Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9

 

2009-05-20 10:43:19
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6712|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It was a political loss after ~10 years of winning every battle militarily.
They won all the battles and lost the war?
Pretty sure its the war which matters.
If it had been so easy why didn't they just wipe out the NVA?
Of course it's the war that matters. I was merely pointing out that your statement was incorrect. I fixed it so that it was factually correct.

Why didn't they just wipe out the NVA? Try reading the assessments of the major battles with the NVA (which were actually few and far between...most were with VC in the South). NVA never achieved their military objectives in any battle...that means the NVA failed. It was a political victory, not a military victory.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-05-20 11:55:55
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7076|Moscow, Russia

M.O.A.B wrote:

I don't see what resource can be gained from Afghanistan, unless we're hoping to sell off the excess heroin.
oh, c'mon, do i really have to explain such trivial things to you? can't you guess yourself what a country full of islamic extremists that hate usa' guts so much they could - literally - die had to do with their plans to establish conrtol in the region?

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So you'd only respect what has been done if it is put in terms that make you comfortable or that fit your preconceptions rather than in terms of actuality?
what constitutes "actuality"? imho, "actuality" or rather out notion about it is based largely on wishfull thinking which nobody can fully overcome and see through.
you call something "war on terror", i call it "resource wars". you tell me my opinions are based on "preconceptions", i simply call it "common sence". i doubt we'll see eye-to-eye on this one.
You have nothing to back your assertion that it is a "resource war".
you bet, i don't. i just look at the latest history of the human kind and try to find parallels. nobody ever fought "a war on terror" before, so usa must have pretty damn good reasons to invent this new kind of fun. you are welcome to explain those reasons to me any time - today's good.

FEOS wrote:

If it were, the war would have started long ago
it did. basically, it started right after the collapse of the ussr. gulf war, kosovo and the stuff - all those are links of the same chain, an effort to further undermine the already shabby international regulations and practices. the actual war followed.

FEOS wrote:

not when some jihadis decided to fly some jets into three of our buildings.
/sigh... proof these bombing had to do anything with taliban or saddam, please. ah, yeah, usa also wanted to kick obl's butt AND knew where he was, right? why not assassinate the bastard ffs? american special forces are supposed to be some crazy mofo's reeking with awesomeness - why not use them? why move the whole bloody army, kill countless civilians and occupy a country you don't need anything from if you only need to pwn obl and aq? why spend all those enormous amounts on the war you don't intend to win?

FEOS wrote:

So...apparently your "common sense" involves making up reasons rather than looking at the actual reasons in order for your view of the world to be validated in your eyes.
so... apparently i don't claim to know where osama is or if saddam had any wmd's or not - you do and you are trying to use all that to justify the carnage that insued in the middle east. gwb said that "intelligence was solid" - fine, you are welcome to make that "solid intelligence" public at any time. untill then i'm going to base my opinions on the info i have available.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2009-05-20 12:04:49
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6524|Escea

Shahter wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

I don't see what resource can be gained from Afghanistan, unless we're hoping to sell off the excess heroin.
oh, c'mon, do i really have to explain such trivial things to you? can't you guess yourself what a country full of islamic extremists that hate usa' guts so much they could - literally - die had to do with their plans to establish conrtol in the region?
That would be known as a war for a strategic location, not a resource war. Despite the country's reserves of gold and some reserves of gas and oil, nothing is being shipped out of Afghanistan to the western world. Afghanistan is all about trying to shut down one of the main movement and control points for extremist groups moving throughout central Asia.

If these were resource wars the fighting would take place to secure the actual resources and then remove them, everywhere else in the countries would be left alone if it was a resource war.
2009-05-20 12:31:46
1stSFOD-Delta
Mike "The Spooge Gobbler" Morales
+376|6279|Blue Mountain State

Shahter wrote:

/sigh... proof these bombing had to do anything with taliban or saddam, please. ah, yeah, usa also wanted to kick obl's butt AND knew where he was, right? why not assassinate the bastard ffs? american special forces are supposed to be some crazy mofo's reeking with awesomeness - why not use them? why move the whole bloody army, kill countless civilians and occupy a country you don't need anything from if you only need to pwn obl and aq? why spend all those enormous amounts on the war you don't intend to win?
Are you fucking stupid?
https://www.itwirx.com/other/hksignature.jpg

Baba Booey
2009-05-20 19:33:43
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6712|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

you bet, i don't.
You should've just stopped right there.

Shahter wrote:

i just look at the latest history of the human kind and try to find parallels. nobody ever fought "a war on terror" before, so usa must have pretty damn good reasons to invent this new kind of fun. you are welcome to explain those reasons to me any time - today's good.
There was nothing "invented". There was a particular group that killed nearly 3000 Americans in the space of a few hours. So we went after said group and the government that supported them, even after given the chance to give them up.

Pretty good reasons.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If it were, the war would have started long ago
it did. basically, it started right after the collapse of the ussr. gulf war, kosovo and the stuff - all those are links of the same chain, an effort to further undermine the already shabby international regulations and practices. the actual war followed.
So Kosovo was about resources, was it? What resources would those be? A distinct lack of vowels in the Balkans?

Each of those conflicts had a separate and distinct reason for happening. Your resource argument is spot on for Gulf War 1...nobody ever made any bones about that. Please explain what link Kosovo had to that little flare up.

You've thrown around some generalities but still haven't provided any facts on which you have based your assertions. If it's just your emotion-based opinion, that's fine...just don't act like it's based in reality.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

not when some jihadis decided to fly some jets into three of our buildings.
/sigh... proof these bombing had to do anything with taliban or saddam, please. ah, yeah, usa also wanted to kick obl's butt AND knew where he was, right? why not assassinate the bastard ffs? american special forces are supposed to be some crazy mofo's reeking with awesomeness - why not use them? why move the whole bloody army, kill countless civilians and occupy a country you don't need anything from if you only need to pwn obl and aq? why spend all those enormous amounts on the war you don't intend to win?
Taliban knowingly sheltered UBL and AQ leadership...even after he admitted to it and we said to give him up or face the consequences.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. With the exception of a couple of misstatements by Cheney and Bush, nobody ever said he did. The causus belli for OIF had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11...it had to do with 12 years of Saddam violating 17-odd UN resolutions. That would include the one(s) that allowed for military action.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So...apparently your "common sense" involves making up reasons rather than looking at the actual reasons in order for your view of the world to be validated in your eyes.
so... apparently i don't claim to know where osama is or if saddam had any wmd's or not - you do and you are trying to use all that to justify the carnage that insued in the middle east. gwb said that "intelligence was solid" - fine, you are welcome to make that "solid intelligence" public at any time. untill then i'm going to base my opinions on the info i have available.
Oh please...PLEASE point out where I said either of those things. PLEASE. I'd love to see it.

And please do share the "info you have available". You haven't provided any yet.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-05-20 22:21:41
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6407|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

The causus belli for OIF had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11...it had to do with 12 years of Saddam violating 17-odd UN resolutions.
Except he didn't violate any resolutions.
Fuck Israel
2009-05-20 22:56:58
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6966|NT, like Mick Dundee

Weren't there violations of UN sanctions tied up in AWB?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-05-21 02:53:41
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7076|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

you bet, i don't.
You should've just stopped right there.
i appreciate your consern, but i'll make my own judgement on this one, thank you very much.

FEOS wrote:

There was nothing "invented". There was a particular group that killed nearly 3000 Americans in the space of a few hours. So we went after said group and the government that supported them, even after given the chance to give them up.
now if you could provide any proof that aq was in afghan and taliban were supporting them we'd be all set.

FEOS wrote:

Pretty good reasons.
resons for what? for buldozing through the country killing countless people just to get to a group of terrorists?

FEOS wrote:

Please explain what link Kosovo had to that little flare up.
i've already did in my previous post.

FEOS wrote:

You've thrown around some generalities but still haven't provided any facts on which you have based your assertions. If it's just your emotion-based opinion, that's fine...just don't act like it's based in reality.
you want to counter my "generalities" with something stronger? - go on. but please, dont' feed me that "helping the needy" or "spreading democracy" bullshit, okay? - nobody fights a war for that crap. there are plenty of places in the world where people are getting the crap beaten out of them for all the "wrong reasons" right now - why aren't your "jedi" helping? maybe because the precedent's already been broken with kosovo and there's no need to repeat it?

FEOS wrote:

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. With the exception of a couple of misstatements by Cheney and Bush, nobody ever said he did. The causus belli for OIF had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11...it had to do with 12 years of Saddam violating 17-odd UN resolutions. That would include the one(s) that allowed for military action.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

usmarine wrote:

UN actually
oh, yeah, let's stick UN into every hole we don't know what to cover with otherwise, huh?
It's a common tactic used here. I think Marine is being purposefully ironic by referencing that tactic in his post.
et tu, brute?(c) are you trolling there alongside marine or what? after usa basically told un to fuck off they've thrown all those "saddam violations"-arguments out the window. as russians say "you can't be pregnant just a little bit" - you either follow the path of un reconciliation or you don't. so that leaves us with what? a couple of misstatements you mentioned? saddam was a prick, but whether he violated those bloody resolutions or not, usa should have left it up to un to decide what had to be done if they wanted to use those resolutions to justify the second war. usa took the matters in their own hands - and that's fine by me, btw - just don't bring un up anymore.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

so... apparently i don't claim to know where osama is or if saddam had any wmd's or not - you do and you are trying to use all that to justify the carnage that insued in the middle east. gwb said that "intelligence was solid" - fine, you are welcome to make that "solid intelligence" public at any time. untill then i'm going to base my opinions on the info i have available.
Oh please...PLEASE point out where I said either of those things. PLEASE. I'd love to see it.
yeah, i misworded it there. i know my english sucks, cut me some slack. by "you" i ment "those who defend america's actions in general", not mr. feos exclusively. i dunno, in russian language we say it like that all the time and the meaning of the pronoun is usually determined by context. i realise now, that even given the context of this thread it looks wrong anyway.

i wouldn't mind a look at "solid intelligence" still.

FEOS wrote:

And please do share the "info you have available". You haven't provided any yet.
i know what everybody knows: usa & co fight wars in the middle east, they do it on their own disregarding everybody else, including un, and they haven't found any wmd's or terrorists yet. as i said earlier, i don't beleave that any nation would go to war against terror or for some poor bastards that are being oppressed on the other side of the globe any more than i beleave in the force, jedi or santa claus. what's there to fight over then? the answer is pretty obvious i guess.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2009-05-21 05:53:46
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6524|Escea

Flecco wrote:

Weren't there violations of UN sanctions tied up in AWB?
Wasn't there that thing with France as well, oil for food, or something?
2009-05-21 06:02:05
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6407|eXtreme to the maX
Violating resolutions and violating sanctions are two different things.
Fuck Israel
2009-05-21 07:59:12
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6712|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The causus belli for OIF had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11...it had to do with 12 years of Saddam violating 17-odd UN resolutions.
Except he didn't violate any resolutions.
Except he did. Sanctions are put in place by resolution. Violating the sanction violates the resolution.

And he outright violated non-sanction-related resolutions, as well.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-05-21 13:52:29
BVC
Member
+325|6996
JUST TO CLARIFY SOMETHING

Pubic wrote:

I wasn't joking.

Afghanistan was started because the Taleban wouldn't play ball re:OBL & AQ
Iraq was started because Saddam wouldn't play ball re:weapons inspections

If either the Taleban or Saddam had been willing to play ball, the corresponding conflict - and subsequent loss of life for both sides - could have been avoided.
Perhaps I could have worded this post a little better.  I did not claim that there was proof or knowledge, only that there was a deliberate refusal to co-operate, which is what is implied by the phrase "play ball" - that phrase refers to co-operation, and not claims of fact/knowledge.

In the case of Afghanistan, the Taleban refused to allow the US to go and hunt for OBL/AQ - they didn't co-operate.

In the case of Iraq, Saddam kept refusing to allow weapons inspections until it was too late - he didn't co-operate.
2009-05-21 17:58:07
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6712|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

you bet, i don't.
You should've just stopped right there.
i appreciate your consern, but i'll make my own judgement on this one, thank you very much.
Your judgment failed you.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

There was nothing "invented". There was a particular group that killed nearly 3000 Americans in the space of a few hours. So we went after said group and the government that supported them, even after given the chance to give them up.
now if you could provide any proof that aq was in afghan and taliban were supporting them we'd be all set.
Already been done. Recommend you do a quick search with this thing called "Google" or "Wikipedia" or watch the "news" or "read".

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Pretty good reasons.
resons for what? for buldozing through the country killing countless people just to get to a group of terrorists?
Countless people? Are you including Taliban in that "countless" or just being hyperbolic with no facts to back your position?

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Please explain what link Kosovo had to that little flare up.
i've already did in my previous post.
No. You didn't.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You've thrown around some generalities but still haven't provided any facts on which you have based your assertions. If it's just your emotion-based opinion, that's fine...just don't act like it's based in reality.
you want to counter my "generalities" with something stronger? - go on. but please, dont' feed me that "helping the needy" or "spreading democracy" bullshit, okay? - nobody fights a war for that crap. there are plenty of places in the world where people are getting the crap beaten out of them for all the "wrong reasons" right now - why aren't your "jedi" helping? maybe because the precedent's already been broken with kosovo and there's no need to repeat it?
Took a really long time to find this:

Rand report wrote:

At first glance, Operation Allied Force may appear to be unique. Humanitarian concerns, rather than national interests, prompted this operation, resulting in stringent rules of engagement (ROE) and low tolerance for friendly casualties. Moreover, it resulted from miscalculation on both sides and took a course that neither side expected.
There's plenty more out there regarding the casus belli for Operation Allied Force. I recommend reading a bit before spouting nonsense about "resources" being the reason for action in Kosovo.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. With the exception of a couple of misstatements by Cheney and Bush, nobody ever said he did. The causus belli for OIF had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11...it had to do with 12 years of Saddam violating 17-odd UN resolutions. That would include the one(s) that allowed for military action.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:


oh, yeah, let's stick UN into every hole we don't know what to cover with otherwise, huh?
It's a common tactic used here. I think Marine is being purposefully ironic by referencing that tactic in his post.
et tu, brute?(c) are you trolling there alongside marine or what? after usa basically told un to fuck off they've thrown all those "saddam violations"-arguments out the window. as russians say "you can't be pregnant just a little bit" - you either follow the path of un reconciliation or you don't. so that leaves us with what? a couple of misstatements you mentioned? saddam was a prick, but whether he violated those bloody resolutions or not, usa should have left it up to un to decide what had to be done if they wanted to use those resolutions to justify the second war. usa took the matters in their own hands - and that's fine by me, btw - just don't bring un up anymore.
1. Russians aren't the only ones who say that.

2. Apply that logic to the resolution violations. He either violated them or he didn't. UN said he did...then refused to take the action required by their own resolutions, essentially constantly raising the bar for taking action. The Coalition just followed the wording and intent of the various resolutions. The only reason the UN is brought up is because you erroneously stated the rationale for going after Saddam. The published casus belli had zero to do with 9/11 and everything to do with repeated violations of UN resolutions.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

so... apparently i don't claim to know where osama is or if saddam had any wmd's or not - you do and you are trying to use all that to justify the carnage that insued in the middle east. gwb said that "intelligence was solid" - fine, you are welcome to make that "solid intelligence" public at any time. untill then i'm going to base my opinions on the info i have available.
Oh please...PLEASE point out where I said either of those things. PLEASE. I'd love to see it.
yeah, i misworded it there. i know my english sucks, cut me some slack. by "you" i ment "those who defend america's actions in general", not mr. feos exclusively. i dunno, in russian language we say it like that all the time and the meaning of the pronoun is usually determined by context. i realise now, that even given the context of this thread it looks wrong anyway.
Fair enough. That's a common problem here...and your English is far better than my Russian. Your explanation of what you meant is appreciated.

Shahter wrote:

i wouldn't mind a look at "solid intelligence" still.
If you had a security clearance, you could.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And please do share the "info you have available". You haven't provided any yet.
i know what everybody knows: usa & co fight wars in the middle east, they do it on their own disregarding everybody else, including un, and they haven't found any wmd's or terrorists yet. as i said earlier, i don't beleave that any nation would go to war against terror or for some poor bastards that are being oppressed on the other side of the globe any more than i beleave in the force, jedi or santa claus. what's there to fight over then? the answer is pretty obvious i guess.
If by "& co" you mean every country on earth, then you're spot on. All nations fight wars (and execute other means of national power) in support of their own unique national interests. Your lack of belief in rationale is irrelevant. You might as well not believe in the speed of light in a vacuum as a constant...it will have as much effect.

The obvious answer is that a Russian can't imagine a country fighting for other people simply because it's "the right thing to do". Russians have always been far more pragmatic in their international strategies.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-05-21 23:09:53
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7076|Moscow, Russia
@FEOS: /sigh... i could easily bounce all that back at you but, frankly, i think it's pointless. as i said earlier in this thread, untill people stop using their human categories to explain or justify events that happen on the level on which those categories just don't apply they'll have these "wars on terror" and the rest of the crap fed to them and - what's probably even worse - performed in their name. human notions of "justice" and "honor", "good" and "evil" - all this stuff does not mean a thing on the national level and in international affairs.

FEOS wrote:

The obvious answer is that a Russian can't imagine a country fighting for other people simply because it's "the right thing to do". Russians have always been far more pragmatic in their international strategies.
it has nothing to do with my nationality at all - my fellow russians are getting their bone-boxes pumped with that pseudo-patriotic self-righteous bullshit just as much as everybody else - i am just the way i am. i doubt we'll understand each other here simply because we think in the different "systems of coordinates" so to say.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2009-05-22 02:13:46
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7063

Shahter wrote:

proof of there being wmd's in iraq and obl & aq in afghan or gtfo.
what does that have to do with peace treaty violations for many many many years....and you want proof of obl in afghan?  are you serious?  lulz.
2009-05-22 03:04:18
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7076|Moscow, Russia

usmarine wrote:

Shahter wrote:

proof of there being wmd's in iraq and obl & aq in afghan or gtfo.
what does that have to do with peace treaty violations for many many many years....
UN actually (c)

usmarine wrote:

and you want proof of obl in afghan?  are you serious?
yes, preferrably something more substantian than soundwaves and ink on the paper. osama cought in afghan would do nicely - do you by chance happen to have one?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2009-05-22 03:06:34
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7063

Shahter wrote:

yes, preferrably something more substantian than soundwaves and ink on the paper. osama cought in afghan would do nicely - do you by chance happen to have one?
can you prove he was not there?  i mean besides video showing him there for many years and all.
2009-05-22 03:07:50
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7063

and lets not forget it was the russians who drew him and all the other jihad people there...
2009-05-22 03:41:23
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6712|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

@FEOS: /sigh... i could easily bounce all that back at you but, frankly, i think it's pointless. as i said earlier in this thread, untill people stop using their human categories to explain or justify events that happen on the level on which those categories just don't apply they'll have these "wars on terror" and the rest of the crap fed to them and - what's probably even worse - performed in their name. human notions of "justice" and "honor", "good" and "evil" - all this stuff does not mean a thing on the national level and in international affairs.
While you think you have a very worldly view of national affairs, it would appear you actually have a woefully naive view. You think that only non-humanistic motives (ie, pure pragmatism) motivates nations in their approaches. You are simply wrong. Kosovo is the perfect example disproving your view. All available proof shows that NATO action in the Balkans was due to ethnic cleansing in Kosovo by the Serbs. There is no proof showing any other reason for it. That is a pure humanitarian reason for the military action that occurred. Some administrations feel that human rights are a national interest worth spending national treasure to defend...even if it doesn't involve one's own citizens.

Afghanistan is similar. There are no resources there to fight over. If AQ had been in another country, the results may have been different. The Taliban simply were not pragmatic enough...they let tribal norms override national interests.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The obvious answer is that a Russian can't imagine a country fighting for other people simply because it's "the right thing to do". Russians have always been far more pragmatic in their international strategies.
it has nothing to do with my nationality at all - my fellow russians are getting their bone-boxes pumped with that pseudo-patriotic self-righteous bullshit just as much as everybody else - i am just the way i am. i doubt we'll understand each other here simply because we think in the different "systems of coordinates" so to say.
Based on Russia's position WRT Kosovo, it's not surprising that a Russian would feel that there was some other reason for NATO taking action there. Unfortunately, that view is simply wrong. Kosovo had nothing to do with "bone-box pumping" (whatever that is). Many in the US felt our interests weren't threatened and that we shouldn't have taken action.

Nearly 3000 of our fellow citizens were killed and three landmarks were damaged or destroyed. Nobody needed to stoke our collective anger or feed our patriotism at that point.

@ proof that UBL was in Afghanistan: How about Taliban admitting he was there, video showing he was there, AQ admitting he was there, intel geo-locating him there (open source reporting showing that the US was able to geo-locate UBL's comms). Do you have proof (or even evidence) that he wasn't there?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-05-22 04:37:21
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7076|Moscow, Russia
re kosovo: how about creating a gitmo-like state in the middle of the europe? a state that's not even recognized by a large part of the world, a state that isn't bound by the existing international regulations, how's that? how about breaking a precedent in tearing an existing state apart using a military force? but i already mentioned that, you just chose to ignore it. kosovo doesn't disprove anything i said - it is perfectly in range of "pragmatic approaches".

re afghanistan (i already answered to M.O.A.B. on this one, but anyway): can't you guess yourself what a state full of islamic extremists had to do with usa plans to establish control in the region?

re proof of obl in afghanistan and so called "proof": that shit could so easily be fabricated it's not even funny. and at your "prove he wasn't there": i didn't invade afghanistan, i don't need to prove anything. so i'll let usa & co who did that worry about their fuckup.

Last edited by Shahter (2009-05-22 04:38:07)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2009-05-22 04:46:56
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6712|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

re kosovo: how about creating a gitmo-like state in the middle of the europe? a state that's not even recognized by a large part of the world, a state that isn't bound by the existing international regulations, how's that? how about breaking a precedent in tearing an existing state apart using a military force? but i already mentioned that, you just chose to ignore it. kosovo doesn't disprove anything i said - it is perfectly in range of "pragmatic approaches".
Interesting revisionist history you have in Russia. Nobody "created" a state. Kosovo declared independence well after ALLIED FORCE ended. OAF had nothing to do with Kosovar independence. Thus, Kosovo absolutely does disprove what you said...because the facts disprove your incorrect view of what happened.

Shahter wrote:

re afghanistan (i already answered to M.O.A.B. on this one, but anyway): can't you guess yourself what a state full of islamic extremists had to do with usa plans to establish control in the region?
eh...what? So I guess all those european countries that are contributing forces to Afghanistan are establishing "USA control in the region"? Seriously...think about your assertions for a couple of seconds.

Shahter wrote:

re proof of obl in afghanistan and so called "proof": that shit could so easily be fabricated it's not even funny. and at your "prove he wasn't there": i didn't invade afghanistan, i don't need to prove anything. so i'll let usa & co who did that worry about their fuckup.
Ah, the old "conspiracy" out. Proof that no conspiracy exists just fuels the conspiracy theory by further proving the conspiracy.

You are the one asserting a different reality that only a very small minority seem to adhere to. The burden of proof is on you. Please share how Taliban admitting he's there, AQ admitting he's there, and multiple countries' intel organizations saying he's there can be "so easily fabricated it's not even funny". Please explain how geo-location data from intel sensors can be fabricated without anyone spilling the beans...there are literally thousands of people who would have to be in on it...to include many who don't agree with GWB's policies and didn't vote for him. Your theory has no foundation whatsoever.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-05-22 04:47:03
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7063

russia started this modern jihad.  fact. (afghan and obl)

Last edited by usmarine (2009-05-22 04:47:48)

2009-05-22 12:58:34
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6966|NT, like Mick Dundee

usmarine wrote:

russia started this modern jihad.  fact. (afghan and obl)
And the USA got it off the ground with funding!

Saudis too. That said, most of the funds the CIA tried to get in went.. ahem... missing while the Pakistani ISI was looking after it. The Saudi money just poured straight in where it was needed through various charities.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-05-23 01:06:54
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7063

Flecco wrote:

usmarine wrote:

russia started this modern jihad.  fact. (afghan and obl)
And the USA got it off the ground with funding!

Saudis too. That said, most of the funds the CIA tried to get in went.. ahem... missing while the Pakistani ISI was looking after it. The Saudi money just poured straight in where it was needed through various charities.
i said started sir.  started.  i am well aware of the history.  saudi and paki were way bigger players than the US imo.

Last edited by usmarine (2009-05-23 01:07:54)

2009-05-23 01:31:24
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6407|eXtreme to the maX

usm wrote:

saudi and paki were way bigger players than the US imo.
Not even close, the US ran the whole thing.
Fuck Israel

 

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard