Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

Poll

Are the "freedom fighters" winning?

Yes16%16% - 15
No43%43% - 40
Not Sure19%19% - 18
Don't care12%12% - 12
Null8%8% - 8
Total: 93
2007-02-04 09:29:08
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7023|132 and Bush

UON wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

They needed more troops at the very beginning. Presence matters. You must begin occupations with crushing numbers. The defeated population must see their occupiers on every corner. You may be able to loosen restrictions quickly if the situation allows it but it is impossible to tighten up after you have permitted social chaos. We wage war to be politically correct. We use advanced technology and smart bombs to avoid "collateral" damage. This will not just be an American problem, this is the precedent for all wars to come. War's were never meant to be civilized. They must be ugly. The enemy's will must be completely broken. The Human race is evolving and what was acceptable in the past is no longer. Throw in Embedded journalist and 24/7 cable news and the job of the military has severely been impaired.
Clear and achievable aims are better.  That's why the first gulf war was relatively painless.  One of those every ten or twenty years to keep the Baath regime in check (and demonstrate that a truly "Iraqi driven" revolution against Saddam would have international support) would have been far preferable IMO than trying to tear everything down and start from scratch.  Because when you have a clean slate, you won't be the only one wanting to scribble your ideal design down on it.
Of course they are. You can't compare the two wars simply because we were fighting the same enemy. In the first war we never attempted to occupy. We had the backing of the world and our intentions were never second guessed. Our primary goal was to drive out an invading force. Kuwait's sovereignty was violated and we were restoring it. That is much different than removing and replacing a government.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-02-04 09:39:21
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|7075

Kmarion wrote:

UON wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

They needed more troops at the very beginning. Presence matters. You must begin occupations with crushing numbers. The defeated population must see their occupiers on every corner. You may be able to loosen restrictions quickly if the situation allows it but it is impossible to tighten up after you have permitted social chaos. We wage war to be politically correct. We use advanced technology and smart bombs to avoid "collateral" damage. This will not just be an American problem, this is the precedent for all wars to come. War's were never meant to be civilized. They must be ugly. The enemy's will must be completely broken. The Human race is evolving and what was acceptable in the past is no longer. Throw in Embedded journalist and 24/7 cable news and the job of the military has severely been impaired.
Clear and achievable aims are better.  That's why the first gulf war was relatively painless.  One of those every ten or twenty years to keep the Baath regime in check (and demonstrate that a truly "Iraqi driven" revolution against Saddam would have international support) would have been far preferable IMO than trying to tear everything down and start from scratch.  Because when you have a clean slate, you won't be the only one wanting to scribble your ideal design down on it.
Of course they are. You can't compare the two wars simply because we were fighting the same enemy. In the first war we never attempted to occupy. We had the backing of the world and our intentions were never second guessed. Our primary goal was to drive out an invading force. Kuwait's sovereignty was violated and we were restoring it. That is much different than removing and replacing a government.
And much more preferable, IMO.  Part of the aim of Gulf War I was to remove Saddams teeth, particularly the longer range ones.  It's when the CIA started saying that he'd grown them back a bit that the decision was made to get rid of Saddam, when I would argue that if the intelligence was that positive, simply pulling out the new teeth would have been more productive.
2007-02-04 09:43:38
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7073|USA

UON wrote:

lowing wrote:

UON wrote:


It was a general and unjust attack against ~50% of the forum.  You said you are sure that many members of the forums would be proud of the "peace loving Muslims" when I have never seen anyone say that bombings like these are anything other than murder.
Ahhh, then how many forum members are being "unjustly attacked" with threads on fat Americans, arrogant Americans, racist Americans, stupid Americans....etc.........?
So every time there is a news article showing one fat American, threads pop up saying "See, I told you so, all Americans are fat, stupid, arrogant, racist pigs!"?
Nope based on what has happened with censorship in this forum, such posts should be censored right?
2007-02-04 10:07:22
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|7075

lowing wrote:

Nope based on what has happened with censorship in this forum, such posts should be censored right?
Closing a thread isn't exactly censorship, since everyone can still read what you said.  They just can't retalliate in kind, thus causing unproductive escalations into pointless flamewars.  Censorship would be deleting the threads entirely.  If anything, closing the threads is censorship of the people who'd like to reply saying what absolute bullshit it is.
2007-02-04 10:14:10
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7073|USA

UON wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope based on what has happened with censorship in this forum, such posts should be censored right?
Closing a thread isn't exactly censorship, since everyone can still read what you said.  They just can't retalliate in kind, thus causing unproductive escalations into pointless flamewars.  Censorship would be deleting the threads entirely.  If anything, closing the threads is censorship of the people who'd like to reply saying what absolute bullshit it is.
Gee, I thought the control of information was censorship, and stopping someone from posting on an issue would defiantly qualify or am I wrong there?

I ask in this thread since my censorship thread was................well........................censored.
2007-02-04 10:24:43
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7179|Argentina

Kmarion wrote:

In case you hadn't noticed they are attacking each other for the most part not Americans. An intelligent person would realize that a less violent more stable Iraq would mean a troop withdrawal. Your "Freedom Fighters" most likely do not want Americans to leave. An American presence saves them from having to buy a plane ticket to be a martyr.
That could be one side of the story.  But there's the possibility they are doing this because a more violent Iraq would mean America failed, and there's a point when you say "I'm leaving this place, this has no solution" and if that's the case they are winning.  Perhaps they are thinking this way.  Who knows?  The place is a mess anyway.
2007-02-04 10:35:40
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7023|132 and Bush

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

In case you hadn't noticed they are attacking each other for the most part not Americans. An intelligent person would realize that a less violent more stable Iraq would mean a troop withdrawal. Your "Freedom Fighters" most likely do not want Americans to leave. An American presence saves them from having to buy a plane ticket to be a martyr.
That could be one side of the story.  But there's the possibility they are doing this because a more violent Iraq would mean America failed, and there's a point when you say "I'm leaving this place, this has no solution" and if that's the case they are winning.  Perhaps they are thinking this way.  Who knows?  The place is a mess anyway.
I was responding to his statement "Win Back Iraq". I took this to mean expel the occupiers. If they wanted to "win it back" I proposed my previous solution.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-02-04 11:23:08
Skorpy-chan
Member
+127|6767|Twyford, UK
No, they're just making them madder.
2007-02-04 13:47:41
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6789|Columbus, Ohio
Why is this post still open?
2007-02-04 13:53:49
Gamematt
Stocking ur medpacks
+135|7084|Groningen, The Netherlands
Eventually the "freedom fighters" will win by killing all Iraky people........theyre will be no more Irak, freedom fighters win >_<
2007-02-04 14:05:31
Major_Spittle
Banned
+276|7077|United States of America

CameronPoe wrote:

I don't think those people are 'freedom fighters' - the attack hit all of the various ethnic groups in Iraq. I'd say it was probably Al Qaeda, not Iraqi freedom fighters. It was as stupid an attack as the Real IRA's bombing of Omagh in 1998.
Iraq Freedom fighters?  Please define this.  I would say the true patriots of Iraq are their Police and Soldiers fighting to gain the stability of their democratic government.  Also the citizens that are cooperating with their government and allied forces to root out the evil forces that are making life miserable.

What "freedom" would your fighters be fighting for???  If their was no attacks and bloodshed against civilians and the Iraqi infrastructure the US troops would go home.  Is this the "Freedom" they are "Fighting" for.  Freedom from people there to help their society and keep it from falling into the hands of tyrants and to protect the civilians?  Seems to me pretty obvious the Allied troops their are the ones doing good for the people.  You idiots siding with the people blowing up the civilians, roads, power plants, water treatment stations, schools, churches, and kids are all evil.

Cameron, you are so mixed up that I hope one day you are forced to face the evil you embrace.  Your comments go beyond stupidity and cross into the area destructive, evil, and sadistic.  Please go to Iraq immediately and give your aid and comfort in person to your "freedom fighters".  Cameron Fonda, hanging from a bridge would be a nice eye opener for the forum.
2007-02-04 16:04:23
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6977

Major_Spittle wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I don't think those people are 'freedom fighters' - the attack hit all of the various ethnic groups in Iraq. I'd say it was probably Al Qaeda, not Iraqi freedom fighters. It was as stupid an attack as the Real IRA's bombing of Omagh in 1998.
Iraq Freedom fighters?  Please define this.  I would say the true patriots of Iraq are their Police and Soldiers fighting to gain the stability of their democratic government.  Also the citizens that are cooperating with their government and allied forces to root out the evil forces that are making life miserable.

What "freedom" would your fighters be fighting for???  If their was no attacks and bloodshed against civilians and the Iraqi infrastructure the US troops would go home.  Is this the "Freedom" they are "Fighting" for.  Freedom from people there to help their society and keep it from falling into the hands of tyrants and to protect the civilians?  Seems to me pretty obvious the Allied troops their are the ones doing good for the people.  You idiots siding with the people blowing up the civilians, roads, power plants, water treatment stations, schools, churches, and kids are all evil.

Cameron, you are so mixed up that I hope one day you are forced to face the evil you embrace.  Your comments go beyond stupidity and cross into the area destructive, evil, and sadistic.  Please go to Iraq immediately and give your aid and comfort in person to your "freedom fighters".  Cameron Fonda, hanging from a bridge would be a nice eye opener for the forum.
Freedom - Spittle - the freedom from the influence of all external parties, be they US, British, Iranian or Syrian - so that the inhabitants of the region determine their OWN direction, not some imposed direction. No imposed democracy will stand in Iraq. If you're so stupid you can't see that then I'm afraid there's no point in me adding to this response. I don't blame you - how could an American of your ilk appreciate or empathise with those suffering an occupation. The British tried building infrastructure here in Ireland - do you think we appreciated that? No - we blew the fucking shit up and shuffled them off back to England (the free Republic part that is). If you can't understand that mentality then just stop trying to.

BTW - Those Iraqi 'police and soldiers' aren't fighting for a 'free Iraq' - they're fighting for three square meals a day you fuckwit. Do you think they feel comfortable with the fact that they have made themselves 'traitors' by taking the 'Great Satans' (as they put it) pay? LOL. You haven't a clue. Try going to Palestine, Iraq, Iran or Jordan and ask them what they think about America. It doesn't matter how many fucking schools you build they'll still regard you as the 'Great Satan'. The US chose Israal as their ally - now live with the consequences and deal with it.

In terms of 'going to these evil places' - I had a great time in Cuba, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan and Palestine. I'd highly recommend them as holiday destinations. None of the Palestinians I spoke to suggested stringing me from any bridges incidentally. In fact one was even so kind as to lead me through a hole in the apartheid wall so I could experience first hand the inconveniences of the Israeli occupation.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-04 16:22:22)

2007-02-04 16:08:21
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7023|132 and Bush

Similar debate starting up here if you want to vote http://www.convinceme.net/viewOpenDebate.php?dib=384 .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-02-04 16:19:31
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|7068
Sweet. Another thread about Iraq.
2007-02-04 16:22:06
r'Eeee
That's how I roll, BITCH!
+311|6870

I am from IRAQ, u all gotta love me xD
2007-02-04 16:25:05
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|7093|UK

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Sweet. Another thread about Iraq.
A POX on you Pollux!  Be gone you venemous rat!
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2007-02-04 16:28:32
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|7093|UK

usmarine2007 wrote:

Why is this post still open?
Iraq = News
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2007-02-04 17:00:27
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6789|Columbus, Ohio

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Why is this post still open?
Iraq = News
Not according to the same two threads about the same story that were closed yesterday.

Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-02-04 17:03:02)

2007-02-04 17:04:56
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|7075

usmarine2007 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Why is this post still open?
Iraq = News
Not according to the same two threads about the same story that was closed yesterday.
Guess that's the difference between wording a thread as a topic for debate (good) or as an insult to forum members who dare to defend the vast majority of Muslims as non-violent (bad).
2007-02-04 17:06:51
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6789|Columbus, Ohio

UON wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

m3thod wrote:


Iraq = News
Not according to the same two threads about the same story that was closed yesterday.
Guess that's the difference between wording a thread as a topic for debate (good) or as an insult to forum members who dare to defend the vast majority of Muslims as non-violent (bad).
Hey, he corrected the first one.  But that was not the reason given.....

"First of there are numerous (open) threads about the war in Iraq, the problems in Israel, condemning the ignorance of an American or all in general. Without making a judgment on any of these statements, shouldn't it be enough that these discussions or statements can stay within those threads." - =RobinHood=
2007-02-04 17:16:02
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|7093|UK

usmarine2007 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Why is this post still open?
Iraq = News
Not according to the same two threads about the same story that were closed yesterday.
The threads were closed not because of the topic rather how topic was presented.

Winnable Tactics = Good Title

Boy, them muslims gone done it now = Bad title.

See, easy.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2007-02-04 17:17:06
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6789|Columbus, Ohio

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Iraq = News
Not according to the same two threads about the same story that were closed yesterday.
The threads were closed not because of the topic rather how topic was presented.

Winnable Tactics = Good Title

Boy, them muslims gone done it now = Bad title.

See, easy.
He came out with a cleaned up second one FFS...which was closed for reason above.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=63013

Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-02-04 17:17:34)

2007-02-04 17:18:00
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|7093|UK

usmarine2007 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:


Not according to the same two threads about the same story that were closed yesterday.
The threads were closed not because of the topic rather how topic was presented.

Winnable Tactics = Good Title

Boy, them muslims gone done it now = Bad title.

See, easy.
He came out with a cleaned up second one FFS...which was closed for reason above.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=63013
Damage had be done.....FFS.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2007-02-04 17:18:29
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6789|Columbus, Ohio

m3thod wrote:

Damage had be done.....FFS.
Damage?
2007-02-04 17:24:22
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|7075

usmarine2007 wrote:

UON wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Not according to the same two threads about the same story that was closed yesterday.
Guess that's the difference between wording a thread as a topic for debate (good) or as an insult to forum members who dare to defend the vast majority of Muslims as non-violent (bad).
Hey, he corrected the first one.  But that was not the reason given.....

"First of there are numerous (open) threads about the war in Iraq, the problems in Israel, condemning the ignorance of an American or all in general. Without making a judgment on any of these statements, shouldn't it be enough that these discussions or statements can stay within those threads." - =RobinHood=
The original thread was closed QFE'd of a comment that said "Are we going to do this every time somebody blows something up?"  i.e. are we going to have a separate "See!  Proof that Islam is an irredeemably violent religion" thread every time another bomb goes of in Iraq...

It didn't say "Don't discuss this topic in any way shape or form", both closes imply that if it had been worded to pose a distinctly different debate scenario it would have remained open.  We had long running threads on the "Muslim Problem" as ATG so eloquently put it (again, now changed) and Islamophobia, so if the article was just being used to back up an argument from those ongoing threads then that is where it belonged.  At least, that's what I think happened.  Might be alot simpler than that, maybe there is an admin note that says "annoy lowing whenever possible, please".

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard