Pages: 1 2

 

2007-04-03 08:43:01
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6814|Global Command
...it's in the context of " the leadership we should have, not the leadership we have. "

Just because George Bush is an idiot and the Democrats are are doing everything they can to weaken us does NOT mean the ideals that led us to war in the ME are without merit.

The battle is with Islamic terrorist, not Saudi Arabia, or even Iraq. They all ride the same flying carpet as far as I'm concerned.


I've long believed that the incompetence shown by American and international leaders in regards to terrorism and the way we are fighting it is on purpose. They will fuck everything so beyond comprehension that the citizens of the world will demand a new global leadership. A new world order. A one world government.

Moronic leadership by the federal government in the wake of Katrina was to one end; let the people feel like their government can't help them, let them know they are on their own.

Toilet politics on the side of the far right, such as focusing on a cum stained dress while smart bombs fell on the former Soviet Union was designed with one end in mind; semen stains are more important than ending genocide. And democrats can't start wars worth fighting, only our team.

Americans know now that the Social Security system is fucked beyond all repair and that it will not be there for them.

So, unless you'd prefer I douse myself in gasoline and jump burning off the nearest tall building, I am going to continue the debate from the standpoint of America as it should be, not as it is.

https://img374.imageshack.us/img374/9566/jumper5jpggfx7rm.jpg


* edit, the irony of the building being WTC, Lord.

Last edited by ATG (2007-04-03 15:38:38)

2007-04-03 08:58:14
chittydog
less busy
+586|7120|Kubra, Damn it!

It's awful to face this, but America will never be the country it should be. So we're forced to deal with the country that it is. As I grow older and more cynical, I realize the truth in the old quote "we get the government we deserve". The reason these cretins are in office is because we put them there, then we don't do anything about it once they start their orgies of corruption and greed. All I know to do about it is to research the issues, stay abreast of world events and vote whenever possible. If things can't get better someday, then please hold a spot open at the top of the building for me.

The only thing that's seems fuzzy in your post is the idea of these clowns working towards a world government. Even when it happens (because it will), none of them will be around to reap the benefits from it and even if they were, there would be hundreds of thousands of these assholes slandering, blackmailing and murdering each other to get into a few key positions. On second thought, they're all so egomaniacal and consumed with greed that they doubtlessly believe they'll be the one in charge. Alright, I'll give you that one too.

Don't know what I'm really trying say here. Maybe that the world has become too sad and corrupt for its own good.
2007-04-03 09:01:46
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6886|132 and Bush

Haha he said Social Security.

ATG if you are going to mention the failures of the Federal government over Katrina you should really include the local government. That was the most obvious incompetence I saw when I was there. Worse yet was the local politicians brainwashing their constituents into believing they were helpless to do anything and all the blame is on the Bush administration. What a fucking joke. No doubt FEMA was late to the party, but they are not a first response organization. Prevention and preparedness falls under the State and County.

(Sorry I just took issue with this, it is because I have had direct experience with the BS involved)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-04-03 09:02:03
topal63
. . .
+533|7003
? Hmmm, man... I don't know what to say.

But, rationally, your premise / conclusion defies logic, even if your so-called "heart" appears to be in the right place.

a.) Premise (short form): "War on terror," Islamic Radicalism-Terrorism. This is a National Security issue - not a war issue. The RISK is extremely overblown, statistically you are more likely to kill yourself on accident then having to WORRY about a terrorist killing YOU!

b.) “War” is always the LAST RESORT, when diplomacy FAILS or IGNORANCE takes over (conquers REASON).

c.) There is NO TEAM! This is a false dichotomy - if I don’t agree with you,

I am not:
A “label” (liberal, whatever).
The opposition.
The enemy within.
Etc.

What I am:
A different opinion.
An American.
A person who understands the necessity of having a standing army, as all Nations in effect are a military action (or form of police state) for National Security reasons.   

d.) Your conclusion?
A NEW Global Order with America as the Leader? I don’t either see the necessity of it, nor the reality of such a thing happening.

Note:
I am not a cynic... not in the least, or smallest measure. And in a sense there already is a Global Relationship (of Nations to Nations; economic dependency, thus some sort of "Order" on a Global scale); and America is already a leader - of sorts. So a "One World Government" - not really necessary.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-03 12:32:52)

2007-04-03 09:12:00
EVieira
Member
+105|6763|Lutenblaag, Molvania

ATG wrote:

The battle is with Islamic terrorist, not Saudi Arabia, or even Iraq. They all ride the same flying carpet as far as I'm concerned.
So you still think invading Iraq was the right thing to do? Even knowing that Iraq was a strong opposer of the Talebans and had no ties to Al Quaeda?

You say Saudi Arabia is on the same "flying carpet" as Islamic terrorists? Saudi Arabia is a strong terrorist opposer, they have a strong police state enforced that keeps terrorism in check in their country. Just because there are Saudi-born terrorists doesn't make them a terror-supporting country.

You are generalizing, and in doing that is supporting the actions that further the destabilization of the middle east.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-04-03 09:22:36
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6814|Global Command

EVieira wrote:

ATG wrote:

The battle is with Islamic terrorist, not Saudi Arabia, or even Iraq. They all ride the same flying carpet as far as I'm concerned.
So you still think invading Iraq was the right thing to do? Even knowing that Iraq was a strong opposer of the Talebans and had no ties to Al Quaeda?

You say Saudi Arabia is on the same "flying carpet" as Islamic terrorists? Saudi Arabia is a strong terrorist opposer, they have a strong police state enforced that keeps terrorism in check in their country. Just because there are Saudi-born terrorists doesn't make them a terror-supporting country.

You are generalizing, and in doing that is supporting the actions that further the destabilization of the middle east.
It would have ebeen if we had fought it to win.

I knew the game was lost when we disbanded the Iraqi army.
2007-04-03 09:25:57
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6886|132 and Bush

ATG wrote:

I knew the game was lost when we disbanded the Iraqi army.
You nailed it right there.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-04-03 09:26:55
topal63
. . .
+533|7003

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

I knew the game was lost when we disbanded the Iraqi army.
You nailed it right there.
Big mistake.
2007-04-03 09:32:23
CoronadoSEAL
pics or it didn't happen
+207|6803|USA

ATG wrote:

It would have been if we had fought it to win.
(1) is it a visibly winnable war? or is it's successes measured in events that do not occur? (2) this policy/objective of 'fighting to win' rather than 'fighting not to lose' is a reason we struggled in vietnam.  did we learn?
2007-04-03 09:36:26
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6814|Global Command

CoronadoSEAL wrote:

ATG wrote:

It would have been if we had fought it to win.
(1) is it a visibly winnable war? or is it's successes measured in events that do not occur? (2) this policy/objective of 'fighting to win' rather than 'fighting not to lose' is a reason we struggled in vietnam.  did we learn?
1) Yes, winning to me means a stable government not beholden to us or anyone.
2) No, we didn't. Anytime Washington asshole start dictating to the military timelines we lose.
2007-04-03 09:38:25
motherdear
Member
+25|6936|Denmark/Minnesota (depends)

EVieira wrote:

ATG wrote:

The battle is with Islamic terrorist, not Saudi Arabia, or even Iraq. They all ride the same flying carpet as far as I'm concerned.
So you still think invading Iraq was the right thing to do? Even knowing that Iraq was a strong opposer of the Talebans and had no ties to Al Quaeda?

You say Saudi Arabia is on the same "flying carpet" as Islamic terrorists? Saudi Arabia is a strong terrorist opposer, they have a strong police state enforced that keeps terrorism in check in their country. Just because there are Saudi-born terrorists doesn't make them a terror-supporting country.

You are generalizing, and in doing that is supporting the actions that further the destabilization of the middle east.
if you ever saw or read the news before the offensive was begun you would have realized that we actually warned Iraq that we were gonna attack if Saddam didn't leave the country within 24 hours, so that they could interrogate (not torture or take him to prison, but under UN supervision). and they didn't invade because that they knew that he had WMD's, because he was hindering and stopping UN personnel from entering facilities and villages, so that they couldn't make their searches. and if they ain't allowed to do searches then you can figure out that something is rotten and that they are just buying time, and they did buy more time (a lot of time) actually enough to get whichever weapons they had out of their facilities and into another friendly country with no blocking of the border or hiding them in the desert or similar. so basically i am absolutely sure that they would have found weapons if just the UN hadn't been such a worthless piece of shit organisation as it is, the idea that the UN got is okay but their methods are so worthless that it would be better if they didn't do it.
2007-04-03 09:40:14
JahManRed
wank
+646|6913|IRELAND

ATG wrote:

I am going to continue the debate from the standpoint of America as it should be, not as it is.
And we respect you for it.

ATG wrote:

I knew the game was lost when we disbanded the Iraqi army.
Very true.
2007-04-03 09:40:20
topal63
. . .
+533|7003

CoronadoSEAL wrote:

ATG wrote:

It would have been if we had fought it to win.
(1) is it a visibly winnable war? or is it's successes measured in events that do not occur? (2) this policy/objective of 'fighting to win' rather than 'fighting not to lose' is a reason we struggled in vietnam.  did we learn?
But sometimes a War effort is defined as a specific objective (or goal)... often an ideological goal.

If a country does not share your ideals; ideological beliefs, a body bag count might mean you won the numbers game (the killing part of war, the battles), but lost the War. Part of some (actually many) war efforts (goals in war) is winning the “heart and mind” of the opposing force's citizens. Did we in Vietnam? Are we in Iraq?
2007-04-03 09:46:50
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6912

ATG wrote:

...it's in the context of " the leadership we should have, not the leadership we have. "

Just because George Bush is an idiot and the Democrats are are doing everything they can to weaken us does NOT mean the ideals that led us to war in the ME are without merit.

The battle is with Islamic terrorist, not Saudi Arabia, or even Iraq. They all ride the same flying carpet as far as I'm concerned.


http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/9566 … gfx7rm.jpg
ATG, exactly what are the principles for going to war in Iraq from your standpoint? 

Afghanistan was a legitimate move in my mind.  Iraq, well we had no legitimate reason for that invasion. If we did, our leaders wouldn't have changed the reason three separate times

The Democrats in my mind are doing what the "people" want as demonstrated in the elections.  GWB in his statement today ridiculed the House and Senate for their passing on time lines.  That is what the people voted for!..  He said the Congress has no right to tell the military what to do.  Dah, yes they do.  They were elected by the people to represent them in such affairs. 

This is becoming more and more obvious that GWB has his mind set.  With a 29% approval rating he has lost all credibility.....
2007-04-03 09:48:24
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6886|132 and Bush

ATG wrote:

CoronadoSEAL wrote:

ATG wrote:

It would have been if we had fought it to win.
(1) is it a visibly winnable war? or is it's successes measured in events that do not occur? (2) this policy/objective of 'fighting to win' rather than 'fighting not to lose' is a reason we struggled in vietnam.  did we learn?
1) Yes, winning to me means a stable government not beholden to us or anyone.
2) No, we didn't. Anytime Washington asshole start dictating to the military timelines we lose.
3) When you decide to base your success on another Military/Police/Economy/Government we lose. When you do this you are counting on others to be succesfull and not yourself. In reality all you can do at that point is support them. It's kinda a basic fundamental of life, isn't it?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-04-03 09:50:59
motherdear
Member
+25|6936|Denmark/Minnesota (depends)

topal63 wrote:

If a country does not share your ideals; ideological beliefs, a body bag count might mean you won the numbers game (the killing part of war, the battles), but lost the War. Part of some (actually many) war efforts (goals in war) is winning the “heart and mind” of the opposing force's citizens. Did we in Vietnam? Are we in Iraq?
we had won the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people until all the political bullshit from washington came (that we lost to many troops, even though we had a very low loss number etc.) and when the support for the soldiers go down they lose their backup and get restrictions stopping them from doing what they should od because the politions are completely brainwashed by the idea of power no matter what ( and if you notice it bush isn't, he is still staying in Iraq because he think it's the right thing to do even though he is losing some of the backup from the population because the libs are undermining the military, i am not saying that bush is the best president ever, but he got the right ideals in this and similar matters "hold your ground") and even though you might say that this dosn't effect Iraq it does because the rest of the world looses the faith in the troops to and in the middle east they still get the news and they follow the opinion in the us and they react on this because that they can see that our population isn't supporting our troops, so they fell like they can do whatever they want to do, because the soldiers ain't allowed to stop them. the troops might have some flaws, but remember that we got 130.000 of them and when they don't have the support they are supposed to one or two of them are bound to get some problems.
2007-04-03 09:54:00
EVieira
Member
+105|6763|Lutenblaag, Molvania

ATG wrote:

EVieira wrote:

ATG wrote:

The battle is with Islamic terrorist, not Saudi Arabia, or even Iraq. They all ride the same flying carpet as far as I'm concerned.
So you still think invading Iraq was the right thing to do? Even knowing that Iraq was a strong opposer of the Talebans and had no ties to Al Quaeda?

You say Saudi Arabia is on the same "flying carpet" as Islamic terrorists? Saudi Arabia is a strong terrorist opposer, they have a strong police state enforced that keeps terrorism in check in their country. Just because there are Saudi-born terrorists doesn't make them a terror-supporting country.

You are generalizing, and in doing that is supporting the actions that further the destabilization of the middle east.
It would have been if we had fought it to win.
In what way did the US not fight to win? I don't think the US ever uses its military thinking it can't win.

ATG wrote:

I knew the game was lost when we disbanded the Iraqi army.
Yeah, that was the dumbest thing of all to do. Instantly create 400,000 unemployed weapons trained people...
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-04-03 09:57:24
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6814|Global Command

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

CoronadoSEAL wrote:


(1) is it a visibly winnable war? or is it's successes measured in events that do not occur? (2) this policy/objective of 'fighting to win' rather than 'fighting not to lose' is a reason we struggled in vietnam.  did we learn?
1) Yes, winning to me means a stable government not beholden to us or anyone.
2) No, we didn't. Anytime Washington asshole start dictating to the military timelines we lose.
3) When you decide to base your success on another Military/Police/Economy/Government we lose. When you do this you are counting on others to be succesfull and not yourself. In reality all you can do at that point is support them. It's kinda a basic fundamental of life, isn't it?
But, if the Iraqis were successful we would then be. We would have benefitted from stability in the region.

GATOR591957 wrote:

ATG wrote:

...it's in the context of " the leadership we should have, not the leadership we have. "

Just because George Bush is an idiot and the Democrats are are doing everything they can to weaken us does NOT mean the ideals that led us to war in the ME are without merit.

The battle is with Islamic terrorist, not Saudi Arabia, or even Iraq. They all ride the same flying carpet as far as I'm concerned.


http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/9566 … gfx7rm.jpg
ATG, exactly what are the principles for going to war in Iraq from your standpoint?
iraq was in definace of U.N. resolutions. He had used chemical weapons on civilians. He had drained the mkarshes to starve the kurds. He running silly diversions when the weapons inspectors tried to do their job.

At the time, I wanted us to end the no fly zone policing or over-throw the government, one or the other.


If we could all go back in time we could undo whats been done. But we can't. Abandoning the country to Iran is unacceptable.
I for one, will not sleep well knowing there are mass-killings, which there will be, just because we shouldn't have invaded.

At this point, we just have to see it through. I guess. Fuck, mayble I'll go have a cocktail.
2007-04-03 09:59:41
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6886|132 and Bush

Motherdear when you begin an occupation Presence matters. Those occupied must see you on every corner. When the situation allows you can then start to withdrawal. Once the minds have turned against the occupiers adding troops later will only inflame the distrust of the local peoples.

ATG has pointed out major mistake #2 (Dismantling the military of Iraq)
Mistake #1 was beginning the occupation with an inadequate amount of troops. This is something some of our military leaders warned Washington about.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-04-03 10:01:24
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6917|949

ATG wrote:

At this point, we just have to see it through. I guess. Fuck, mayble I'll go have a cocktail.
It's 5:00pm somewhere
2007-04-03 12:26:16
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6912

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:


1) Yes, winning to me means a stable government not beholden to us or anyone.
2) No, we didn't. Anytime Washington asshole start dictating to the military timelines we lose.
3) When you decide to base your success on another Military/Police/Economy/Government we lose. When you do this you are counting on others to be succesfull and not yourself. In reality all you can do at that point is support them. It's kinda a basic fundamental of life, isn't it?
But, if the Iraqis were successful we would then be. We would have benefitted from stability in the region.

GATOR591957 wrote:

ATG wrote:

...it's in the context of " the leadership we should have, not the leadership we have. "

Just because George Bush is an idiot and the Democrats are are doing everything they can to weaken us does NOT mean the ideals that led us to war in the ME are without merit.

The battle is with Islamic terrorist, not Saudi Arabia, or even Iraq. They all ride the same flying carpet as far as I'm concerned.


http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/9566 … gfx7rm.jpg
ATG, exactly what are the principles for going to war in Iraq from your standpoint?
iraq was in definace of U.N. resolutions. He had used chemical weapons on civilians. He had drained the mkarshes to starve the kurds. He running silly diversions when the weapons inspectors tried to do their job.

At the time, I wanted us to end the no fly zone policing or over-throw the government, one or the other.


If we could all go back in time we could undo whats been done. But we can't. Abandoning the country to Iran is unacceptable.
I for one, will not sleep well knowing there are mass-killings, which there will be, just because we shouldn't have invaded.

At this point, we just have to see it through. I guess. Fuck, mayble I'll go have a cocktail.
I guess you haven't been sleeping well then.  Mass killings are occurring in Iraq as we speak.  Dar fur has been a mass killing ground for years.   Why aren't we there, if this is your premise for a justified war?
2007-04-03 13:03:57
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6956|UK

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:


1) Yes, winning to me means a stable government not beholden to us or anyone.
2) No, we didn't. Anytime Washington asshole start dictating to the military timelines we lose.
3) When you decide to base your success on another Military/Police/Economy/Government we lose. When you do this you are counting on others to be succesfull and not yourself. In reality all you can do at that point is support them. It's kinda a basic fundamental of life, isn't it?
But, if the Iraqis were successful we would then be. We would have benefitted from stability in the region.

GATOR591957 wrote:

ATG wrote:

...it's in the context of " the leadership we should have, not the leadership we have. "

Just because George Bush is an idiot and the Democrats are are doing everything they can to weaken us does NOT mean the ideals that led us to war in the ME are without merit.

The battle is with Islamic terrorist, not Saudi Arabia, or even Iraq. They all ride the same flying carpet as far as I'm concerned.


http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/9566 … gfx7rm.jpg
ATG, exactly what are the principles for going to war in Iraq from your standpoint?
iraq was in definace of U.N. resolutions. He had used chemical weapons on civilians. He had drained the mkarshes to starve the kurds. He running silly diversions when the weapons inspectors tried to do their job.

At the time, I wanted us to end the no fly zone policing or over-throw the government, one or the other.


If we could all go back in time we could undo whats been done. But we can't. Abandoning the country to Iran is unacceptable.
I for one, will not sleep well knowing there are mass-killings, which there will be, just because we shouldn't have invaded.

At this point, we just have to see it through. I guess. Fuck, mayble I'll go have a cocktail.
The same old piss poor excuses, waa waa he was doing this, he was doing that....what you mean no different to every other megalomaniac dictator? Of which you will fail to have hung for reasons that purposefully escape me.

The decison to go to war was not yours to make and your govermant have failed you, the American people and humanity.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2007-04-03 13:04:56
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6814|Global Command

GATOR591957 wrote:

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

1) Yes, winning to me means a stable government not beholden to us or anyone.
2) No, we didn't. Anytime Washington asshole start dictating to the military timelines we lose.
3) When you decide to base your success on another Military/Police/Economy/Government we lose. When you do this you are counting on others to be succesfull and not yourself. In reality all you can do at that point is support them. It's kinda a basic fundamental of life, isn't it?
But, if the Iraqis were successful we would then be. We would have benefitted from stability in the region.

GATOR591957 wrote:


ATG, exactly what are the principles for going to war in Iraq from your standpoint?
iraq was in definace of U.N. resolutions. He had used chemical weapons on civilians. He had drained the mkarshes to starve the kurds. He running silly diversions when the weapons inspectors tried to do their job.

At the time, I wanted us to end the no fly zone policing or over-throw the government, one or the other.


If we could all go back in time we could undo whats been done. But we can't. Abandoning the country to Iran is unacceptable.
I for one, will not sleep well knowing there are mass-killings, which there will be, just because we shouldn't have invaded.

At this point, we just have to see it through. I guess. Fuck, mayble I'll go have a cocktail.
I guess you haven't been sleeping well then.  Mass killings are occurring in Iraq as we speak.  Dar fur has been a mass killing ground for years.   Why aren't we there, if this is your premise for a justified war?
Because I am not in charge.
2007-04-03 13:14:08
CoronadoSEAL
pics or it didn't happen
+207|6803|USA

ATG wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

I guess you haven't been sleeping well then.  Mass killings are occurring in Iraq as we speak.  Dar fur has been a mass killing ground for years.   Why aren't we there, if this is your premise for a justified war?
Because I am not in charge.
gator- revisit original post.  the "why aren'ts" can be blamed on the leadership have/should have - according to ATG.
2007-04-03 13:21:30
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6652|Columbus, Ohio

m3thod wrote:

The decison to go to war was not yours to make and your govermant have failed you, the American people and humanity.
Wow.....you must be a very bored person.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard