Why dont you go do something productive like scratch your Howard Dean bumper sticker off your car. . .Sanjaya wrote:
I think America COULD be a valuable member to the world community if they'd cut the shit out that they've been pulling in, say, Iraq.
....place it over your keyboard so you can spare us your posts?fadedsteve wrote:
Why dont you go do something productive like scratch your Howard Dean bumper sticker off your car. . .Sanjaya wrote:
I think America COULD be a valuable member to the world community if they'd cut the shit out that they've been pulling in, say, Iraq.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
lol...awesome.fadedsteve wrote:
Why dont you go do something productive like scratch your Howard Dean bumper sticker off your car. . .Sanjaya wrote:
I think America COULD be a valuable member to the world community if they'd cut the shit out that they've been pulling in, say, Iraq.
Hitler sure handled the Jews, too.../sarcasmsergeriver wrote:
But he could handle the different ethnic and religious groups.
But yeah, pity that it takes a brutal bastards to handle some people.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-04-21 18:55:06)
How much time are you willing to wait?, 5 more years, 10 more years? Could the US afford to stay there that long, could any country? How many more US troops do you want to kill?fadedsteve wrote:
Nothing is perfect in this world!!!
Everyone acts like Iraq has to become this instant hub of peace and prosperity. . . Or should become that in the coming months. . .or Iraq is a failure. . .
Bottom line is regime change and stability take TIME!! They take alot of time to settle and grow! Let the seed be planted and sprout for christs sake. . . .
The USA isnt a perfect democracy, and either is Europe. . . .But at least they take care of their citizens, have human rights, promote entreprenurship, and encourage free speech!!
Iraq COULD be a valuable member to the world community if its protected in its infancy. . . .The Democrats want to cut the protecton of the incubator (USA military protection), and all thats going to do is ruin what has been accomplished thus far. . . . I just dont understand why people think its wise to pull out at this stage. . . . Its like throwing your little baby out into the cold with the predators!! And by predators I mean al-Qaeda, Iran, Sadr etc. . . . . Its stands no chance to defend itself against them!
The French didn't stay in the US after they helped liberate that country, the US even had a bloody civil war to finally unite the country. Iraq will be no different than Yugoslavia, you have to let the waring parties to come out in the open and stake their claims first, then peace keepers can be put in to maintain the new boarders or the new government. It mite mean Iraq will become several countries or one united country but the US being there playing favour-ates will only cause the violence to continue.
GW Bush and Friends where hoping for a pro US, oil rich country in the middle east created by them, it didn't work... now get out of the way and let the people of Iraq decide without the influence of pro-US puppets or money. When it is over go back in help who ever is left standing.
If the US went into Iraq killed Saddam and left, sure you might have been considered as causing mayhem for no reason. The US has remained, tried to restore order, but it just isn't working, the people of Iraq do want the troops to leave (all recent polling shows this) so why not give them what they want. It may cause a bloodbath but in a year or so US troops might well be welcomed back as liberators instead of occupiers they are currently seen as.
If nothing else this may stop any future US governments from "liberating" a country for the next 30 or so years.
The problem with this is we've been going into countries and stirring things up, then packing up and leaving before the job is done. Makes me sick.sergeriver wrote:
Time to pull out
I agree, it's sorta like the hypothetical room full of doors with tigers behind all but one. You open one real quickly and go, "Oops, not this one!" before proceeding to the next. It seems like they're waiting for us to eventually hit paydirt.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The problem with this is we've been going into countries and stirring things up, then packing up and leaving before the job is done. Makes me sick.sergeriver wrote:
Time to pull out
Democracy: is not there way
All the doors have a tiger behind here.DesertFox423 wrote:
I agree, it's sorta like the hypothetical room full of doors with tigers behind all but one. You open one real quickly and go, "Oops, not this one!" before proceeding to the next. It seems like they're waiting for us to eventually hit paydirt.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The problem with this is we've been going into countries and stirring things up, then packing up and leaving before the job is done. Makes me sick.sergeriver wrote:
Time to pull out
W.W.II Clearly defined. Hmm lets have a little hindsight.
Just so easy to develop and fight a war using Airpower.
Just so easy and intuitive to scrap the Battleship Strategies that held sway for almost a century and utilize the Aircraft Carrier in a theater of battle that spanned 7 time zones.
It was so simple and clearly defined, it would have been a piece of cake for " The Worlds Smartest Boy ! "
And Oh gee! did every last German back Hitler? What percentile do you think in 1924 Answer this, or 1932?
What percentile do you think backed him 1935 in 1937 in 1940 ? how about in 1944 or 1945 ?
Did the entire nation of Germany back him whole heartedly the very first day Hitler took power ?
or did the entire nation become a simple clearly defined enemy as far back as the Beer Hall Putsch ?
" What YOU fail to acknowledge " is The statement was actually an example of how much more complex WWII was than our current terrorist troubles. It clearly illustrated that we needed to rethink tried and true tactics, constantly adopt to new situations, tepid alliances and a constantly evolving enemy.
It makes Iraq pale in comparison. But “YOU failed to acknowledge " this.
You couldn't refute my statement so you deleted the remarks and answered to a statement I never made,
You have to pay close attention to spot your tactics but its pretty week stuff on your part.
Why not address the questions as posted? Why duck them and reword them?
Just so easy to develop and fight a war using Airpower.
Just so easy and intuitive to scrap the Battleship Strategies that held sway for almost a century and utilize the Aircraft Carrier in a theater of battle that spanned 7 time zones.
It was so simple and clearly defined, it would have been a piece of cake for " The Worlds Smartest Boy ! "
And Oh gee! did every last German back Hitler? What percentile do you think in 1924 Answer this, or 1932?
What percentile do you think backed him 1935 in 1937 in 1940 ? how about in 1944 or 1945 ?
Did the entire nation of Germany back him whole heartedly the very first day Hitler took power ?
or did the entire nation become a simple clearly defined enemy as far back as the Beer Hall Putsch ?
Thanks Poe but we all know how Hitler came to power go re-invent the wheel on your own time.CameronPoe wrote:
What you fail to acknowledge in what you just posted is that Hitler had something to offer those whose support he eventually gained (to the point where Germany largely wholeheartedly back him). Islamic terror gives nothing. It is not likely to spread to the extent of fascism in 30s/40s Europe: it will always be a fringe mindset. The vast vast majority of muslims don't feel the desire to blow themselves up or see how that would benefit them or their families and that fact will not change. The people who commit acts of terror have nothing to lose. They are generally destitute and their lives are worthless. If their lives weren't so worthless, if they had something to live for then I'm sure, like most well off muslims, they would be impervious to such a stupid mentality. Affluence breeds apathy. Take the German example: Hitler gave the Germans food on their tables where before there was no food, he gave them order when there had been chaos, he gave them employment when there were no jobs, he gave them the autobahn and great works of national pride, he gave them a sense of purpose and a feel of unity in a time of discord. Radical Islam gives none of these things. It is not a constructive philosophy and will never attract more than impoverished idiots. It doesn't even give unity - they're quite happy killing opposing sects of Islam for their 'cause', whatever that is.
" What YOU fail to acknowledge " is The statement was actually an example of how much more complex WWII was than our current terrorist troubles. It clearly illustrated that we needed to rethink tried and true tactics, constantly adopt to new situations, tepid alliances and a constantly evolving enemy.
It makes Iraq pale in comparison. But “YOU failed to acknowledge " this.
You couldn't refute my statement so you deleted the remarks and answered to a statement I never made,
You have to pay close attention to spot your tactics but its pretty week stuff on your part.
Hunter/Jumper wrote:
How many Millions of lives would have been save if someone had the guts, foresight or moral clarity to take him out of power then.
Glad to see you admit the USA's contribution to the Second World War was victory, should make you some enemies in your social circle here as I have already quoted you on it. Ever hear of the Lend Lease Act ?CameronPoe wrote:
Well the clue was when Germany annexed Austria, which is what I would have regarded as legitimate cause to tackle Hitler but everyone sat on their hands. The US were particularly reluctant to help the Brits out. Sure they were all in with fantastic support after Pearl Harbour but if the Japs had kept themselves to themselves I'd probably be posting this in the German Protectorate of Irland right now.
I know you can read, but I asked if the War ( WWII ) Fought earlier would have saved lives and mirrored this war in its lack of popularity and I get a little slanted history lesson with a heavy touch of clairvoyance instead.CameronPoe wrote:
To answer your question about loss of life: millions of lives would be necessarily lost - it was the only thing that would iron out territorial disputes and power hierarchies in Europe once and for all:the final stage in the maturing process for the European political map/system. You may have averted some deaths at the time but the tensions would have popped up elsewhere at a later point. The Germans would not sit still forever with the ridiculous Versailles Treaty strangling them. The USSR would have been marauding across the continent if it not Germany anyway. Sometimes wars are necessary and natural. The 'war on terror' is not a war.Once and for all ? Are you daft ? Where have you been the last 20 years Cuba ?There are not realistically achievable goals for a start.Glad you admit the Major hostilities are overBeating Germany is a fairly straightforward goal. At least you can find the enemy on the map!Try Ending terrorist attacks in our homeland successfully since 911
Why not address the questions as posted? Why duck them and reword them?
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-05-03 13:43:03)
W.W.II Clearly defined. Hmm lets have a little hindsight.
Just so easy to develop and fight a war using Airpower.
Just so easy and intuitive to scrap the Battleship Strategies that held sway for almost a century and utilize the Aircraft Carrier in a theater of battle that spanned 7 time zones.
It was so simple and clearly defined, it would have been a piece of cake for " The Worlds Smartest Boy ! "
And Oh gee! did every last German back Hitler? What percentile do you think in 1924 Answer this, or 1932?
What percentile do you think backed him 1935 in 1937 in 1940 ? how about in 1944 or 1945 ?
Did the entire nation of Germany back him whole heartedly the very first day Hitler took power ?
or did the entire nation become a simple clearly defined enemy as far back as the Beer Hall Putsch ?
" What YOU fail to acknowledge " is The statement was actually an example of how much more complex WWII was than our current terrorist troubles. It clearly illustrated that we needed to rethink tried and true tactics, constantly adopt to new situations, tepid alliances and a constantly evolving enemy.
It makes Iraq pale in comparison. But “YOU failed to acknowledge " this.
You couldn't refute my statement so you deleted the remarks and answered to a statement I never made,
You have to pay close attention to spot your tactics but its pretty week stuff on your part.
Why not address the questions as posted? Why duck them and reword them?So every single civilian was a die hard Japanese with a meatball scarf tied around his forehead huh? the clearly defined enemies ! Was every last Frenchman 100 percent behind Germany the minute France surrendered since it was clearly defined ? How about the Vichey government and the resistance it put up to both axis and allies ? That's pretty simple and clearly defined! huh? Or how about our relation ship with the USSR in 1940 1941 or 1942 what about 1945 just so simple and clearly defined or how about Captured Russians who became Nazis pretty clear and simple too. The Dutch, the Poles, the Checks, The Chetnicks, Franco etc.. shall I continue or do you get the point.
Did no one flee Germany, did his support of 100% of the German population never wane, even in the last years of the war when Germanys fate was sealed? Did German surrender once a Very rare thing become wholesale mass events?
Did every German fight on right until the surrender of Donitz and then magically stop ? Did no Germans become Guerrilla fighters and call them selves Werewolves? did they not perform acts of sabotage and assassinations of officials who cooperated with the allies.
Was the response of the nations, with it fighting men still in harms way,
to ignore these ruthless, reckless, tactically feeble and hollow attacks because acknowledging their efforts would inspire them to commit more acts of horror against their own people?
When they were caught under arms and out of uniform in a non declared war were they not immediately executed without benefit of trial with the blessing of all Europe?
The statement was one aimed at the level of complexity of WWII you have not refuted this to date.
By unwittingly admitting the people committing criminal acts in Iraq are in fact the minority you back up Lowing, ATG, Gunslingers and My posts to name a few. Thanks for that.
Pretty typical of your breed that though you readily dish it out...you can't take it. Very mature indeed !
Its seems like you have conveniently forgotten you have already admitted in several posts the war in Iraq is over. The Vichey French did resist landings and did aid Germany in North Africa.
Guerilla war? you seem unaware of Wars very definition. The only goal of these bombers is to get on American TV, The only TV that matters to them..
You have already stated that they are criminals. Did you forget this ?
Few of our criminals wear uniforms yet our prisons full. Why Cam ?
The prisons in England were well stocked with IRA members, did they wear a uniform ? Um …NO !
Police work can be slower than combat but the long arm of the law will reach them eventually.
I realize that's not what you want to hear. Sorry.
Again you avoid the point of complex loyalties existing in both wars...nice dodge, no points though.
Also this uniform fixation of yours is way way of base. The average fire fight in WWII took place at 300 to 600 yards. Fire draws fire, not uniforms. The bombers ( the forces that really brought the war to its conclusion ) flew at over 17000 feet of altitude. Were they diligently looking for uniforms? Of the line soldiers, 99 percent of casualties were caused by artillery, pretty hard to check for Poe poe's uniform fetish from 6 miles away.
Oh well, Try and rehash the Vietnam era " there was no front line " mantra instead. You clearly need new material.
Just so easy to develop and fight a war using Airpower.
Just so easy and intuitive to scrap the Battleship Strategies that held sway for almost a century and utilize the Aircraft Carrier in a theater of battle that spanned 7 time zones.
It was so simple and clearly defined, it would have been a piece of cake for " The Worlds Smartest Boy ! "
And Oh gee! did every last German back Hitler? What percentile do you think in 1924 Answer this, or 1932?
What percentile do you think backed him 1935 in 1937 in 1940 ? how about in 1944 or 1945 ?
Did the entire nation of Germany back him whole heartedly the very first day Hitler took power ?
or did the entire nation become a simple clearly defined enemy as far back as the Beer Hall Putsch ?
Thanks Poe but we all know how Hitler came to power go re-invent the wheel on your own time.CameronPoe wrote:
What you fail to acknowledge in what you just posted is that Hitler had something to offer those whose support he eventually gained (to the point where Germany largely wholeheartedly back him). Islamic terror gives nothing. It is not likely to spread to the extent of fascism in 30s/40s Europe: it will always be a fringe mindset. The vast vast majority of muslims don't feel the desire to blow themselves up or see how that would benefit them or their families and that fact will not change. The people who commit acts of terror have nothing to lose. They are generally destitute and their lives are worthless. If their lives weren't so worthless, if they had something to live for then I'm sure, like most well off muslims, they would be impervious to such a stupid mentality. Affluence breeds apathy. Take the German example: Hitler gave the Germans food on their tables where before there was no food, he gave them order when there had been chaos, he gave them employment when there were no jobs, he gave them the autobahn and great works of national pride, he gave them a sense of purpose and a feel of unity in a time of discord. Radical Islam gives none of these things. It is not a constructive philosophy and will never attract more than impoverished idiots. It doesn't even give unity - they're quite happy killing opposing sects of Islam for their 'cause', whatever that is.
" What YOU fail to acknowledge " is The statement was actually an example of how much more complex WWII was than our current terrorist troubles. It clearly illustrated that we needed to rethink tried and true tactics, constantly adopt to new situations, tepid alliances and a constantly evolving enemy.
It makes Iraq pale in comparison. But “YOU failed to acknowledge " this.
You couldn't refute my statement so you deleted the remarks and answered to a statement I never made,
You have to pay close attention to spot your tactics but its pretty week stuff on your part.
Hunter/Jumper wrote:
How many Millions of lives would have been save if someone had the guts, foresight or moral clarity to take him out of power then.
Glad to see you admit the USA's contribution to the Second World War was victory, should make you some enemies in your social circle here as I have already quoted you on it. Ever hear of the Lend Lease Act ?CameronPoe wrote:
Well the clue was when Germany annexed Austria, which is what I would have regarded as legitimate cause to tackle Hitler but everyone sat on their hands. The US were particularly reluctant to help the Brits out. Sure they were all in with fantastic support after Pearl Harbour but if the Japs had kept themselves to themselves I'd probably be posting this in the German Protectorate of Irland right now.
I know you can read, but I asked if the War ( WWII ) Fought earlier would have saved lives and mirrored this war in its lack of popularity and I get a little slanted history lesson with a heavy touch of clairvoyance instead.CameronPoe wrote:
To answer your question about loss of life: millions of lives would be necessarily lost - it was the only thing that would iron out territorial disputes and power hierarchies in Europe once and for all:the final stage in the maturing process for the European political map/system. You may have averted some deaths at the time but the tensions would have popped up elsewhere at a later point. The Germans would not sit still forever with the ridiculous Versailles Treaty strangling them. The USSR would have been marauding across the continent if it not Germany anyway. Sometimes wars are necessary and natural. The 'war on terror' is not a war.Once and for all ? Are you daft ? Where have you been the last 20 years Cuba ?There are not realistically achievable goals for a start.Glad you admit the Major hostilities are overBeating Germany is a fairly straightforward goal. At least you can find the enemy on the map!Try Ending terrorist attacks in our homeland successfully since 911
Why not address the questions as posted? Why duck them and reword them?So every single civilian was a die hard Japanese with a meatball scarf tied around his forehead huh? the clearly defined enemies ! Was every last Frenchman 100 percent behind Germany the minute France surrendered since it was clearly defined ? How about the Vichey government and the resistance it put up to both axis and allies ? That's pretty simple and clearly defined! huh? Or how about our relation ship with the USSR in 1940 1941 or 1942 what about 1945 just so simple and clearly defined or how about Captured Russians who became Nazis pretty clear and simple too. The Dutch, the Poles, the Checks, The Chetnicks, Franco etc.. shall I continue or do you get the point.
Did no one flee Germany, did his support of 100% of the German population never wane, even in the last years of the war when Germanys fate was sealed? Did German surrender once a Very rare thing become wholesale mass events?
Did every German fight on right until the surrender of Donitz and then magically stop ? Did no Germans become Guerrilla fighters and call them selves Werewolves? did they not perform acts of sabotage and assassinations of officials who cooperated with the allies.
Was the response of the nations, with it fighting men still in harms way,
to ignore these ruthless, reckless, tactically feeble and hollow attacks because acknowledging their efforts would inspire them to commit more acts of horror against their own people?
When they were caught under arms and out of uniform in a non declared war were they not immediately executed without benefit of trial with the blessing of all Europe?
they lost anyway, I thought you couldn’t beat a suicide bomber ? Or is that an other analogy you have no valid response to ?CameronPoe wrote:
I never said they all were. But the majority were. That makes a nation a war target. When they elect by popular vote or support in the majority a leader who attacks your nation. The hope would be that those that disagree with the regime will defect to your side. Japanese flew themselves into aircraft carriers and committed suicide rather than be captured for christ's sake. They did so in their thousands.
Hmm.. did it help them win ? Its seems like you have conveniently forgotten you have already admitted in several posts the war in Iraq is over.CameroPoe wrote:
I don't think anyone doubts that the majority of the Japanese believed in the idea of a greater Japan. They certainly fought like they did anyway.
The statement was one aimed at the level of complexity of WWII you have not refuted this to date.
By unwittingly admitting the people committing criminal acts in Iraq are in fact the minority you back up Lowing, ATG, Gunslingers and My posts to name a few. Thanks for that.
Here you show quite clearly that you do not hold the moral high ground.CameronPoe wrote:
The point you make about the Frenchman is a little retarded
Pretty typical of your breed that though you readily dish it out...you can't take it. Very mature indeed !
LOL all you want, You lose again.CameronPoe wrote:
and not very applicable to what we're talking about it. They surrendered because they had no option. Their backs were against the wall. That doesn't make them the enemy- you would hope they did would become part of La Résistance asap. I think they were clearly defined enough by the fact they were not in fact wearing German military uniforms. What is acceptable 'definition' for you in the 'war on terror'? A headscarf? A beard? Sallow Skin? A turban? LOL. You really fail at understanding guerrilla warfare. The Japs and Germans fought conventionally - the Fundamentalist Islam movement don't.not according to you, wrong uniform = bullet.Or was it just a bit more complex than that with the vichey French?CameronPoe wrote:
It's pretty clear. You wearing a Vichy France military uniform? Then you're fair game to take a bullet.
Its seems like you have conveniently forgotten you have already admitted in several posts the war in Iraq is over. The Vichey French did resist landings and did aid Germany in North Africa.
Guerilla war? you seem unaware of Wars very definition. The only goal of these bombers is to get on American TV, The only TV that matters to them..
You have already stated that they are criminals. Did you forget this ?
Few of our criminals wear uniforms yet our prisons full. Why Cam ?
The prisons in England were well stocked with IRA members, did they wear a uniform ? Um …NO !
Police work can be slower than combat but the long arm of the law will reach them eventually.
I realize that's not what you want to hear. Sorry.
Hunter/Jumper wrote:
How about the Vichey government and the resistance it put up to both axis and allies ? That's pretty simple and clearly defined!huh?
ß remember this one ?CameronPoe wrote:
It's pretty clear. You wearing a Vichy France military uniform? Then you're fair game to take a bullet.
Again you avoid the point of complex loyalties existing in both wars...nice dodge, no points though.
Also this uniform fixation of yours is way way of base. The average fire fight in WWII took place at 300 to 600 yards. Fire draws fire, not uniforms. The bombers ( the forces that really brought the war to its conclusion ) flew at over 17000 feet of altitude. Were they diligently looking for uniforms? Of the line soldiers, 99 percent of casualties were caused by artillery, pretty hard to check for Poe poe's uniform fetish from 6 miles away.
Oh well, Try and rehash the Vietnam era " there was no front line " mantra instead. You clearly need new material.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-05-03 14:24:45)
A little off track are we not ?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Or how about our relation ship with the USSR in 1940 1941 or 1942 what about 1945 just so simple and clearly defined
or how about Captured Russians who became Nazis pretty clear and simple too.
The Dutch, the Poles, the Checks, The Chetnicks, Franco etc.. shall I continue or do you get the point.
Chetnicks had uniforms did they?
And while we are at it, if we were forced to get down and dirty. If it got bad and we needed to be serious about our wars like Israel is, Our enemy is clearly defined, It couldn't be easier to racially profile them. Almost 99.9% is of a particular age group, sex and race. Nice try...yet Scoreless
Did you forget that they now have the vote, women aren't slaves and cattle anymore they are no longer beaten down and fearful of a merciless dictator. So for the up coming generations there things are looking up. Its only been months, it wont happen over night. But it is happening. No thanks to you and yours... Still scoreless
2. 911, anyone home ?
3. Thanks we are policing them.
scoreless
or how about Captured Russians who became Nazis pretty clear and simple too.
The Dutch, the Poles, the Checks, The Chetnicks, Franco etc.. shall I continue or do you get the point.
you seem fixated on this uniform thing even though we are no longer talking of war. The point was complexity and shifting alliances before during and after WWII, it evades you, but I think this is deliberate.CameronPoe wrote:
What has your relationship with the USSR got to do with how clearly defined the enemy
is? You just don't get it do you? Where is your enemy? What do they look like? Do they wear a uniform? Is there a particular age profile you're looking for? What country are they in? You can't tell them apart from ordinary law-abiding muslims for christ's sake. How hard is that to understand. Really!
Chetnicks had uniforms did they?
And while we are at it, if we were forced to get down and dirty. If it got bad and we needed to be serious about our wars like Israel is, Our enemy is clearly defined, It couldn't be easier to racially profile them. Almost 99.9% is of a particular age group, sex and race. Nice try...yet Scoreless
Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Did no one flee Germany, did his support of 100% of the German population never wane, even in the last years of the war when Germanys fate was sealed?
Did German surrender once a Very rare thing become wholesale mass events ?
Did every German fight on right until the surrender of Donitz and then magically stop ?
so your answer is Yes and No lol.. The point you ducked was we broke the will of better men and stronger idealologies.CameronPoe wrote:
A lot of them feared being taken by the Russians and fled to the western front. Huge amounts of Germans fought to the bitter end and by and large stopped when the call came to stop.
I would rather fight them than Germans, Japanese or Apaches any day. Sounds like a poll to me.CameronPoe wrote:
You aren't going to get that kind of behaviour out of radicalislamists.
rather I think your repetitive duck and switch is very tired, Understanding ? In one post you sayCameronPoe wrote:
You aren't going to get a man who 'hasn't blown himself up yet' hand himself into the nearest police station because he's a radical islamist and he's sick of Iraq being bombed. The mentality outlives the individual as well - you can kill as many as you like but the mindset will not be killed: ready be picked up by any lunatic at any point in the future. Your solutions are tired and lack understanding of the situation.
sound familiar ????CameronPoe wrote:
The people who commit acts of terror have nothing to lose. They are generally destitute and their lives are worthless. If their lives weren't so worthless, if they had something to live for then I'm sure, like most well off muslims, they would be impervious to such a stupid mentality.
Did you forget that they now have the vote, women aren't slaves and cattle anymore they are no longer beaten down and fearful of a merciless dictator. So for the up coming generations there things are looking up. Its only been months, it wont happen over night. But it is happening. No thanks to you and yours... Still scoreless
Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Did no Germans become Guerrilla fighters and call them selves Werewolves? did they not perform acts of sabotage and assassinations of officials who cooperated with the allies.
1. Glad to see you were in WWII and know all about the warewolves.CameronPoe wrote:
1. Very small and insignificant.
2.About as much of a threat to us and radical islamists are today - i.e., extremely limited if they are policed properly and intelligence is good.
2. 911, anyone home ?
3. Thanks we are policing them.
scoreless
Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Was the response of the nations, with it fighting men still in harms way,
to ignore these ruthless, reckless, tactically feeble and hollow attacks because acknowledging their efforts would inspire them to commit more acts of horror against their own people?
When they were caught under arms and out of uniform in a non declared war were they not immediately executed without benefit of trial with the blessing of all Europe?
Wrong again. " The self "CameronPoe wrote:
I'm not sure how they ended up but the analogy (lol) isn't great - you are talking about the straggling members of an army of a defeated nation. With radical islam there is no army and there is no nation. There is only the self.
are you really trying to sell us that each one acts alone with out guidence ? WareWolves were executed without trail on the spot. They were largely SS men. There were many. they were better equipped, better organized they were not publicized as a counter tactic and they failed. You can still pretend you didn’t read this.
At this point I would abandon the use of " the analogy isn't that great " defense, do as you will however.
Didn't you say ad-nauseam in several posts That religion is basically the catch all for the poor and uneducated ?
Schools are being built there, children are no longer fearful to attend them. TV as well as other mediums was once the privilege to those closest to Saddam is now available to anyone who wants it. Education will allow even they die hards to see they are being mislead ( unless they read and are dumb enough to believe your posts )
Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Militarily their army was vanquished long ago. There leader hid in a feces smeared hole. Was he not hung? Did they not have thousands of volunteers for the job of hangman?
are you being dense deliberately ? I hope.CameronPoe wrote:
]Are you talking about Iraq or Germany now? I assume Iraq. I don't get your point.
Sorry, your the only one who seems confused here. see your quote belowCameronPoe wrote:
You seem to be confusing the ousting of a SECULAR power in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, with a phony 'war on terror'
wtf ?CameronPoe wrote:
"I don't get your point..."
again you prove the moral or intelectual high ground is not yours. keep at it. Piss poor insults. ??Than cry foul if some one gives you a colonic of your own vitriol.CameronPoe wrote:
war against, well I'm not quite sure really. People with headscarves probably according to you.
Hunter/Jumper wrote:
This is what World War Two would have been like if we fought it before Hitler annexed the Sudetenland or moved into Alsace Lorrain, Would that have been the clearly defined enemies ! you speak so often of?
Or better yet, if we had had the guts, foresight or moral clarity to take him out of power the very first day he took it.
We had his book "My Struggle " we knew what his plans were, just as we have heard Iranian leaders speak. we know their leanings, teachings, goals, boasts and what the would do and have done when they could.
Anyone can keep their head in the sand ( take the complement because Im not sure that's its actual location ) and stay out of the way as history unfolds without them. We aren't sure we could put you to use in a real fight anyway. " those who stayed in bed, There names are dead. "
While we are at it, if we fought Hitler in 1937 wouldn't a lot of Germans ( Non Nazis ) have fought us just for the fact that we " were on sacred German soil ". Wouldn't a lot of young men fight " just to fight " and show they had balls ? ( I know I lost alot of you with that one ) but some young men are like that. Without Hitler's plans having time to bear fruit in full bloom, (Dachau, Aschuwitz.etc )
would some Allies been less then committed to the fight being Hitler had never really become a world wide threat or villian? Would some allies want to pull out if a set back took place ?
While we are at it can you imagine if one of our allies at the End of hostilities had turned on us and enslaved half of the people we Freed? Like the USSR did?
The Berlin Airlift was seen as a Major victory. Is that how it would play out now in the Media if Bush had to respond to a similar event? Or would it be seen as " a failure of intelegance and planning " by a biased disloyal 5th column who's hold on political power is soley invested in our defeat? ( that's called Treason )
You didn’t address one of the observations . That’s all you do is evade. Your arguments don’t stand upto close scrutiny. You don’t address questions. You pretend to trump points and arguments that were never presented .CameronPoe wrote:
The analogy fails on so many levels. You aren't fighting countries anymore
You are no judge and are not capable of drawing any proper conclusion at this time nor is anyone for that matter, You however have no grasp of your place and so the answer is
You fail on EVERY LEVEL.
You fail to see that NAZISM ( substitute Imperialism, Victory Sickness, etc. ) started as an idea and
You fail to see that NAZISM was pushed on an unwilling.
A populace kept ignorant and held in check with chants and catchy slogans. The heady stuff of group think and the loudest voice was sold to the Youth who were naive and full of condescending self assurance, moral superiority and in reality ignorant with so few of life's learning experiences behind them. spell it (young people ) Hits close to home does it ?
luckily you morally superior people are all over it aren't you, since its in your backyard or maybe your just waiting for the USA ( who you clearly despise) to fix it.. againCameronPoe wrote:
It's amazing how you're so obsessed with Hitler. Russia are doing the kinds of things he did in Chechnya and yet you don't bat a fucking eyelid.
your condescension is so misplaced.CameronPoe wrote:
Why is the middle east so important to you? They're too far away to do you any damage? Or have you not looked at a map recently?
Are you joking ( 911 ) hint. The middle east was far away in 1850. Now it’s a few hours away by commercial flight. Please wake up.
Its history I am drawing experience from and History that you choose to ignore at your own peril. Tell me Poe, what would happen if someone took all your post and quotes on religion and sent them to your buddies at the local mosque?
CameronPoe wrote:
You aren't fighting countries anymore sonny
Hunter/Jumper wrote:
sonny ? Am I the one who looks like some 12 year old French cartoon character ?
Again you can dish it out but cant take it.CameronPoe wrote:
Quite the comedian. Quite the mature comedian....
Does anyone else know this cartoon about a French pre-teen, his Mad scientist uncle and his dog who's name was translated from French as "Snow flake " My grandmother taught me the French language using these commix. I cant remember the name.
Hunter/Jumper wrote:
That's right and we care about this country and this people so instead of doing from 17000 feet with a B24, B29s or B52s ( which we could do ) we are treating it like " criminal activities " ( your words, sorry you tipped your own hand ) So here even you admit the war is over. Thank you for running off so.
Its criminals committing criminal acts against an established democracy. Thanks for the acknowledgment
(Steamed in a circle and cut your own tow line )
Fighting crime is " a tough, thankless, never-ending job and I'm dam proud to be one of them" ( Joe Friday )
You could be describing any country at one time or another, Mine, particularly yours, The point is a democracy is in place things are moving forward. The people who are pissed off about it are pissed off because their losing.CameronPoe wrote:
I find it funny that you regard Iraq as a democracy representative of the people when the police are infested with Al Qaeda spies, massive amounts of the electorate boycotted the elections and three distinct sets of people want to kill each other and take Iraq or parts thereof to make their own states.
You yourself said "affluence breeds apathy " These people lost their affluence and they are not being apathetic, yet it catches you off guard..hmm.. ? Their situation is desperate they are losing ground they will never get back and they are reacting desperately ruthlessly and recklessly. They have only made a fan of you so far. There welcome to your admiration.
No he doesn’t but you can cheer him on if you like we know where your loyalty is. Time will tell as it usually does in our favor. Ps I seem to remember Sadam Hussein having a firm grip on power too.CameronPoe wrote:
Moqtada Al Sadr has a firm grip on the reigns of power there. And you think your democracy experiment worked?
Doesn’t seem like that to people who are actually there. But you can day dream fascist fantasies.CameronPoe wrote:
LOL. They elected people that hate you ffs.
Again it Doesn't seem like that to people who are actually there. We know with whom your hopes lie.CameronPoe wrote:
Public opinion in Iraq says 'US TROOPS OUT NOW'.
No, terrorists attacked us about once every 9 months since 1992 until we attacked Iraq and then they attacked us know longer. We did find Air liners in para-military training camps about Iraq. I guess that was for government sponsored airline stewards school Not for training terrorist highjack. Or did you just forget.CameronPoe wrote:
Iraq never attacked you in the first place remember?
Doesn’t seem like that to people who are actually there. Maybe they needed to find stockpiles of some other nerve agent more suitable for your taste ? With nice big labels. They couldn’t possibly have moved them could they have. Particularly with the help of some European nation.CameronPoe wrote:
They never had any WMD either!
Lets see . . . have they returned to the USA since 911 ? So preemption succeeded.CameronPoe wrote:
So per-emption failed.
We ceded nothing. Glad you acknowledge our righteousness and moral high ground , we will keep it.CameronPoe wrote:
You ceded righteousness and the moral high ground for something that what was obviously not driven by a desire for security
just were has “ global Terrorism increased “ ? You need a better source than some fat socialist weasel like Michele Moore. no doubt your a groupie.CameronPoe wrote:
because lets face it: the CIA have issued reports stating that this whole debacle has INCREASED global terrorism.
Thanks for that.
Is it just me, or is someone trying to hard to be right? It's not even on topic anymore...
As much as D&ST should have D&ST, Hunters trying a bit to hard, as well as derailing the thread
He tried to make a point, but it failed miserably. He took a talking point from somewhere in Bushland about the post-ww2 nazi resistance, the "Werwolves", but even the Bush Admin quickly dropped this from their talking point list when people actually looked up what the hell they were talking about.
He then tries again to tell us that Saddam was Hitler and Iraq is the new Germany. Fail. Sad.
Hunter then concludes by trying to say we're safer now than before 9/11, not realizing this administration has done absolutely nothing to secure our borders or go after the two biggest terror sponsoring states, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Instead we get a bunch of BS about "Made in Iran" labels on the IEDs.
He then tries again to tell us that Saddam was Hitler and Iraq is the new Germany. Fail. Sad.
Hunter then concludes by trying to say we're safer now than before 9/11, not realizing this administration has done absolutely nothing to secure our borders or go after the two biggest terror sponsoring states, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Instead we get a bunch of BS about "Made in Iran" labels on the IEDs.
Hey, if you left out the first 2 steps, I'd vote for you.Stingray24 wrote:
Step 1: Ask the leaders of our military in Iraq if they think they can win. I don't know the answer to that because all I hear is the negativity from the media. No reports of what's working or success in any form besides the discussions and emails that I have from guys who are or were over there.
If the military leaders say yes,
Step 2: Give them anything and everything they need to lay waste to the enemy and let them do their job. Take off the gloves and make war.
If no,
Step 3: Let the Iraqis can spill their own blood while they figure this mess out. I fully support our military, but if they don’t think they can win, let’s bring our sons/daughters and fathers/mothers home. I don’t want to leave and give the insurgents what they want. But in the end I guess I do have less stomach for the situation than the insurgents. The region will likely descend further into chaos when we leave and Iran will no doubt expand its influence in the region.
Step 4: Build a proper wall (reinforced concrete, electrified razor wire) all along our southern border, equip it with state of the art electronic surveillance, and expand the border patrol in manpower and firepower. Cross our border illegally and we deport you in a body bag. Period. If you’re already here illegally just because you want a job, we’ll do a background check and if you have no criminal record in your home country or the US, you get to stay. But you’re not a citizen until you go through the process like everyone else. If you broke a law, sorry, bye bye.
Step 5: Drill in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico and give the finger to OPEC. Let them drown in their oil that we won’t buy anymore.
Step 6: Expand nuclear power
Step 7: When the world hollers they need help. We stay home. No more foreign aid that rarely ends up helping the people that need it. No more US armed forces coming to the rescue. Whenever we helped you before you pissed and moaned . . . now you’re SOL.
That's my platform. Stingray for President.
sorry They aren’t " talking points " they are my own words. Further, it is in this post before your comments were, I responded when I had time...don’t read it if you don’t want to. tictac can't buttress his argument so its just his opinion not much else.
By being here they already broke a law, bye bye.Stingray24 wrote:
Step 4: Build a proper wall (reinforced concrete, electrified razor wire) all along our southern border, equip it with state of the art electronic surveillance, and expand the border patrol in manpower and firepower. Cross our border illegally and we deport you in a body bag. Period. If you’re already here illegally just because you want a job, we’ll do a background check and if you have no criminal record in your home country or the US, you get to stay. But you’re not a citizen until you go through the process like everyone else. If you broke a law, sorry, bye bye.
Our good friend Truman decreed in 1947 that we wouldn't go isolationist. Its not a good idea, especially with hostile forces gone completely bonkers. Communists then, nut Islamis now.
Well, it is pretty true that we've been pretending that Iran is mostly to blame for the situation when Saudi Arabia still plays a big part as well.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
sorry They aren’t " talking points " they are my own words. Further, it is in this post before your comments were, I responded when I had time...don’t read it if you don’t want to. tictac can't buttress his argument so its just his opinion not much else.
We seem to ignore the Sunni part of the equation out of convenience.
The sad truth of the situation is that enough of both the Sunnis and Shia hate each other that any hope for a democratic brand of peace is utterly hopeless. Order can only be gained through authoritarianism in Iraq.
Simply put, much of the Middle East needs another Ottoman Empire to rule over it.
Truman was a wise man in many ways, but there is a HUGE difference between Islamists and Communists. Communism was officially running countries, while the terrorist brand of Islamism is very limited in its official rule.The_Mac wrote:
Our good friend Truman decreed in 1947 that we wouldn't go isolationist. Its not a good idea, especially with hostile forces gone completely bonkers. Communists then, nut Islamis now.
We're fighting a large fringe group. You can't win that kind of fight through invasions.
A few dirty fights work though.Turquoise wrote:
Truman was a wise man in many ways, but there is a HUGE difference between Islamists and Communists. Communism was officially running countries, while the terrorist brand of Islamism is very limited in its official rule.The_Mac wrote:
Our good friend Truman decreed in 1947 that we wouldn't go isolationist. Its not a good idea, especially with hostile forces gone completely bonkers. Communists then, nut Islamis now.
We're fighting a large fringe group. You can't win that kind of fight through invasions.
I don't have a terrible problem that they kill each other. They have not returned here for 7 years . Mission accomplished.Turquoise wrote:
Well, it is pretty true that we've been pretending that Iran is mostly to blame for the situation when Saudi Arabia still plays a big part as well.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
sorry They aren’t " talking points " they are my own words. Further, it is in this post before your comments were, I responded when I had time...don’t read it if you don’t want to. tictac can't buttress his argument so its just his opinion not much else.
We seem to ignore the Sunni part of the equation out of convenience.
The sad truth of the situation is that enough of both the Sunnis and Shia hate each other that any hope for a democratic brand of peace is utterly hopeless. Order can only be gained through authoritarianism in Iraq.
Simply put, much of the Middle East needs another Ottoman Empire to rule over it.