Pages: 1 2
Read carefully what he wrote again..lolFen321 wrote:
Finally someone understands!! Just because US interest are threatened doesn't mean you can invade a COUNTRY !SlightlySto0pid wrote:
Just because the ME people live on top of the oil, it doesn't belong to them.
This is so because you can not force someone to succeed. The only thing you can do is create opportunity.Major_Spittle wrote:
9. Our troop's mission has now been reduced to doing little more than protecting the enemy from itself while their government maneuvers to find the politically least expensive way to end this mission that is now clearly doomed for failure at the governments own hand.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-05 13:22:50)
Nah. We need to lose 55,000 more troops to convince anyone of this argument. Then they'll THINK about calling it the 2nd vietnam.herrr_smity wrote:
Iraq is turning out to be vietnam nr 2
Are we fighting Communism now in Iraq also now?herrr_smity wrote:
Iraq is turning out to be vietnam nr 2
Last edited by Spearhead (2007-01-05 14:27:13)
I'm not thinking about the numbers of troops lost, but the war is lost there are already a civil war like situation in IraqMason4Assassin444 wrote:
Nah. We need to lose 55,000 more troops to convince anyone of this argument. Then they'll THINK about calling it the 2nd vietnam.herrr_smity wrote:
Iraq is turning out to be vietnam nr 2
We're not counting the medical breakthroughs used in this battle as opposed to Vietnam.
22,000 wounded in Iraq
150-ish thousand wounded in Vietnam.
Conservatives won't be happy until at least the Vietnam numbers are reached.
I agree that IRaq is a shit storm of a war as the Vietnam war was.herrr_smity wrote:
I'm not thinking about the numbers of troops lost, but the war is lost there are already a civil war like situation in IraqMason4Assassin444 wrote:
Nah. We need to lose 55,000 more troops to convince anyone of this argument. Then they'll THINK about calling it the 2nd vietnam.herrr_smity wrote:
Iraq is turning out to be vietnam nr 2
We're not counting the medical breakthroughs used in this battle as opposed to Vietnam.
22,000 wounded in Iraq
150-ish thousand wounded in Vietnam.
Conservatives won't be happy until at least the Vietnam numbers are reached.
Right in front of invading Iraq eh?ATG wrote:
To fail is to give Iraq to Iran and that would be the stupidest act in the history of America.
Last edited by Mason4Assassin444 (2007-01-05 14:55:39)
US capital was burnt down, Texas Invaded, Pearl Harbor Bombed, World trade center bombed, World trade centers destroyed, and I am sure many more attacks and twarted attacks.CameronPoe wrote:
The fact of the matter is you've only had two attacks on home soil in the entire history of your country: which is surprising given the fact that 20m Mexicans have casually strolled across your southern border! The terrorism threat is waaayyyyy over-hyped. Close your borders, work on your missile shield and sit back and relax.Stingray24 wrote:
Sure, sign me up. As long as the nutjobs worldwide have to stay at home, too.CameronPoe wrote:
My message would be: try good old fashioned isolationist conservatism!
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-05 15:01:00)
Agreed. We should all live in constant fear and let our president do whatever it takes to win this war on terrorism. If you choose not too, consider you self un-American and a commy liberal.Major_Spittle wrote:
US capital was burnt down, Texas Invaded, Pearl Harbor Bombed, World trade center bombed, World trade centers destroyed, and I am sure many more attacks and twarted attacks.CameronPoe wrote:
The fact of the matter is you've only had two attacks on home soil in the entire history of your country: which is surprising given the fact that 20m Mexicans have casually strolled across your southern border! The terrorism threat is waaayyyyy over-hyped. Close your borders, work on your missile shield and sit back and relax.Stingray24 wrote:
Sure, sign me up. As long as the nutjobs worldwide have to stay at home, too.
Fact is that terrorism is waaaayyyy under-hyped, considering how difficult it is to prevent in an open society.
WTF are you talking about? I do blame the Republicans for mishandling the war in Iraq. I couldn't give a rats ass if someone calls themselves a Democrat or Republican, to me it is a dumb and dumber situation. All your post has proved is that you are a card carrying Democrat which puts you in the dumber category.Spearhead wrote:
More of Major Spittles BS. He says that we should be there, and anyone who doesn't support that is "unpatriotic", a "pussy", ignorant, and incompetent, but at the SAME time, he says that we are all to blame for the mistakes that the REPUBLICANS fucking made when they decided to fucking INVADE Iraq. And the best thing about his OP, above all, is that he still finds a way to blame the democrats, despite the fact that until only a few days ago, Republicans were completely in charge of the war.
No, lets fight terrorists with the constraints of the Geneva Convention which they do not adhere too because they are TERRORISTS duh. Lets not change laws that were written without taking into account terrorist activities and threats from WMDs because they have been on the book before there were either. Lets give foriegn terrorists all the rights of a US citizen while we are fighting them and let stupid liberals like you demand that they have access to lawyers and the US judical systems protections.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Agreed. We should all live in constant fear and let our president do whatever it takes to win this war on terrorism. If you choose not too, consider you self un-American and a commy liberal.Major_Spittle wrote:
US capital was burnt down, Texas Invaded, Pearl Harbor Bombed, World trade center bombed, World trade centers destroyed, and I am sure many more attacks and twarted attacks.CameronPoe wrote:
The fact of the matter is you've only had two attacks on home soil in the entire history of your country: which is surprising given the fact that 20m Mexicans have casually strolled across your southern border! The terrorism threat is waaayyyyy over-hyped. Close your borders, work on your missile shield and sit back and relax.
Fact is that terrorism is waaaayyyy under-hyped, considering how difficult it is to prevent in an open society.
groan... There is just so much wrong with what your saying. I don't know where to begin.Spearhead wrote:
More of Major Spittles BS. He says that we should be there, and anyone who doesn't support that is "unpatriotic", a "pussy", ignorant, and incompetent, but at the SAME time, he says that we are all to blame for the mistakes that the REPUBLICANS fucking made when they decided to fucking INVADE Iraq. And the best thing about his OP, above all, is that he still finds a way to blame the democrats, despite the fact that until only a few days ago, Republicans were completely in charge of the war.
So, at the same time Spittle says Bush messed up, but at the same time, he blames the democrats for TAKING ADVANTAGE of the siutation and trying to win votes. If democrats were in the Republicans position before the election, Spittle would've screamed so hard his blood vessels would've popped. "THEY MESSED UP!!! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!! DEMOCRATS CAN'T FIGHT WARS!!!". You might say that we wouldn't be in Iraq if Democrats held the majority, but that's not my point, my point is that Spittle takes advantage of every situation he can to blame democrats, yet when democrats do the same to Republicans, he attacks them for it. Jesus Christ dude.........
And lastly, he's an idiot for believing that 4 years of total oppresion would help them in the long run. IRAQ has NEVER been a true democracy, under it's present borders. The country was cut up and divided by colonialists, just like "a duhhhrrrr, all dooos African countries" and many other countries throughout the world. VIET F'ing NAM, anbody? The Iraqis are in a state of civil war, and just like in Vietnam, it's been our mistake for taking sides in the situation. The war in Vietnam wasn't North invading South conventional war, it was a civil war between the people of north Vietnam and the people of South Vietnam. Unless you argue that the US civil war wasn't a civil war (but we all know it was).
Oh, and if you're thinking "But if we don't take sides, terrorists will take over! It might be worse than when Saddam was in power!!!", yeah, well, maybe you should've thought of that before we invaded. The truth is, the world is messed up. Hardly any of you people who say you believe in morals and fighting wars to protect people want to get involved in the Darfur crisis in Sudan. 400,000 people dead so far. In 3 years. How many did you say Saddam killed? 400,000? In what? 20 years?
The world is messed up, whether we attack other countries or not. Whether or not we want to mess it up even further is our choice. That's why people voted Democrat *gasp*, Major Spittle.
So your agreeing we should give Bush complete power to do what he has to do to win this war on terrorism?Major_Spittle wrote:
No, lets fight terrorists with the constraints of the Geneva Convention which they do not adhere too because they are TERRORISTS duh. Lets not change laws that were written without taking into account terrorist activities and threats from WMDs because they have been on the book before there were either. Lets give foriegn terrorists all the rights of a US citizen while we are fighting them and let stupid liberals like you demand that they have access to lawyers and the US judical systems protections.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Agreed. We should all live in constant fear and let our president do whatever it takes to win this war on terrorism. If you choose not too, consider you self un-American and a commy liberal.Major_Spittle wrote:
US capital was burnt down, Texas Invaded, Pearl Harbor Bombed, World trade center bombed, World trade centers destroyed, and I am sure many more attacks and twarted attacks.
Fact is that terrorism is waaaayyyy under-hyped, considering how difficult it is to prevent in an open society.
People like you are so F..kn insane that you should be sterilized before you can pollute the gene pool. You are why Democrats were voted MVP by the terrorists themselves.
We cant all be pacifistATG wrote:
groan... There is just so much wrong with what your saying. I don't know where to begin.Spearhead wrote:
More of Major Spittles BS. He says that we should be there, and anyone who doesn't support that is "unpatriotic", a "pussy", ignorant, and incompetent, but at the SAME time, he says that we are all to blame for the mistakes that the REPUBLICANS fucking made when they decided to fucking INVADE Iraq. And the best thing about his OP, above all, is that he still finds a way to blame the democrats, despite the fact that until only a few days ago, Republicans were completely in charge of the war.
So, at the same time Spittle says Bush messed up, but at the same time, he blames the democrats for TAKING ADVANTAGE of the siutation and trying to win votes. If democrats were in the Republicans position before the election, Spittle would've screamed so hard his blood vessels would've popped. "THEY MESSED UP!!! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!! DEMOCRATS CAN'T FIGHT WARS!!!". You might say that we wouldn't be in Iraq if Democrats held the majority, but that's not my point, my point is that Spittle takes advantage of every situation he can to blame democrats, yet when democrats do the same to Republicans, he attacks them for it. Jesus Christ dude.........
And lastly, he's an idiot for believing that 4 years of total oppresion would help them in the long run. IRAQ has NEVER been a true democracy, under it's present borders. The country was cut up and divided by colonialists, just like "a duhhhrrrr, all dooos African countries" and many other countries throughout the world. VIET F'ing NAM, anbody? The Iraqis are in a state of civil war, and just like in Vietnam, it's been our mistake for taking sides in the situation. The war in Vietnam wasn't North invading South conventional war, it was a civil war between the people of north Vietnam and the people of South Vietnam. Unless you argue that the US civil war wasn't a civil war (but we all know it was).
Oh, and if you're thinking "But if we don't take sides, terrorists will take over! It might be worse than when Saddam was in power!!!", yeah, well, maybe you should've thought of that before we invaded. The truth is, the world is messed up. Hardly any of you people who say you believe in morals and fighting wars to protect people want to get involved in the Darfur crisis in Sudan. 400,000 people dead so far. In 3 years. How many did you say Saddam killed? 400,000? In what? 20 years?
The world is messed up, whether we attack other countries or not. Whether or not we want to mess it up even further is our choice. That's why people voted Democrat *gasp*, Major Spittle.
But I still like you.
Well he is the decider.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
So your agreeing we should give Bush complete power to do what he has to do to win this war on terrorism?Major_Spittle wrote:
No, lets fight terrorists with the constraints of the Geneva Convention which they do not adhere too because they are TERRORISTS duh. Lets not change laws that were written without taking into account terrorist activities and threats from WMDs because they have been on the book before there were either. Lets give foriegn terrorists all the rights of a US citizen while we are fighting them and let stupid liberals like you demand that they have access to lawyers and the US judical systems protections.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Agreed. We should all live in constant fear and let our president do whatever it takes to win this war on terrorism. If you choose not too, consider you self un-American and a commy liberal.
People like you are so F..kn insane that you should be sterilized before you can pollute the gene pool. You are why Democrats were voted MVP by the terrorists themselves.
So your agreeing we should give Bush complete power to do what he has to do to win this war on terrorism?Major_Spittle wrote:
Well he is the decider.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
So your agreeing we should give Bush complete power to do what he has to do to win this war on terrorism?Major_Spittle wrote:
No, lets fight terrorists with the constraints of the Geneva Convention which they do not adhere too because they are TERRORISTS duh. Lets not change laws that were written without taking into account terrorist activities and threats from WMDs because they have been on the book before there were either. Lets give foriegn terrorists all the rights of a US citizen while we are fighting them and let stupid liberals like you demand that they have access to lawyers and the US judical systems protections.
People like you are so F..kn insane that you should be sterilized before you can pollute the gene pool. You are why Democrats were voted MVP by the terrorists themselves.
Who are you to question the decider?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
So your agreeing we should give Bush complete power to do what he has to do to win this war on terrorism?Major_Spittle wrote:
Well he is the decider.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
So your agreeing we should give Bush complete power to do what he has to do to win this war on terrorism?
I'm his boss the American taxpayer.Major_Spittle wrote:
Who are you to question the decider?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
So your agreeing we should give Bush complete power to do what he has to do to win this war on terrorism?Major_Spittle wrote:
Well he is the decider.
Well, I don't know let's ask him. I mean, he is the decider you know.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
I'm his boss the American taxpayer.Major_Spittle wrote:
Who are you to question the decider?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
So your agreeing we should give Bush complete power to do what he has to do to win this war on terrorism?
So your agreeing we should give Bush complete power to do what he has to do to win this war on terrorism?
pfffftt...Major_Spittle wrote:
Well, I don't know let's ask him. I mean, he is the decider you know.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
I'm his boss the American taxpayer.Major_Spittle wrote:
Who are you to question the decider?
So your agreeing we should give Bush complete power to do what he has to do to win this war on terrorism?
Well, wouldn't be much of a decider if he couldn't decide.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
pfffftt...Major_Spittle wrote:
Well, I don't know let's ask him. I mean, he is the decider you know.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
I'm his boss the American taxpayer.
So your agreeing we should give Bush complete power to do what he has to do to win this war on terrorism?
/end
Pages: 1 2