It was done to get embedded troops I would imagine. Still, it was war. That is what happens in war. You cannot compare the two IMO...even though I know how much you like to.CameronPoe wrote:
Using napalm on villages in Vietnam wasn't very 'military' either.
The two things are not the same I agree - but they're both as abhorrent as each other.usmarine2005 wrote:
It was done to get embedded troops I would imagine. Still, it was war. That is what happens in war. You cannot compare the two IMO...even though I know how much you like to.CameronPoe wrote:
Using napalm on villages in Vietnam wasn't very 'military' either.
Ummm....which is why we supported Iraq. Because we believed Iran was a bigger threat. And where did I say that? Where? Point to it asshole.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. usmarine has a rather novel take on history! Apparently Iran invaded Iraq and not the other way around!!!usmarine2005 wrote:
Well hello serge, I will not say it is wrong since I do not know what the world would be like if Iran took over Iraq back then.
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2008-01-27 15:37:34)
I wonder if Saddam was so cool, why did Bush invade Iraq? After all he saved us from Iran, lol.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. usmarine has a rather novel take on history! Apparently Iran invaded Iraq and not the other way around!!!usmarine2005 wrote:
Well hello serge, I will not say it is wrong since I do not know what the world would be like if Iran took over Iraq back then.
Who is "us?" You are not American, so hush. And that is not the point.sergeriver wrote:
After all he saved us from Iran, lol.
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2008-01-27 15:38:50)
I mean the World. How come Iran was a threat to the US?usmarine2005 wrote:
Who is "us?" You are not American, so hush.sergeriver wrote:
After all he saved us from Iran, lol.
Iran were quite busy taking back their own country after having it controlled by either the UK, US or USSR over the previous century - they didn't have any designs on anywhere else. You supported an expansionist dictator illegitimately trying to steal part of another country - exactly the same thing you went against when the same dictator tried likewise in Kuwait!!! It must be so confusing being a right winger in America: so little principles and so many dictators to choose from to back!!!usmarine2005 wrote:
Ummm....which is why we supported Iraq. Because we beleived Iran was a bigger threat. And where did I say that? Where? Point to it asshole.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. usmarine has a rather novel take on history! Apparently Iran invaded Iraq and not the other way around!!!usmarine2005 wrote:
Well hello serge, I will not say it is wrong since I do not know what the world would be like if Iran took over Iraq back then.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-27 15:40:11)
Because they wanted to have a country run by Iranians rather than by the CIA. Remember serge - other countries aren't allowed the right to self-determination when they have oil...sergeriver wrote:
I mean the World. How come Iran was a threat to the US?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-27 15:42:23)
We have oil, should we worry?CameronPoe wrote:
Because they wanted to have a country run by Iranians rather than by the CIA. Remember serge - other countries aren't allowed the right to self-determination when they have oil...sergeriver wrote:
I mean the World. How come Iran was a threat to the US?
That is what big boy nations do Cam. Since the beginning of time. Just sit on your little island and fight the Brits or something.CameronPoe wrote:
You supported an expansionist dictator illegitimately trying to steal part of another country
Thank the French for your freedom first.usmarine2005 wrote:
That is what big boy nations do Cam. Since the beginning of time. Just sit on your little island and fight the Brits or something.CameronPoe wrote:
You supported an expansionist dictator illegitimately trying to steal part of another country
I never denied it.sergeriver wrote:
Thank the French for your freedom first.
Wow...this is a nice distraction from the OP as usual by you two.
Correction: It's what unprincipled barbarians with no moral decency do.usmarine2005 wrote:
That is what big boy nations do Cam. Since the beginning of time. Just sit on your little island and fight the Brits or something.CameronPoe wrote:
You supported an expansionist dictator illegitimately trying to steal part of another country
Then good for you, most people on these forums do deny it.usmarine2005 wrote:
I never denied it.sergeriver wrote:
Thank the French for your freedom first.
Wow...this is a nice distraction from the OP as usual by you two.
Like Bush?CameronPoe wrote:
Correction: It's what unprincipled barbarians with no moral decency do.usmarine2005 wrote:
That is what big boy nations do Cam. Since the beginning of time. Just sit on your little island and fight the Brits or something.CameronPoe wrote:
You supported an expansionist dictator illegitimately trying to steal part of another country
Well your country didn't seem to have a problem with Hitler. So again, get off your soapbox.CameronPoe wrote:
Correction: It's what unprincipled barbarians with no moral decency do.
'Big boy nations' apparently back dictators that gas their own people. I wish I was a 'big boy nation'. lol. They make me fucking sick. They're such hypocritical scum.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-27 15:51:59)
Not really. Time deceptively masks the interrelated similarities between the conflicts that are at 'discussion'.usmarine2005 wrote:
I never denied it.sergeriver wrote:
Thank the French for your freedom first.
Wow...this is a nice distraction from the OP as usual by you two.
Our country, as enshrined in our constitution, is militarily neutral. Our stance towards Germany was one of ambivalence, neither for them or against them. You seem quite fond of the word soapbox.usmarine2005 wrote:
Well your country didn't seem to have a problem with Hitler. So again, get off your soapbox.CameronPoe wrote:
Correction: It's what unprincipled barbarians with no moral decency do.
Wrong.usmarine2005 wrote:
Well your country didn't seem to have a problem with Hitler. So again, get off your soapbox.CameronPoe wrote:
Correction: It's what unprincipled barbarians with no moral decency do.
They were neutral....but not that neutral.....Eire provided the British i.e. the Allies with secret airspace corridors and example of which was used by the RAF to find and help sink the Bismark.
lol....... so they let them fly over? Like they could stop them anyway.Left_hand wrote:
Wrong.usmarine2005 wrote:
Well your country didn't seem to have a problem with Hitler. So again, get off your soapbox.CameronPoe wrote:
Correction: It's what unprincipled barbarians with no moral decency do.
They were neutral....but not that neutral.....Eire provided the British i.e. the Allies with secret airspace corridors and example of which was used by the RAF to find and help sink the Bismark.
It's tough being wrong all the time, eh?usmarine2005 wrote:
lol....... so they let them fly over? Like they could stop them anyway.
lol? Why is it funny? You're statement was factually wrong and was factually corrected.usmarine2005 wrote:
lol....... so they let them fly over? Like they could stop them anyway.Left_hand wrote:
Wrong.usmarine2005 wrote:
Well your country didn't seem to have a problem with Hitler. So again, get off your soapbox.
They were neutral....but not that neutral.....Eire provided the British i.e. the Allies with secret airspace corridors and example of which was used by the RAF to find and help sink the Bismark.
Humble pie not lol pie my friend.
You fought in WWII?CameronPoe wrote:
It's tough being wrong all the time, eh?usmarine2005 wrote:
lol....... so they let them fly over? Like they could stop them anyway.
I was too young. I was precisely -40 years old.usmarine2005 wrote:
You fought in WWII?CameronPoe wrote:
It's tough being wrong all the time, eh?usmarine2005 wrote:
lol....... so they let them fly over? Like they could stop them anyway.