Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2007-02-05 09:32:47
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6833|North Carolina

TeamZephyr wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Honestly, nuking Iran would be a better option -- despite how evil it would look.
If you want America to be under constant terrorist attacks for the next 100 years plus then by all means nuke Iran, the world and the Arabs will judge you more harshly than ever before.

You'd be seeing lot of terrorist attacks from people from other places than Islam if that was to happen..........
Perhaps, you're right.  Again, I prefer leaving Iran alone, but if we do fight them, we have to obliterate them completely.

We half-assed Iraq under the faulty assumption that we could transform it into a functioning democracy.  We should have either left them alone or just put up another dictatorship more loyal to us than Saddam was.
2007-02-05 09:33:21
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|7074
m3thod
Banned

2007-02-05 10:31:00
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6957|Global Command

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

m3thod
Banned



I suspect it was when he admitted to being a spamming fool.
2007-02-05 10:59:56
Major_Spittle
Banned
+276|7082|United States of America
I would be all for this if our troops were allowed to actually fight.  The so called "civilians" the to fear our military and the Iraqi military more than the insurgents.  This is how the country will acheive peace.  The Iraqis don't care about anything other than staying alive and making the best of a shitty situation.  Obviously they have no concept of freedom and do not value it enough to fight for it themselves.  Their religion is repressive so I feel they have accepted a life of being repressed and don't see a free society as something that will better their lives because they will still be repressed by Islam.  Look at the shit the women put up with.

I'm telling you that 500 mormon missionaries could affect more change than the US military.
2007-02-05 11:01:20
syntaxmax642
Member
+32|7052|Seattle

rawls2 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

ATG wrote:


Respect for you = 0
Feeling's mutal i'm afraid old pal.
You can tell this fag is from the internet generation. All the information at your fingertips makes you think you know it all. Calling people this and that. Never faced mortality I bet. You sir should join the armed forces and die.
Did we forget the most important thing of all?

Arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics..

Either way you are retarded...
2007-02-05 11:03:41
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6957|Global Command
So why are you here?
2007-02-05 11:04:03
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7077

ATG wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

m3thod
Banned



I suspect it was when he admitted to being a spamming fool.
Does that mean were I to say the same I would be banned?


Dear Mods,
I am a spamming fool.
Yours truely, ghettoperson
2007-02-05 11:11:02
Fen321
Member
+54|6925|Singularity

Turquoise wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Honestly, nuking Iran would be a better option -- despite how evil it would look.
If you want America to be under constant terrorist attacks for the next 100 years plus then by all means nuke Iran, the world and the Arabs will judge you more harshly than ever before.

You'd be seeing lot of terrorist attacks from people from other places than Islam if that was to happen..........
Perhaps, you're right.  Again, I prefer leaving Iran alone, but if we do fight them, we have to obliterate them completely.

We half-assed Iraq under the faulty assumption that we could transform it into a functioning democracy.  We should have either left them alone or just put up another dictatorship more loyal to us than Saddam was.
I'm not sure if you can see the gravity of the claim you just made, but can you help me out here? Why oh why would it be acceptable to set up a regime change simply because the other regime didn't want to play into our interest anymore?

There will be no obliterating of anything outside of what's left of the positive image of the states, sad but oh so true.
2007-02-05 11:14:41
rawls2
Mr. Bigglesworth
+89|6988

CameronPoe wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

m3thod wrote:


Feeling's mutal i'm afraid old pal.
You can tell this fag is from the internet generation. All the information at your fingertips makes you think you know it all. Calling people this and that. Never faced mortality I bet. You sir should join the armed forces and die.
Are you suggesting m3thod is immortal?
No he is just a troll like fancy says. Never brings up anything rellevant and only runs around sniffing the ass of other members bitchin and moaning.
2007-02-05 11:14:45
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6957|Global Command

ghettoperson wrote:

ATG wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

m3thod
Banned



I suspect it was when he admitted to being a spamming fool.
Does that mean were I to say the same I would be banned?


Dear Mods,
I am a spamming fool.
Yours truely, ghettoperson
No, you also have to be a general prick.


Your safe.
Hugs, ATG.
2007-02-05 11:17:59
Major_Spittle
Banned
+276|7082|United States of America
I'm prof that even pricks have a place in this forum.
2007-02-05 11:20:59
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

Fen321 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

If you want America to be under constant terrorist attacks for the next 100 years plus then by all means nuke Iran, the world and the Arabs will judge you more harshly than ever before.

You'd be seeing lot of terrorist attacks from people from other places than Islam if that was to happen..........
Perhaps, you're right.  Again, I prefer leaving Iran alone, but if we do fight them, we have to obliterate them completely.

We half-assed Iraq under the faulty assumption that we could transform it into a functioning democracy.  We should have either left them alone or just put up another dictatorship more loyal to us than Saddam was.
I'm not sure if you can see the gravity of the claim you just made, but can you help me out here? Why oh why would it be acceptable to set up a regime change simply because the other regime didn't want to play into our interest anymore?

There will be no obliterating of anything outside of what's left of the positive image of the states, sad but oh so true.
You don't have to obliterate a country to help shape it. You just need the right strategy from the beginning.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-02-05 11:23:21
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6957|Global Command

Major_Spittle wrote:

I'm prof that even pricks have a place in this forum.
Perhaps.
But your a smart prick that usually stays focused and adds to the scenery in a positive way.
2007-02-05 11:28:25
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7164|Salt Lake City

Major_Spittle wrote:

I'm telling you that 500 mormon missionaries could affect more change than the US military.
Please, take all of them you want.  We have more than enough here to cover that, and several replacements once they are beheaded.
2007-02-05 11:32:22
Fen321
Member
+54|6925|Singularity

Major_Spittle wrote:

I would be all for this if our troops were allowed to actually fight.  The so called "civilians" the to fear our military and the Iraqi military more than the insurgents.
I'm not sure if i can even understand the last half of the argument, can you clarify? From what i understand is that they fear both their own Military and the US, now why does that come to you as such a surprise? Take the Medhi Army for example, they united for the single cause of protecting themselves for their inability to rely on both Iraqi/US forces for protection against insurgents. Surely they contribute violence wise, but not anymore than the rest of the militias that have formed, including ones that support the status quo of those in power.

Major_Spittle wrote:

This is how the country will acheive peace.  The Iraqis don't care about anything other than staying alive and making the best of a shitty situation.  Obviously they have no concept of freedom and do not value it enough to fight for it themselves.  Their religion is repressive so I feel they have accepted a life of being repressed and don't see a free society as something that will better their lives because they will still be repressed by Islam.  Look at the shit the women put up with.
Staying alive in a shitty situation which they had no say in starting, yeah i suppose that's a negative thing if you somehow forget whom started the "situation."

No concept of freedom, may you please elaborate on what exactly you place this claim on? Last i check forming militias and defending yourself from the ridiculous sectarian fighting constitutes a fight for "freedom."

The aspect about their religion being repressive can only be taken from a vantage point outside of their religion and as a consequent actions in which they FREELY participate in are now turned into a repressive mandate, hence you are simply wrong about it being "repressive." For it is not anymore repressive than the BS we do back at home.  And the "shit" women have to put up with are a BYPRODUCT OF TRADITION of a particular region where Islam took hold. Simply just ask yourself why didn't women in the states get the vote till 1920?So i would argue that you cannot be repressed if you willingly subjugate yourself to this form of rule and tradition.



Major_Spittle wrote:

I'm telling you that 500 mormon missionaries could affect more change than the US military.
Why are Mormons going to solve a political issue in the Middle East?
2007-02-05 11:35:39
Fen321
Member
+54|6925|Singularity

Kmarion wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Perhaps, you're right.  Again, I prefer leaving Iran alone, but if we do fight them, we have to obliterate them completely.

We half-assed Iraq under the faulty assumption that we could transform it into a functioning democracy.  We should have either left them alone or just put up another dictatorship more loyal to us than Saddam was.
I'm not sure if you can see the gravity of the claim you just made, but can you help me out here? Why oh why would it be acceptable to set up a regime change simply because the other regime didn't want to play into our interest anymore?

There will be no obliterating of anything outside of what's left of the positive image of the states, sad but oh so true.
You don't have to obliterate a country to help shape it. You just need the right strategy from the beginning.
All the things you mentioned are tactical approaches to the problem. There is no overall strategy from a military stand point in which a political solution will be magically derived.
2007-02-05 11:52:18
gun.KingRat
Member
+12|7118

Turquoise wrote:

gun.KingRat wrote:

Not wrote:

This is clearly a Civil War. I don't understand why we're there. Nothing can convince me that we have any purpose there any more. Let them kill each other into the stone age for all I care, just keep our kids out of the crossfire.

Would it have made any sense for Australia to come in and interfere with OUR Civil War? Of course not. Then again, I don't see any realistic timeline for their war to be over with, but I don't care either.
This is not a civil war. We are fighting terrorists spilling over the border from Iran ( Many from the Revolutionary Guard). This war will end when we wipe out Iran. I have no problem nuking Iran to glass, however that will never be allowed to happen unfortunately. So we will have to put troops on the ground sooner or later.
Do you honestly think that invading Iran would be successful?  Sure, we'd destroy their government, but the people would fight us just like the Iraqis have.  We would only be spreading more chaos throughout the region.

Honestly, nuking Iran would be a better option -- despite how evil it would look.  The repercussions of nuking Iran would actually be less negative than of invading them, because we wouldn't have to rebuild anything, and the terrorists there would be dead (along with all the civilians, nonetheless).

Either way, if we attack Iran in one way or another, we'll have effectively declared war on most of the Islamic World.
A ground invasion of Iran is going to HAVE to be successful if we are going to survive. As I said, I am all for nuking them instead of sending in our guys, but that won't happen short of a first strike by Iran on the U.S. or Israel. We wouldn't be spreading chaos, we would be ending it. The majority of the problems in the middle east are either funded by, or carried out by , Iran. Iran goes away, Democracy would flourish in the middle east.
2007-02-05 11:57:50
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

Fen321 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Fen321 wrote:


I'm not sure if you can see the gravity of the claim you just made, but can you help me out here? Why oh why would it be acceptable to set up a regime change simply because the other regime didn't want to play into our interest anymore?

There will be no obliterating of anything outside of what's left of the positive image of the states, sad but oh so true.
You don't have to obliterate a country to help shape it. You just need the right strategy from the beginning.
All the things you mentioned are tactical approaches to the problem. There is no overall strategy from a military stand point in which a political solution will be magically derived.
The political solution was a democratically elected Iraq that was able to maintain it's security representative of all. The latter is where the tactics should have been applied.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-02-05 12:10:51
Fen321
Member
+54|6925|Singularity
I see what your saying, but a democratic "strategy" would have prior to the war realized that this style of governing is not a band aid to discontent in the region. It is one thing to have "democratic" practices continue to come out of and evolve into institutionalized forms, but its another thing all together to think that by simply giving people a bunch of ballots and the ability to elect representatives, will bring democracy to the region.

The present situation is a case in point stating that a "democratically elected" government does not equate to stability. It is more of a pseudo government which effectively was set up by an invading force and unfortunately this force did not have any sort of strategic input to the development of the region hence why i find it rather difficult for those that are for the war to just haphazardly state that Iraqi's don't value freedom....but at the same time they can admit to themselves that they did execute a regime change due to his interest not being aligned with that of the US.... etc etc
2007-02-05 12:15:36
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

The problem with the current Democratic state is not everyone is represented. Also, the ones who were forced to succeed power to the majority are not happy.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-02-06 03:44:29
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7170|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

IG-Calibre wrote:

crimson_grunt wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:


UK + Northern Ireland = Peace?
yes when this happened.

Violence+compromise+dialog=ceasefire
Ceasefire+concessions+dialog=peace.
[people of N.Ireland] X UK + Republic of Ireland + Compromise + concession = Peaceful N.Ireland actually
I was thinking about this equation, something about it was bugging me and actually there was something incredibly wrong about it.  I forgot all about American George Mitchell, which was very ignoble of me. Without his tireless efforts we would not be in the situation we find ourselves in today. so my equation is now

[George Mitchell + people of N.Ireland] x UK + Republic of Ireland + Compromise + concession = Peaceful N.Ireland
2007-02-06 08:58:01
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6957|Global Command

Fen321 wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

I would be all for this if our troops were allowed to actually fight.  The so called "civilians" the to fear our military and the Iraqi military more than the insurgents.
I'm not sure if i can even understand the last half of the argument, can you clarify? From what i understand is that they fear both their own Military and the US, now why does that come to you as such a surprise? Take the Medhi Army for example, they united for the single cause of protecting themselves for their inability to rely on both Iraqi/US forces for protection against insurgents. Surely they contribute violence wise, but not anymore than the rest of the militias that have formed, including ones that support the status quo of those in power.

Major_Spittle wrote:

This is how the country will acheive peace.  The Iraqis don't care about anything other than staying alive and making the best of a shitty situation.  Obviously they have no concept of freedom and do not value it enough to fight for it themselves.  Their religion is repressive so I feel they have accepted a life of being repressed and don't see a free society as something that will better their lives because they will still be repressed by Islam.  Look at the shit the women put up with.
Staying alive in a shitty situation which they had no say in starting, yeah i suppose that's a negative thing if you somehow forget whom started the "situation."

No concept of freedom, may you please elaborate on what exactly you place this claim on? Last i check forming militias and defending yourself from the ridiculous sectarian fighting constitutes a fight for "freedom."

The aspect about their religion being repressive can only be taken from a vantage point outside of their religion and as a consequent actions in which they FREELY participate in are now turned into a repressive mandate, hence you are simply wrong about it being "repressive." For it is not anymore repressive than the BS we do back at home.  And the "shit" women have to put up with are a BYPRODUCT OF TRADITION of a particular region where Islam took hold. Simply just ask yourself why didn't women in the states get the vote till 1920?So i would argue that you cannot be repressed if you willingly subjugate yourself to this form of rule and tradition.



Major_Spittle wrote:

I'm telling you that 500 mormon missionaries could affect more change than the US military.
Why are Mormons going to solve a political issue in the Middle East?
Those dudes have balls. They go places and knock on doors and tell you about Jebus.

They deserve more credit for inspiring immigration from Europe. My great great grandfather ( moms side ) Lars Jenson came to America in 1847 from Denmark. He had been baptised in Denmark by Mormon missionaries. He went on to be one of the key masons that built the SL temple and Tabernacle Choir.

My great great great grandfather on dads side was Israel Barlow . He was aka as " the Angel of Death."
Josepth Smiths personal bodyguard.

https://i18.tinypic.com/4idh82f.jpg

Last edited by ATG (2007-02-06 09:03:08)

2007-02-06 20:36:37
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6833|North Carolina

Fen321 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:


If you want America to be under constant terrorist attacks for the next 100 years plus then by all means nuke Iran, the world and the Arabs will judge you more harshly than ever before.

You'd be seeing lot of terrorist attacks from people from other places than Islam if that was to happen..........
Perhaps, you're right.  Again, I prefer leaving Iran alone, but if we do fight them, we have to obliterate them completely.

We half-assed Iraq under the faulty assumption that we could transform it into a functioning democracy.  We should have either left them alone or just put up another dictatorship more loyal to us than Saddam was.
I'm not sure if you can see the gravity of the claim you just made, but can you help me out here? Why oh why would it be acceptable to set up a regime change simply because the other regime didn't want to play into our interest anymore?

There will be no obliterating of anything outside of what's left of the positive image of the states, sad but oh so true.
Well, it's a matter of perception.  You see...  anyone familiar with the history of our foreign policy since the end of WW2 would know that we've supported various regimes (some dictatorial, some not) in the sole interest of expanding our power.  Understandably, a lot of the world hates us for this singlemindedness.

Yet, Iraq is a perfect example of where our man turned on us.  We removed Saddam thinking that we could replace him with a democracy, but this has failed miserably.  Instead, we face a populace incapable of governing itself, so the next best thing to withdrawal is putting another dictator in power.  At least that would end the chaos.

As for our positive image in the world....  I think that's mostly irrelevant now.  The more you learn about the U.S., the more you discover about our past atrocities and scandals.  We're not the Great Satan, but we are basically a modern version of the Roman Empire.  We do whatever suits the needs of the powers that be.

That being said, if we obliterated Iran outright, it would effectively be a declaration of war against the Islamic World, but I still see this as better than just invading Iran.  Ultimately, leaving Iran alone or supporting an insurgency within Iran would be better options, but nuking them is basically number 3 on the list.

I'm not so much concerned about our image as much as I am about actually accomplishing something.  Playing Mr. Nice Guy with Iraq hasn't gotten us anywhere.

We should either leave or go in with guns blazing.
2007-02-06 20:40:24
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6833|North Carolina

gun.KingRat wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

gun.KingRat wrote:


This is not a civil war. We are fighting terrorists spilling over the border from Iran ( Many from the Revolutionary Guard). This war will end when we wipe out Iran. I have no problem nuking Iran to glass, however that will never be allowed to happen unfortunately. So we will have to put troops on the ground sooner or later.
Do you honestly think that invading Iran would be successful?  Sure, we'd destroy their government, but the people would fight us just like the Iraqis have.  We would only be spreading more chaos throughout the region.

Honestly, nuking Iran would be a better option -- despite how evil it would look.  The repercussions of nuking Iran would actually be less negative than of invading them, because we wouldn't have to rebuild anything, and the terrorists there would be dead (along with all the civilians, nonetheless).

Either way, if we attack Iran in one way or another, we'll have effectively declared war on most of the Islamic World.
A ground invasion of Iran is going to HAVE to be successful if we are going to survive. As I said, I am all for nuking them instead of sending in our guys, but that won't happen short of a first strike by Iran on the U.S. or Israel. We wouldn't be spreading chaos, we would be ending it. The majority of the problems in the middle east are either funded by, or carried out by , Iran. Iran goes away, Democracy would flourish in the middle east.
Wrong.  Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and several other countries in this region have significant insurgent groups or interests.  Saudi Arabia has been funding the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, in fact.  Democracy is just a pipe dream for the Middle East.  Maybe in a hundred years from now it will work, but not today.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard