NO, Iraq was ignoring the peace treaty, therefore hostilities recommenced. Terrorism was already gathered, they were only being kept at bay by Sadaam. Now that he is gone they are kids in a candy store. If they didn't mass in Iraq, they would be massing, like before, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The US didn't create terrorism. It is simply we have the spotlight on us because we are the only nation that has the balls to take the lead and combat it finally.CameronPoe wrote:
The comment wasn't about whether the war was going well, it was about the fact that the war in Iraq was pointless. Your assertion that bullets and bombs fight the problem of radical islam is transparently incorrect when you look at the example of Iraq. From having a minute presence of radical Islam (Ansar Al Islam - a Kurdish group operating on the Iranian border) to having an entire nation infested with the exponentially growing problem of radical islam? Sidestep LOL. This isn't about whether it's going well in Iraq. My point was that you've created more radical islamists than there were before.lowing wrote:
LOL, maybe it isn't going well, but that isn't the argument now is it?? +1 for the side stepCameronPoe wrote:
Guess what Lowing? The bad guys were in Afghanistan. They're still there actually. Taliban/Al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan attacks USA. US Response: ~18,000 troops to Afghanistan (2004 figure, area of Afghanistan: 652,090m2), ~130,000 troops to Iraq (2003 figure, area of Iraq: 438,317 km2). Fucked up prioritisation? You bet. Not to mention the fact that the action in Iraq turned a nation devoid of radical islam into the fucking CAPITAL of radical islam. Well done. The war of terror seems to be going swimmingly...
LOL. Listen to yourself. You sound like fucking Team America: World Police!!! +1 for parodying yourself. The Brits thought they could police the world to their advantage - they failed forevermore at Suez. Iraq might become your Suez.lowing wrote:
NO, Iraq was ignoring the peace treaty, therefore hostilities recommenced. Terrorism was already gathered, they were only being kept at bay by Sadaam. Now that he is gone they are kids in a candy store. If they didn't mass in Iraq, they would be massing, like before, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The US didn't create terrorism. It is simply we have the spotlight on us because we are the only nation that has the balls to take the lead and combat it finally.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-01 17:18:01)
So you admit we are fucking stupider than a donkey's left nut? After all, you JUST SAID saddam was keeping terrorists at bay. So we REMOVED SADDAM. Obviously we're fighting a war OF terror, if we're aiding it, that is.lowing wrote:
NO, Iraq was ignoring the peace treaty, therefore hostilities recommenced. Terrorism was already gathered, they were only being kept at bay by Sadaam. Now that he is gone they are kids in a candy store. If they didn't mass in Iraq, they would be massing, like before, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The US didn't create terrorism. It is simply we have the spotlight on us because we are the only nation that has the balls to take the lead and combat it finally.CameronPoe wrote:
The comment wasn't about whether the war was going well, it was about the fact that the war in Iraq was pointless. Your assertion that bullets and bombs fight the problem of radical islam is transparently incorrect when you look at the example of Iraq. From having a minute presence of radical Islam (Ansar Al Islam - a Kurdish group operating on the Iranian border) to having an entire nation infested with the exponentially growing problem of radical islam? Sidestep LOL. This isn't about whether it's going well in Iraq. My point was that you've created more radical islamists than there were before.lowing wrote:
LOL, maybe it isn't going well, but that isn't the argument now is it?? +1 for the side step
NO, Jonsimon I mean, civilian consulate personnel murdered, 2 bombed embassies, a warship when not at war, etc.........better go do a google search for all the terrorism the US has dealt with over the yearsjonsimon wrote:
Oh, so attacking our troops when we point guns at them counts too?lowing wrote:
Gee Jonsimon for you I will clarify........I really didn't mean EVERYDAY for the past 10 years..... Being attacked on US soil is not the only way terrorists attack the US.jonsimon wrote:
Attacked for ten years? There are three muslim terrorist attacks on US soil, ever. And two are surrounded by controversy and possible conspiracy.
I didn't know that failure to surrender constitutes an attack.
LOLjonsimon wrote:
So you admit we are fucking stupider than a donkey's left nut? After all, you JUST SAID saddam was keeping terrorists at bay. So we REMOVED SADDAM. Obviously we're fighting a war OF terror, if we're aiding it, that is.lowing wrote:
NO, Iraq was ignoring the peace treaty, therefore hostilities recommenced. Terrorism was already gathered, they were only being kept at bay by Sadaam. Now that he is gone they are kids in a candy store. If they didn't mass in Iraq, they would be massing, like before, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The US didn't create terrorism. It is simply we have the spotlight on us because we are the only nation that has the balls to take the lead and combat it finally.CameronPoe wrote:
The comment wasn't about whether the war was going well, it was about the fact that the war in Iraq was pointless. Your assertion that bullets and bombs fight the problem of radical islam is transparently incorrect when you look at the example of Iraq. From having a minute presence of radical Islam (Ansar Al Islam - a Kurdish group operating on the Iranian border) to having an entire nation infested with the exponentially growing problem of radical islam? Sidestep LOL. This isn't about whether it's going well in Iraq. My point was that you've created more radical islamists than there were before.
No I am saying the Sadam was so ruthless that the terrorists gathered elsewhere. I never said we were stupidjonsimon wrote:
So you admit we are fucking stupider than a donkey's left nut? After all, you JUST SAID saddam was keeping terrorists at bay. So we REMOVED SADDAM. Obviously we're fighting a war OF terror, if we're aiding it, that is.lowing wrote:
NO, Iraq was ignoring the peace treaty, therefore hostilities recommenced. Terrorism was already gathered, they were only being kept at bay by Sadaam. Now that he is gone they are kids in a candy store. If they didn't mass in Iraq, they would be massing, like before, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The US didn't create terrorism. It is simply we have the spotlight on us because we are the only nation that has the balls to take the lead and combat it finally.CameronPoe wrote:
The comment wasn't about whether the war was going well, it was about the fact that the war in Iraq was pointless. Your assertion that bullets and bombs fight the problem of radical islam is transparently incorrect when you look at the example of Iraq. From having a minute presence of radical Islam (Ansar Al Islam - a Kurdish group operating on the Iranian border) to having an entire nation infested with the exponentially growing problem of radical islam? Sidestep LOL. This isn't about whether it's going well in Iraq. My point was that you've created more radical islamists than there were before.
I am saying the were always there, they just were not in Iraq.
You said saddam held them at bay. We removed saddam. Terrorism is bad. Assuming all those statements are correct, the only possible conclusion that can be draw is that we are dumb.lowing wrote:
No I am saying the Sadam was so ruthless that the terrorists gathered elsewhere. I never said we were stupidjonsimon wrote:
So you admit we are fucking stupider than a donkey's left nut? After all, you JUST SAID saddam was keeping terrorists at bay. So we REMOVED SADDAM. Obviously we're fighting a war OF terror, if we're aiding it, that is.lowing wrote:
NO, Iraq was ignoring the peace treaty, therefore hostilities recommenced. Terrorism was already gathered, they were only being kept at bay by Sadaam. Now that he is gone they are kids in a candy store. If they didn't mass in Iraq, they would be massing, like before, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The US didn't create terrorism. It is simply we have the spotlight on us because we are the only nation that has the balls to take the lead and combat it finally.
I am saying the were always there, they just were not in Iraq.
Seems to be simple common sense.....you never heard of terrorism in Iraq BEFORE Saddam and his ruthless sons, and now they are gone Iraq is filling with them. Really don't need to be a world scholar to figure it out.CameronPoe wrote:
LOL. Listen to yourself. You sound like fucking Team America: World Police!!! +1 for parodying yourself. I like how you have so much in depth knowledge of Saddam-era Iraqi radical islam groups too, very informative.lowing wrote:
NO, Iraq was ignoring the peace treaty, therefore hostilities recommenced. Terrorism was already gathered, they were only being kept at bay by Sadaam. Now that he is gone they are kids in a candy store. If they didn't mass in Iraq, they would be massing, like before, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The US didn't create terrorism. It is simply we have the spotlight on us because we are the only nation that has the balls to take the lead and combat it finally.
That would be only because that is the way you need to disect it to try and make an argument. You know exactly what I am sayingjonsimon wrote:
You said saddam held them at bay. We removed saddam. Terrorism is bad. Assuming all those statements are correct, the only possible conclusion that can be draw is that we are dumb.lowing wrote:
No I am saying the Sadam was so ruthless that the terrorists gathered elsewhere. I never said we were stupidjonsimon wrote:
So you admit we are fucking stupider than a donkey's left nut? After all, you JUST SAID saddam was keeping terrorists at bay. So we REMOVED SADDAM. Obviously we're fighting a war OF terror, if we're aiding it, that is.
I am saying the were always there, they just were not in Iraq.
Lowing - radical islam: the Mehdi Army - a fully IRAQI organisation!!! NEW RADICAL MUSLIMS. Congratulations for multiplying them. You have provided a fertile breeding ground for them. Even your own top brass concede your presence is EXACERBATING the problem, hence the strategy rethink.lowing wrote:
Seems to be simple common sense.....you never heard of terrorism in Iraq BEFORE Saddam and his ruthless sons, and now they are gone Iraq is filling with them. Really don't need to be a world scholar to figure it out.CameronPoe wrote:
LOL. Listen to yourself. You sound like fucking Team America: World Police!!! +1 for parodying yourself. I like how you have so much in depth knowledge of Saddam-era Iraqi radical islam groups too, very informative.lowing wrote:
NO, Iraq was ignoring the peace treaty, therefore hostilities recommenced. Terrorism was already gathered, they were only being kept at bay by Sadaam. Now that he is gone they are kids in a candy store. If they didn't mass in Iraq, they would be massing, like before, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The US didn't create terrorism. It is simply we have the spotlight on us because we are the only nation that has the balls to take the lead and combat it finally.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-01 17:25:11)
All you pro-terrorists or whatever I should call you (denialists, americasuckicans, ect..) Your just dragging this into the usual thing.. Meaning that there is no problem in your eyes and its our fault.. now that helps a lot of things.
Most of the others that your fighting soo hard are just saying
1. terrorists are and were their
2. they are becoming more vast and more organized
Most of the others that your fighting soo hard are just saying
1. terrorists are and were their
2. they are becoming more vast and more organized
cam, please, please please please dont call them cocksuckers an army. its a militia. its a militia where that peice of shit sadr sends young dumb iraqis to die at the end of the iron sights of a SAW while he happily hides underground somewhere with a huge bandaid on his hand (lol)CameronPoe wrote:
Lowing - radical islam: the Mehdi Army - a fully IRAQI organisation!!! NEW RADICAL MUSLIMS. Congratulations for multiplying them.lowing wrote:
Seems to be simple common sense.....you never heard of terrorism in Iraq BEFORE Saddam and his ruthless sons, and now they are gone Iraq is filling with them. Really don't need to be a world scholar to figure it out.CameronPoe wrote:
LOL. Listen to yourself. You sound like fucking Team America: World Police!!! +1 for parodying yourself. I like how you have so much in depth knowledge of Saddam-era Iraqi radical islam groups too, very informative.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-11-01 17:26:23)
Sorry dude.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
cam, please, please please please dont call them cocksuckers an army. its a militia
I know what you said, and I know where the logic leads. If you're saying saddam held terrorists at bay, which I can't argue yea or nay, then it follows we must be total fucktards for removing him in a self proclaimed war on terror.lowing wrote:
That would be only because that is the way you need to disect it to try and make an argument. You know exactly what I am sayingjonsimon wrote:
You said saddam held them at bay. We removed saddam. Terrorism is bad. Assuming all those statements are correct, the only possible conclusion that can be draw is that we are dumb.lowing wrote:
No I am saying the Sadam was so ruthless that the terrorists gathered elsewhere. I never said we were stupid
I am saying the were always there, they just were not in Iraq.
Sweet, what's the max price? No, I'm not standing over there, so I'll put you in touch with several of my friends who have been to Iraq and they'll tell you the good we accomplished. Though it's never shown on TV because it doesn't fit the "Bush sucks" action line, Iraqis are thankful we booted Saddam out. You can mail me the keys, I'll take one in Colorado with some nice hunting land and a view of the lake.chuckle_hound wrote:
They're obviously doing such an amazing job aren't they. How many American deaths so far?Stingray24 wrote:
our military is more than capable of taking care of these nutjobs
It's so easy to preach war when you're not the one standing over there, and no it doesn't count if you know someone because that's just chinese whispers. If you can honestly show me what good the American Jihad has accomplished I'll buy you a new home.
Muslim extremists might be thankful if Iran nuked the US. By your logic, it must be a good thing to do.Stingray24 wrote:
Sweet, what's the max price? No, I'm not standing over there, so I'll put you in touch with several of my friends who have been to Iraq and they'll tell you the good we accomplished. Though it's never shown on TV because it doesn't fit the "Bush sucks" action line, Iraqis are thankful we booted Saddam out. You can mail me the keys, I'll take one in Colorado with some nice hunting land and a view of the lake.chuckle_hound wrote:
They're obviously doing such an amazing job aren't they. How many American deaths so far?Stingray24 wrote:
our military is more than capable of taking care of these nutjobs
It's so easy to preach war when you're not the one standing over there, and no it doesn't count if you know someone because that's just chinese whispers. If you can honestly show me what good the American Jihad has accomplished I'll buy you a new home.
ROFL
good one .. make sure you get a swimming pool
good one .. make sure you get a swimming pool
No he was removed for breaking the peace treaty. The terrorists that are there now is a seporate issue we are trying to dealing with. We werew not combating terrorism in Iraq at first.jonsimon wrote:
I know what you said, and I know where the logic leads. If you're saying saddam held terrorists at bay, which I can't argue yea or nay, then it follows we must be total fucktards for removing him in a self proclaimed war on terror.lowing wrote:
That would be only because that is the way you need to disect it to try and make an argument. You know exactly what I am sayingjonsimon wrote:
You said saddam held them at bay. We removed saddam. Terrorism is bad. Assuming all those statements are correct, the only possible conclusion that can be draw is that we are dumb.
Well, that's why I wouldn't follow your plan... :pjonsimon wrote:
That's discrimination, so if we follow my plan, you die too.Turquoise wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with killing all the KKK and all neo-Nazies.jonsimon wrote:
Would you condone killing everyone who wants to kill muslims? Or everyone in the KKK? Or anyone who is found guilty of discrimination? Killing people doesn't solve long-term problems. Southern whites tried to kill all the blacks, but they just kept coming.
But seriously, I know what you're getting at. In a free country, everybody is free to express themselves, short of harming someone else. So, in order for me to be more consistent, what I really should have said is... "I wouldn't have a problem with killing all the extremists who actually try to kill other people." That being said, if someone wants to be hateful, but doesn't actually attack anyone physically, then that's their right in this country. However, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply in Iraq, so we have a little more leeway in dealing with undesirables over there.
Last edited by Turquoise (2006-11-01 17:51:34)
I don't have faith in instilling democracy in the Middle East, but I do have faith in killing off a lot of extremists. We just have to be willing to up the brutality factor in order to really keep these people in line. It's not the most compassionate thing to do, but let's face it. It took someone like Saddam to keep Iraq in one piece, and we're going to have to be somewhat like Saddam to actually bring order back to Iraq. These people aren't ready for democracy.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I think, any kind of western presence in the middle east, either having the nobelist of or sinister intentions, will see the radicals jumping out to combat it. Religious fundamentalist and zealots will always exist regardless of which dogma they follow. You cannot kill an idea, you let an idea die out and shrivel by itself. I HAVE FAITH. the democracy experiment in the middle east will succeed. I HAVE FAITH
that opinion is held by a lot of troops actuallyTurquoise wrote:
I don't have faith in instilling democracy in the Middle East, but I do have faith in killing off a lot of extremists. We just have to be willing to up the brutality factor in order to really keep these people in line. It's not the most compassionate thing to do, but let's face it. It took someone like Saddam to keep Iraq in one piece, and we're going to have to be somewhat like Saddam to actually bring order back to Iraq. These people aren't ready for democracy.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I think, any kind of western presence in the middle east, either having the nobelist of or sinister intentions, will see the radicals jumping out to combat it. Religious fundamentalist and zealots will always exist regardless of which dogma they follow. You cannot kill an idea, you let an idea die out and shrivel by itself. I HAVE FAITH. the democracy experiment in the middle east will succeed. I HAVE FAITH
Very good point.... Saddam did keep his people in line, albeit in a very brutal way. I would agree that removing Saddam has proven to be a major mistake. As a result, we must become the next Saddam.jonsimon wrote:
So you admit we are fucking stupider than a donkey's left nut? After all, you JUST SAID saddam was keeping terrorists at bay. So we REMOVED SADDAM. Obviously we're fighting a war OF terror, if we're aiding it, that is.
wow what a great attitude, way to win the battle for hearts and mindsTurquoise wrote:
I don't have faith in instilling democracy in the Middle East, but I do have faith in killing off a lot of extremists. We just have to be willing to up the brutality factor in order to really keep these people in line. It's not the most compassionate thing to do, but let's face it. It took someone like Saddam to keep Iraq in one piece, and we're going to have to be somewhat like Saddam to actually bring order back to Iraq. These people aren't ready for democracy.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I think, any kind of western presence in the middle east, either having the nobelist of or sinister intentions, will see the radicals jumping out to combat it. Religious fundamentalist and zealots will always exist regardless of which dogma they follow. You cannot kill an idea, you let an idea die out and shrivel by itself. I HAVE FAITH. the democracy experiment in the middle east will succeed. I HAVE FAITH
I wouldn't doubt it... I don't even want to think of what kind of restraint they have to have due to the "official rules of engagement." It's why I'm glad I'm not in the military. Aside from the threat of being blown to bits by IEDs, I also don't think I could handle having mobs of people insult me while I'm holding a loaded M16.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
that opinion is held by a lot of troops actuallyTurquoise wrote:
I don't have faith in instilling democracy in the Middle East, but I do have faith in killing off a lot of extremists. We just have to be willing to up the brutality factor in order to really keep these people in line. It's not the most compassionate thing to do, but let's face it. It took someone like Saddam to keep Iraq in one piece, and we're going to have to be somewhat like Saddam to actually bring order back to Iraq. These people aren't ready for democracy.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I think, any kind of western presence in the middle east, either having the nobelist of or sinister intentions, will see the radicals jumping out to combat it. Religious fundamentalist and zealots will always exist regardless of which dogma they follow. You cannot kill an idea, you let an idea die out and shrivel by itself. I HAVE FAITH. the democracy experiment in the middle east will succeed. I HAVE FAITH
My point was that we have kicked out Saddam: good. We've improved schools: good. We've made it possible for elections: good. And much more. My friends have all been a part of those things. Your statement has nothing to do with what I said.jonsimon wrote:
Muslim extremists might be thankful if Iran nuked the US. By your logic, it must be a good thing to do.Stingray24 wrote:
Sweet, what's the max price? No, I'm not standing over there, so I'll put you in touch with several of my friends who have been to Iraq and they'll tell you the good we accomplished. Though it's never shown on TV because it doesn't fit the "Bush sucks" action line, Iraqis are thankful we booted Saddam out. You can mail me the keys, I'll take one in Colorado with some nice hunting land and a view of the lake.chuckle_hound wrote:
They're obviously doing such an amazing job aren't they. How many American deaths so far?
It's so easy to preach war when you're not the one standing over there, and no it doesn't count if you know someone because that's just chinese whispers. If you can honestly show me what good the American Jihad has accomplished I'll buy you a new home.