) No, it should have been about people who aren't bush but look/looked like bush at a younger age. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted December 22, 2003 they still managed to hold out from a vastly superior army for weeks. Actually, they didn't. Most of them fled and they didn't even bother to defend Baghdad. Overall the only military force that proved itselfe capable were the Fedayeen Saddam. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted December 22, 2003 Yeah this one is wierd... Last thing I expected of time magazine...I aggree with Denoir. It should dhave been bush as most influencial person of the year ( in a bad way) No, it should have been about people who aren't bush but look/looked like bush at a younger age. I get enough publicity as it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted December 22, 2003 quickly went OT.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
