based on the first 5 or so posts, of which your posts are a member, you clearly agree we should be in iraq. do you know why we're at war? if you don't know why we're at war, and would refer me to the bushco administration (as you did in you last post), why would you be for war? you're either stupid, hypocritical, or a jingoist. none of them look good. which one are you?
I think you need to read my posts again. Also, I am not going to play insult games with you. So if you want to ask questions, fine. If you want to talk down to people, leave.Reverend Quj wrote:
based on the first 5 or so posts, of which your posts are a member, you clearly agree we should be in iraq. do you know why we're at war? if you don't know why we're at war, and would refer me to the bushco administration (as you did in you last post), why would you be for war? you're either stupid, hypocritical, or a jingoist. none of them look good. which one are you?
"So wait till we are attacked? Good idea."
so you're suggesting that iraq was going to attack us?
so you're suggesting that iraq was going to attack us?
Again, that is not what I was saying there. We didn't get involved in WWII (with troops) until we were attacked. We didn't deal with the Taliban until we were attacked. Why do we have to wait until we get attacked is what I am saying.Reverend Quj wrote:
"So wait till we are attacked? Good idea."
so you're suggesting that iraq was going to attack us?
Also, was Bosnia or Somalia going to attack the US?
perhaps i'm wrong in guessing what you believe. let's put it out in the open.
do you believe this iraq war is justified? if so, based on what?
if not, we're not really discussing anything at all.
do you believe this iraq war is justified? if so, based on what?
if not, we're not really discussing anything at all.
Well, you can put me in the club of supporting the invasion, along with the UN and democrats. Just like Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, and Bush, I thought he had WMD's and thought it was necessary to prove it one way or another.Reverend Quj wrote:
perhaps i'm wrong in guessing what you believe. let's put it out in the open.
do you believe this iraq war is justified? if so, based on what?
if not, we're not really discussing anything at all.
I have said before that Rumsfuck and Dick fucked up the aftermath of the war. But you know, we didn't have to stay did we? Maybe we should have got Saddam, looked for weapons and destroy them, then leave. Also, there was no way to know that the only way to control Iraq was thru rape rooms and mass killings, because apparently that is all that has ever worked there in recent years.
I think getting involved in Somalia was a mistake.usmarine2007 wrote:
Again, that is not what I was saying there. We didn't get involved in WWII (with troops) until we were attacked. We didn't deal with the Taliban until we were attacked. Why do we have to wait until we get attacked is what I am saying.Reverend Quj wrote:
"So wait till we are attacked? Good idea."
so you're suggesting that iraq was going to attack us?
Also, was Bosnia or Somalia going to attack the US?
Bosnia made more sense since Europe was behind us.
Few nations supported our invasion of Iraq. If the majority of the world was behind it, I would still be against invading Iraq, but at least I'd understand why we did it.
so you're saying you were wrong. funny how a small group of us said that there was NO reason for us to go into iraq. if you had taken a minute or two to read up on PNAC instead of being the rabid jingoist you are ("No really, don't like it....gtfo."), you'd know that.
p.s. had we not WASTED all this money and manpower on PNAC's Emire building (Pax Americana), i.e. the Iraq War, perhaps we could setup english learning centers to get these immigrants speaking english AND tighten the border. again, i remind you, we didn't bother learning the american indian languages. who are you to demand they learn english?
p.s. had we not WASTED all this money and manpower on PNAC's Emire building (Pax Americana), i.e. the Iraq War, perhaps we could setup english learning centers to get these immigrants speaking english AND tighten the border. again, i remind you, we didn't bother learning the american indian languages. who are you to demand they learn english?
How was it wrong? We proved one way or another if he had them.Reverend Quj wrote:
so you're saying you were wrong. funny how a small group of us said that there was NO reason for us to go into iraq. if you had taken a minute or two to read up on PNAC instead of being the rabid jingoist you are ("No really, don't like it....gtfo."), you'd know that.
p.s. had we not WASTED all this money and manpower on PNAC's Emire building (Pax Americana), i.e. the Iraq War, perhaps we could setup english learning centers to get these immigrants speaking english AND tighten the border. again, i remind you, we didn't bother learning the american indian languages. who are you to demand they learn english?
Eh? That is an article from the UK. I wasn't demanding anything. Try reading.
"No really, don't like it....gtfo" That was aimed at laidbackninja. No stop coming in here and saying a bunch of BS unless you know what you are talking about.
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-02-24 14:15:46)
You entered a war after loosing a a lot of your navy yeah they were really waiting for the right moment weren't they of course it was because of the attack.Turquoise wrote:
And should they have been? We entered at a good point in time.usmarine2007 wrote:
Americans were not morally behind WWII until Japan attacked the US.Turquoise wrote:
This is what I posted on that blog. I'm sure it's going to be flamed to pieces....
"The comment is true, but the problem isn't that America isn't behind the war morally -- the problem is the war itself. We need to get out. Iraq is not worth dying for."
We waited till the Germans had worn out a lot of their forces and until the Japanese began to stretch themselves thin. In the meantime, we were building up our own military.
We timed our involvement very well. I can't say the same for Iraq.
he had them? are you serious? where? intent doesn't mean he had them. our own people said he didn't, the un said he didn't.
so the article is from the UK. i'm asking you point blank: agree or disagree?
so the article is from the UK. i'm asking you point blank: agree or disagree?
PNAC is definitely a big part of all this, but your argument would be a lot more compelling if you phrased it in a less abrasive manner.Reverend Quj wrote:
so you're saying you were wrong. funny how a small group of us said that there was NO reason for us to go into iraq. if you had taken a minute or two to read up on PNAC instead of being the rabid jingoist you are ("No really, don't like it....gtfo."), you'd know that.
p.s. had we not WASTED all this money and manpower on PNAC's Emire building (Pax Americana), i.e. the Iraq War, perhaps we could setup english learning centers to get these immigrants speaking english AND tighten the border. again, i remind you, we didn't bother learning the american indian languages. who are you to demand they learn english?
I'm just as pissed at how we've wasted $400 billion on this as you probably are, but like it or not, you're more likely to convince others of this through a calmer, more rational approach.
I would agree that we need to do more to fix this illegal immigrant situation. We also need to address corporate corruption, environmental issues, the national debt, and healthcare. These are the areas we should be spending billions, not the military.
I said we proved one way or another if he had them.Reverend Quj wrote:
he had them? are you serious? where? intent doesn't mean he had them. our own people said he didn't, the un said he didn't.
so the article is from the UK. i'm asking you point blank: agree or disagree?
The damage done to us from U-boats and the Pearl Harbor attack has been exaggerated. Most of our fleet was out practicing for war when Pearl Harbor was attacked. But yes, we could have lost a lot more otherwise.OakLeaves wrote:
You entered a war after loosing a a lot of your navy yeah they were really waiting for the right moment weren't they of course it was because of the attack.Turquoise wrote:
And should they have been? We entered at a good point in time.usmarine2007 wrote:
Americans were not morally behind WWII until Japan attacked the US.
We waited till the Germans had worn out a lot of their forces and until the Japanese began to stretch themselves thin. In the meantime, we were building up our own military.
We timed our involvement very well. I can't say the same for Iraq.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-02-24 14:21:05)
turquoise: you're probably right in terms of abrasiveness, but i've been butting my head against the proverbial wall since slightly after 9/11. i'm always willing to be reigned in in terms of tactics, but never because of facts.
that's just me.
that's just me.
Well, you'd be part of the minority of Americans who believe in pre-emptive invasions.usmarine2007 wrote:
Some of us like to be proactive.Turquoise wrote:
You see what I'm getting at? We have no right to enter a conflict, unless we are attacked.
I see that. Worked well with the taliban I might add.Spearhead wrote:
Well, you'd be part of the minority of Americans who believe in pre-emptive invasions.usmarine2007 wrote:
Some of us like to be proactive.Turquoise wrote:
You see what I'm getting at? We have no right to enter a conflict, unless we are attacked.
Someone so educated can't concieve the notion of proxy attacks. Who knows what hand Saddam or any other ME leader had in 9-11 let alone all other terrorist attacks in the world. Will America ever be able to use it's military again without bieng labeled the bad guy? With Iran leading the charge of a smear campaign and the world falling for it probably not.CameronPoe wrote:
LOL. The concept of the Iraqi army of Saddam Hussein launching an attack on USA is laughable. What were they gonna do - get the ferry from Lisbon?usmarine2007 wrote:
So wait till we are attacked? Good idea.Turquoise wrote:
And should they have been? We entered at a good point in time.
We waited till the Germans had worn out a lot of their forces and until the Japanese began to stretch themselves thin. In the meantime, we were building up our own military.
We timed our involvement very well. I can't say the same for Iraq.
But within a year, USA has doubled the amount of naval units it had previously, Japan had awake the sleeping dragon.OakLeaves wrote:
You entered a war after loosing a a lot of your navy yeah they were really waiting for the right moment weren't they of course it was because of the attack.Turquoise wrote:
And should they have been? We entered at a good point in time.usmarine2007 wrote:
Americans were not morally behind WWII until Japan attacked the US.
We waited till the Germans had worn out a lot of their forces and until the Japanese began to stretch themselves thin. In the meantime, we were building up our own military.
We timed our involvement very well. I can't say the same for Iraq.
Fighting the Taliban wasn't pre-emptive. We were justified in attacking them, because they were connected to the people who attacked us.usmarine2007 wrote:
I see that. Worked well with the taliban I might add.Spearhead wrote:
Well, you'd be part of the minority of Americans who believe in pre-emptive invasions.usmarine2007 wrote:
Some of us like to be proactive.
Right over your head... figuresHunterOfSkulls wrote:
Well I guess that means I'm not gonna make your Christmas card list this year. I guess I should go sob tragically now because someone on a bulletin board doesn't like me.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I think if I saw a bus coming at you I prolly wouldn't say anything. I'd just let it happen.
No, I get it. And I'll tell you this; if you had a price you were demanding for warning me, I'd take my chances with the bus.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Right over your head... figuresHunterOfSkulls wrote:
Well I guess that means I'm not gonna make your Christmas card list this year. I guess I should go sob tragically now because someone on a bulletin board doesn't like me.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I think if I saw a bus coming at you I prolly wouldn't say anything. I'd just let it happen.
Be proactive, vote democrat. Another republican in office is bound to fuck up, right?usmarine2007 wrote:
Some of us like to be proactive.Turquoise wrote:
You see what I'm getting at? We have no right to enter a conflict, unless we are attacked.
Being proactive doesn't work on this scale. It's not like "I'm about to go on a 5 hour trip, I should go to the bathroom." You can't know a military is going to attack you until they declare war or the planes take off.
Yeah ....ummm...the word proactive when associated with foreign policy and combined with military...= ILLEGAL hell i know its practical and a hell of a lot easier to protect our interest, but you gotta remember our interests are just that ours...not the other 200 some odd countries hence why its illegal.
Last edited by Fen321 (2007-02-26 20:20:24)
You know what i agree with you i dont need some guy in a uniform who's "duty" is to protect me to protect me. I dont know about you guys in the states, but being in Canada I have a lesser chance of being attacked than you guys in the states. Most of us here are paranoid about attacks according to what I saw from some statistics on the news. Going to a foreign country with a supposed army of terrorists who have "weapons of mass destruction' is not the solution. Speaking of this attacking only if we have been attacked is bs since the insurgents in the middle-east right now are no huge organized army. They are everyday people that feel that their rights have been violated and their home invaded and will do what they can to get the invaders out. The war is only bringing more violence with every dead insurgent. There is no "taliban" or "al-queda"; they arent that organized.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
Respect is earned, not given or demanded. Anyone practically ordering me to respect them because they wear a fucking uniform doesn't deserve my respect. Anyone who hedges on their oath to defend me because I don't think in lockstep with them can fuck right off. I don't need that kind of defense; in the event of your hypothetical foreign power invasion I'd be better off relying on defending myself, not on someone who might just take advantage of the situation to put a bullet in my back and blame the enemy for it, since I wasn't fucking worthy of their protection. If they're going to defend me then let them fucking defend me, not give me this passive-aggressive "I really don't want to defend you but I'm legally obligated to do so" crap. If you don't believe in the oath then don't swear to it, it's that simple. I'll be damned if I'm going to respect someone who complains that their oath requires them to protect me.Pubic wrote:
I'm not from your neck of the woods, not by a long shot, but if you give your own military shit then I have to say you're out of line. Fuck it, what would you say if a foreign power was waltzing through your home town? Show some respect FFS