No debates needed, just a poll: should we be doing this war or not? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Joe Sixpack · 04-07-2003, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JeremySF

You gotta love apologists for terrorism. People who say things like you, but are in power, reate more terrorism than anyone else, because they make terrorists think they have a sympathetic ear.

Thanks, Joe.

How does the 98 pound weakling deal with the big bully in the playground who beats him up and steals his lunch money? He either sits there and takes it or comes up behind him one day with a pick handle and smashes him in the back of the head.

I understand Palestinian suicide attacks too. It's all they have. They're battling one bully backed by a bigger bully.

I think the answer to stopping terrorism isn't more violence but diplomacy and negotiation.

Call me a peacemonger but thats what I think.

Centurion · 04-07-2003, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

We are basically showing the muslim nations that we will not tolerate "terroists" and sending a loud message that if you do not control your people, we will control your nations.

You have two LARGE leaps of logic in your arguments:

1)The first one is that (and boy how it changes from disarming Iraq to Liberating the Iraqi people, now back to "Disarming Iraq) you make it sound like an OPEN AND SHUT case that Iraq was either involved directly with the 9/11 attacks or funding such terrorist attacks. It is your speculation..not fact. There is STILL no strong evidence of a connection between Sadam and the militant muslims who attacked/are planning to attack the U.S.

2)We showed the Muslim nations that we will kick their butts if they do anything we don't like by sending in troops and occupying their lands? YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS! (in my best John McEnroe voice). Where the fuck are we going to come up with that manpower, weaponry, and most of all MONEY to accomplish such a hurculean task? It is a fool's dream to think the United States can shut down one muslim nation after another. And even if we could, it's been done before..and it's called Colonialism!

theking · 04-08-2003, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion

You have two LARGE leaps of logic in your arguments:

1)The first one is that (and boy how it changes from disarming Iraq to Liberating the Iraqi people, now back to "Disarming Iraq) you make it sound like an OPEN AND SHUT case that Iraq was either involved directly with the 9/11 attacks or funding such terrorist attacks. It is your speculation..not fact. There is STILL no strong evidence of a connection between Sadam and the militant muslims who attacked/are planning to attack the U.S.

I do not believe that Saddam/Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. He made himself a target (a thorn in our side for 12 years) and as I stated Iraq is strategically located for us to confront other known enemy nations in that part of the world, ie Iran to one side and Syria to the other and whoever else chooses to become one, or cannot control their people.

Quote:

2)We showed the Muslim nations that we will kick their butts if they do anything we don't like by sending in troops and occupying their lands? YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS! (in my best John McEnroe voice). Where the fuck are we going to come up with that manpower, weaponry, and most of all MONEY to accomplish such a hurculean task? It is a fool's dream to think the United States can shut down one muslim nation after another. And even if we could, it's been done before..and it's called Colonialism!

We put sixteen million people in uniform, with less than half the current population, during the Second World War. We fought that war with a fraction of the current GNP and that was a "hurculean task", but we did it.

I doubt that we will have to shut down one Muslim nation after another. The leaders of the nations will get the message and begin to police/control their people.

By the way it is not called "Colonialism" it is called defense.

bhutocracy · 04-08-2003, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JeremySF

You gotta love apologists for terrorism. People who say things like you, but are in power, reate more terrorism than anyone else, because they make terrorists think they have a sympathetic ear.

Thanks, Joe.

more realist than apologist. it's understanding why it happened not condoning it.. theres a difference.
saying that a terrorist attack on australia is more likely because of the actions of our government in foreign policy (attacking Iraq) is basic common sense.. when we get another terrorist attack on our people and say 1000 people die, I'll be able to say quite firmly that our actions in Iraq and East Timor are large factors.. It won't however mean that because I know they are part of the equation that it's an apologist position, or stop it from being a bad thing. It's nothing to be ashamed of, or unpatriotic or whatever, it's just the cold hard truth.. theres a reason terrorists don't give a fuck about the Swiss.

ItBurnsWhenIpee · 04-08-2003, 12:21 AM

It's always nice to see a thread turn out exactly how you planned it....

(proud)

Centurion · 04-08-2003, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

"We put sixteen million people in uniform, with less than half the current population, during the Second World War. We fought that war with a fraction of the current GNP and that was a "hurculean task", but we did it."

Again..apples & oranges. In WWII, we were pushing foreign powers BACK, and then closing them down. We were not occupying the lands we fought in. We turned those lands over to the people who were rightfully the owners. We also had the entire civilized world WITH US in that endeavor. When we ended in Germany, the country was divided up into 4 sectors occupied by the 4 largest industrial nations on earth at the time. Taking over Syria, Iran & Libya in addition to Iraq is NOT the same thing as defeating Nazi Germany. We are not physically CAPABLE of occupying countries for years as you suggest we are.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I doubt that we will have to shut down one Muslim nation after another. The leaders of the nations will get the message and begin to police/control their people."

Oh..they got the message all right. The vast majority of Islamic nations HATE US! Did you happen to see 60 mins last Sunday nite? There is fear that even King Hussein of Jordan could be in trouble because of his support..no matter how tentative.

And is it ever Pollyanaesque to say "Golly Gee. You saw what we did to the bad guys in Iraq. So you better control your own people!" (As if any country can truly control all of their people!)

Hmm..wait a min..I thought that's why we went in in the first place to Iraq..to liberate people from a terrible police state! NOW..you advocate OTHER nations doing the same to "control their people!"????????? (that's what they would have to do to be successful!)

So we would have to destroy any seeds of democracy (controlling their people..i.e. police state), in order to save our country?

You're right..that's not Colonialism..that's just plain BARBARIC!

JeremySF · 04-08-2003, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack

I understand Palestinian suicide attacks too. It's all they have. They're battling one bully backed by a bigger bully.

I think the answer to stopping terrorism isn't more violence but diplomacy and negotiation.

Call me a peacemonger but thats what I think.

That's all they have? Mate, they've been supported by all the Arab states and the former Soviet Union for fucking years. Don't give me that b.s., that's all they have. Why don't Arab states put so much more of an effort in cultivating terrorism than actually alleviating the suffering of the Palestinian people.

You're an idealist. You've never lived in the middle east. You don't know or understand the history. You believe the lies you hear in the media which completely present an imbalanced story in favor of the Palestinains.

theking · 04-08-2003, 02:11 AM

Centurion

You do not live in the real wolrd if you think the USA will stand by and allow itself to be repeatedly attacked without responding in a massive way. Thus far our response to 9/11 has been a rather suppressed response.

By the way I did not take the time to rip your post , as many of your points are not valid, because I am growing somewhat tired.

Praguer · 04-08-2003, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
Isn'it a bit late to ask that question ....

Abit like after cumming ,you ask yourself if you should fuck that broad ... or not....

ADL Colin · 04-08-2003, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack

When this war is over, the real war will be just beginning.

Ahh, the cry of the vanquished. "Wait'll next year."

Uncle Saddam let you down. You bet on the wrong team.

ADL Colin · 04-08-2003, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack

I think the answer to stopping terrorism isn't more violence but diplomacy and negotiation.

That would increase terrorism, not decrease it. Negotiating with terrorists sends a clear message that terrorism is an effective political tool.

mule · 04-08-2003, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

I think that there will be more "terrorist" attacks against American assests abroad and very possibly upon the mainland. I also think that there will be greater hatred spawned in the Muslim world and it will probably iincrease the roles of existing "terrorist orgs" as well as spawn new orgs.

I also think, and have previously so stated, that the take down of Iraq is about strategic positioning and a show of force, as being the primary reasons for this war, among multiple reasons (not the least of which Saddam has been a thorn in our side for 12 years). We are basically showing the muslim nations that we will not tolerate "terroists" and sending a loud message that if you do not control your people, we will control your nations.

This administration made it clear, and it would have been difficult to make it any more clear, that we are engaged in a war, a war that the Administration said could last as long as ten years (others have said as long as 20-30 years). The Administration made it clear that if you harbour, feed, assist in any way, "terroists" we will consider you as being "terrorists". This message, though not specifically stated as thus, was directed at the muslim nations. Bottom line, if acts of terrosim against the US are continued, ultimately, for every American death there will be a 1000 Muslim deaths and more Muslim nations taken down.

We Americans, and the world, will have to see what future events happen and what future Administrations do, but I have little doubt that, if there are continued attacks, particulary against the mainland, other Administrations will take nations down.

I think you're confusing this war with the raids on Taliban and Al Queda bases in Afghanistan. This war is supposed to be about freeing the Iraqi people from a tyrant who poses a military threat to other middle-eastern countries.

12clicks · 04-08-2003, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JeremySF

Unfortunately, however, there is no pure military solution to terrorism. If there were, Israel would have figured it out.

Wrong, Israel has a solution that euro-pansies won't let them carry out.

directfiesta · 04-08-2003, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mule

I think you're confusing this war with the raids on Taliban and Al Queda bases in Afghanistan. This war is supposed to be about freeing the Iraqi people from a tyrant who poses a military threat to other middle-eastern countries.

Fucking memory... getting as old as theking....

I remembered it was about protecting the US from attacks... by removing those famous WMD ...

BTW, any news on Osama???

12clicks · 04-08-2003, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta

I remembered it was about protecting the US from attacks... by removing those famous WMD ...

looks like it worked.

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
BTW, any news on Osama???

nope, haven't heard a peep from al quada ever since they started dying in afghanistan

helis · 04-08-2003, 08:27 AM

its weird how so many say the whole world doesnt want this war but when ever i see pool results weather it be online or in the paper more people say yes war is bad but this war is needed

TheFLY · 04-08-2003, 08:40 AM

more important question (yes/no)

what do we do in the meantime... to solve the same question that keeps getting asked...

communism
socialialism
capitalism

it's all the same shit just recycled...

when will it be solved -- when can man walk the earth in peace
once again

it starts right here baby

TheFLY · 04-08-2003, 08:41 AM

one more time around

just like you

Centurion · 04-08-2003, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
Centurion

You do not live in the real wolrd if you think the USA will stand by and allow itself to be repeatedly attacked without responding in a massive way. Thus far our response to 9/11 has been a rather suppressed response.

That's funny. *I* do not live in the real world?

It's not me that thinks we have a million man standing Army that can invade and occupy Syria, Iran, Libya, etc.

It's not me that thinks we have the firepower/money/resourdes to take over any Muslim nation we don't like!

2/3rd of our Infantry is right NOW in Iraq/Kuwait! That's a "suppressed response?"

And it's not me that thinks we have the right to invade ANY country simply because we don't like the way they run their government/country.

King..we've had to call up the National Guard to take over duties normally run by the regular army. So do we use the "weekend warriors" to invade Iran then? Or are you now saying that we need to re-start the draft?

Evan the Taliban is making a comeback in Afghanistan. There were several stories from the AP today about how resurgent the Taliban has become in Afghanistan. And we have a WHOPPING 5000 soldiers to patrol the entire country!

Antonio · 04-08-2003, 02:42 PM

For all the fuckers that support the war -
Enjoy

theking · 04-08-2003, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion

That's funny. *I* do not live in the real world?

It's not me that thinks we have a million man standing Army that can invade and occupy Syria, Iran, Libya, etc.

It's not me that thinks we have the firepower/money/resourdes to take over any Muslim nation we don't like!

2/3rd of our Infantry is right NOW in Iraq/Kuwait! That's a "suppressed response?"

And it's not me that thinks we have the right to invade ANY country simply because we don't like the way they run their government/country.

King..we've had to call up the National Guard to take over duties normally run by the regular army. So do we use the "weekend warriors" to invade Iran then? Or are you now saying that we need to re-start the draft?

Evan the Taliban is making a comeback in Afghanistan. There were several stories from the AP today about how resurgent the Taliban has become in Afghanistan. And we have a WHOPPING 5000 soldiers to patrol the entire country!

We will re-institute the draft when push comes to shove. I have already pointed out to you that the USA put sixteen million people into uniform, with less than half the current population and a fraction of the current GNP, during the Second World War.

Do you really think that the USA will stand by and allow itself to be repeatedly attacked?

theking · 04-08-2003, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion

That's funny. *I* do not live in the real world?

It's not me that thinks we have a million man standing Army that can invade and occupy Syria, Iran, Libya, etc.

It is not me either.

Quote:

It's not me that thinks we have the firepower/money/resourdes to take over any Muslim nation we don't like!

It is not a question of like or dislike, it is a question of becoming a percieved enemy.

Quote:

2/3rd of our Infantry is right NOW in Iraq/Kuwait! That's a "suppressed response?"

Yes.

Quote:

And it's not me that thinks we have the right to invade ANY country simply because we don't like the way they run their government/country.

Like or dislike has nothing to do with it. Being a percieved enemy does.

rooster · 04-08-2003, 03:01 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...168/3qpqh.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_030408163048

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Apr7.html

12clicks · 04-08-2003, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio
For all the fuckers that support the war -
Enjoy

yeah baby! looks like my troops are getting it done!

Centurion · 04-08-2003, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

We will re-institute the draft when push comes to shove. I have already pointed out to you that the USA put sixteen million people into uniform, with less than half the current population and a fraction of the current GNP, during the Second World War.

Do you really think that the USA will stand by and allow itself to be repeatedly attacked?

You really do live in the past. It's PRESENT day, and it's NOT WWII! In WWII, we had STRONG allies fighting WITH US! Now we have only a few thousand brits and a couple thousand Aussies.

And as for your repeated figure of putting 16 million into "uniform"..let's break that down a bit:

1)That number is not 16 million at ONE time..it was over a course of several years!
2)Because you are in "uniform" does not mean you are on the front lines fighting. Well over HALF of that number were purely support personnel..with most of them stationed in the U.S.

But again, you're point of going back to WWII is totally irrelevant to today's conflicts. And I notice you even left out the Koren War (where the best we could do was a "draw"), Vietnam..where we lost.

To say we put 16 million in uniform back in the '40s does not equate to front line invasion, conquering, and occupying several Muslim countries TODAY.

12clicks · 04-08-2003, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion

You really do live in the past. It's PRESENT day, and it's NOT WWII! In WWII, we had STRONG allies fighting WITH US! Now we have only a few thousand brits and a couple thousand Aussies.

And as for your repeated figure of putting 16 million into "uniform"..let's break that down a bit:

1)That number is not 16 million at ONE time..it was over a course of several years!
2)Because you are in "uniform" does not mean you are on the front lines fighting. Well over HALF of that number were purely support personnel..with most of them stationed in the U.S.

But again, you're point of going back to WWII is totally irrelevant to today's conflicts. And I notice you even left out the Koren War (where the best we could do was a "draw"), Vietnam..where we lost.

To say we put 16 million in uniform back in the '40s does not equate to front line invasion, conquering, and occupying several Muslim countries TODAY.

get a grip dopey, we have the money and firepower to bomb any and all muslim nations who decide they want to hate us back to the stone age (granted, its a short trip)
how about explaining how this big bad muslim force is going to land on our beaches?
Its no longer about the number of people in your military, its about your technology.
welcome to the 21st century

theking · 04-08-2003, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion

You really do live in the past. It's PRESENT day, and it's NOT WWII! In WWII, we had STRONG allies fighting WITH US! Now we have only a few thousand brits and a couple thousand Aussies.

FYI I am fully aware that The Second World War is over. I am fully aware that the US had allies. If there was a point to be made, you failed.

Quote:

And as for your repeated figure of putting 16 million into "uniform"..let's break that down a bit:

1)That number is not 16 million at ONE time..it was over a course of several years!

Wrong. When the Second World War ended we had sixteen million people in uniform.

Quote:

2)Because you are in "uniform" does not mean you are on the front lines fighting. Well over HALF of that number were purely support personnel..with most of them stationed in the U.S.

FYI I am fully aware what percentage of forces are support and what are combatants. I spent 12 years in the Army. FYI it is approximately 90% support and 10% combatants.

Quote:

But again, you're point of going back to WWII is totally irrelevant to today's conflicts. And I notice you even left out the Koren War (where the best we could do was a "draw"), Vietnam..where we lost.

Wrong. Truman made a political decision to hold at the 38th Parallel, which was the border prior to North Korea invading the South.

Wrong. There was not a military loss in Vietnam and we could have ended the war in one day with the use of Nukes, within thirty days with 24/7 conventional bombing (11 days of 24/7 brought them to the peace table), within ninety days with ground forces if the military would have been allowed to invade the North.

It was politicians that micro managed the war and extended the war and it was politicians that agreed to withdraw our forces. There was not a military loss in any form, but a political decision was made to withdraw our forces.

Quote:

To say we put 16 million in uniform back in the '40s does not equate to front line invasion, conquering, and occupying several Muslim countries TODAY.

Of course you are right. The USA does not have the power to defeat a bunch of third world nations. The USA is at their mercy. We will allow them to attack us at will. We are helpless. I am making arrangements at the local Mosque today to become a Muslim. Allah be praised.

eroswebmaster · 04-08-2003, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack

Why are the lives of Americans worth more than the life of an Iraqi or anyone else?

Because we cost more to produce...that's what you get when you go with quality over quantity

Honeyslut · 04-08-2003, 04:17 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_030408163048

Centurion · 04-08-2003, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

get a grip dopey, we have the money and firepower to bomb any and all muslim nations who decide they want to hate us back to the stone age (granted, its a short trip)

"I wish I may, I wish I might..."
If I'm "dopey", then you're "ignorant".
I love the desk jockeys who love to throw around terms like "bomb them back to the stone age!"
And of course, all you have to do is push a button!

Antonio · 04-08-2003, 04:27 PM

Quote:

yeah baby! looks like my troops are getting it done!

OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES!!! HALF OF THEM ARE KIDS!

Centurion · 04-08-2003, 04:38 PM

The King posted:

"FYI I am fully aware that The Second World War is over. I am fully aware that the US had allies. If there was a point to be made, you failed."

We wouldn't have won WWII if we didn't have those allies!
We couldn't conquer the muslim nations today that are you are talking about without them either. That's the point! DUH!
--------------------------
The King posted:

"Wrong. When the Second World War ended we had sixteen million people in uniform."

We did not have 16 million American men in combat when WWII ended!

"FYI I am fully aware what percentage of forces are support and what are combatants. I spent 12 years in the Army. FYI it is approximately 90% support and 10% combatants."

Thank you for proving my point! 10% of 16 million is 1.6 million.
And that was cumulative..not final tally! And we did not occupy FRANCE, BELGIUM, NETHERLANDS, ITALY that we fought in! The "natives" took full control. And in the end..we only occupied 1/4th of the nation of Germany. Again, totally different from going it solo against the rest of the Islamic nations!
------------------------
The King posted:

"Wrong. There was not a military loss in Vietnam and we could have ended the war in one day with the use of Nukes, within thirty days with 24/7 conventional bombing (11 days of 24/7 brought them to the peace table), within ninety days with ground forces if the military would have been allowed to invade the North."

Thank you for showing me and the world that you should NEVER be in a command role in the military or politics!
WE SHOULD HAVE USED NUKES IN VIETNAM? You seemed like a fairly reasonable person until you posted that! How utterly INSANE!

And as for the rest of your war plan for Vietnam..MAN..why didn't the combined military genius over a 10 year period come up with the same solution you just did in 30 secs? You obviously have much more military intelligence and expertise on that time period readily available on your computer than the combined military/political establishment had combined!

foreverjason · 04-08-2003, 04:43 PM

majority wins! lol

theking · 04-08-2003, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion
The King posted:

"FYI I am fully aware that The Second World War is over. I am fully aware that the US had allies. If there was a point to be made, you failed."

We wouldn't have won WWII if we didn't have those allies!
We couldn't conquer the muslim nations today that are you are talking about without them either. That's the point! DUH!

Of course you are right. The USA does not have the power to defeat a bunch of third world nations. The USA is at their mercy. We will allow them to attack us at will. We are helpless. I am making arrangements at the local Mosque today to become a Muslim. Allah be praised.

Quote:

--------------------------
The King posted:

"Wrong. When the Second World War ended we had sixteen million people in uniform."

We did not have 16 million American men in combat when WWII ended!

You are correct...and your prize is...

Quote:

"FYI I am fully aware what percentage of forces are support and what are combatants. I spent 12 years in the Army. FYI it is approximately 90% support and 10% combatants."

Thank you for proving my point! 10% of 16 million is 1.6 million.
And that was cumulative..not final tally!

Final tally...16 million people in uniform when the Second World War ended.

Quote:

And we did not occupy FRANCE, BELGIUM, NETHERLANDS, ITALY that we fought in! The "natives" took full control. And in the end..we only occupied 1/4th of the nation of Germany.

Thank you for the information...but I am fully aware of what countries we occupied and did not occupy.

Quote:

Again, totally different from going it solo against the rest of the Islamic nations!

You are correct. It would be a much, much easier task.

Quote:

------------------------
The King posted:

"Wrong. There was not a military loss in Vietnam and we could have ended the war in one day with the use of Nukes, within thirty days with 24/7 conventional bombing (11 days of 24/7 brought them to the peace table), within ninety days with ground forces if the military would have been allowed to invade the North."

Thank you for showing me and the world that you should NEVER be in a command role in the military or politics!
WE SHOULD HAVE USED NUKES IN VIETNAM? You seemed like a fairly reasonable person until you posted that! How utterly INSANE!

Where did I say we should have used Nukes in Vietnam?
FYI nukes were considered for use in Korea, Nukes were considered for use in Vietnam, and Nukes were considered for use in the '91 conflict with Iraq and they are on the table for use in this current conflict if we were to need them.

Quote:

And as for the rest of your war plan for Vietnam..MAN..why didn't the combined military genius over a 10 year period come up with the same solution you just did in 30 secs? You obviously have much more military intelligence and expertise on that time period readily available on your computer than the combined military/political establishment had combined!

The military did. The politicians micro managed the war for political reasons, but I have already explained this to you. Consider yourself as having been educated. You can thank me later.

Centurion · 04-08-2003, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
Where did I say we should have used Nukes in Vietnam?

"There was not a military loss in Vietnam and we could have ended the war in one day with the use of Nukes"

Those are your words. If you think the use of Nukes would have ended the war in VietNam in one day with NO ill effects, then it's no wonder you think the U.S. has the ability to attack & occupy at will.

Your arguments are not rational nor practical. The art of warfare is NOT your forte.

12clicks · 04-08-2003, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion

"I wish I may, I wish I might..."
If I'm "dopey", then you're "ignorant".
I love the desk jockeys who love to throw around terms like "bomb them back to the stone age!"
And of course, all you have to do is push a button!

clumsy non answer when shown the facts.
typical.

theking · 04-08-2003, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion

"There was not a military loss in Vietnam and we could have ended the war in one day with the use of Nukes"

Those are your words. If you think the use of Nukes would have ended the war in VietNam in one day with NO ill effects, then it's no wonder you think the U.S. has the ability to attack & occupy at will.

Your arguments are not rational nor practical. The art of warfare is NOT your forte.

My grandfather was career military (Officer). My real father was career military (Officer). My mentor was career military (Officer). I was career military (Senior NCO) until my career was cut short. I have been a student of the art of war and the history of war for most of my forty-five years.

directfiesta · 04-08-2003, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

My grandfather was career military (Officer). My real father was career military (Officer). My mentor was career military (Officer). I was career military (Senior NCO) until my career was cut short. I have been a student of the art of war and the history of war for most of my forty-five years.

Reeeeeally??? couldn't have guessed.... Period.

Centurion · 04-08-2003, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

clumsy non answer when shown the facts.
typical.

Yes..your facts or overwhelming!
Your "factual" statement is that we can bomb them back to the stoneage. Yep..FULL of FACTual info! Clumsy is as clumsy DOES in this case!

Centurion · 04-08-2003, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

My grandfather was career military (Officer). My real father was career military (Officer). My mentor was career military (Officer). I was career military (Senior NCO) until my career was cut short. I have been a student of the art of war and the history of war for most of my forty-five years.

Well sheet man...I didn't know that all it takes is lineage to be a military genius!

And so because you were in the military (and your fathers before you), NATURALLY you inherit the cunning and forethought in military planning and strategy! Glad your chosen field wasn't medicine if all your fathers before you were doctors too!

And with ALL of this incredible hereditary line in you, you deny you brought up the use of "NUKES" in Vietnam, and yet maintain that the United States is quite capable of conquering the Islamic world if we choose to do so.

Like I said before, I'm glad you are not in a decision making capacity in the upper echelons of the military.

theking · 04-08-2003, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion

Well sheet man...I didn't know that all it takes is lineage to be a military genius!

And so because you were in the military (and your fathers before you), NATURALLY you inherit the cunning and forethought in military planning and strategy! Glad your chosen field wasn't medicine if all your fathers before you were doctors too!

And with ALL of this incredible hereditary line in you, you deny you brought up the use of "NUKES" in Vietnam, and yet maintain that the United States is quite capable of conquering the Islamic world if we choose to do so.

Like I said before, I'm glad you are not in a decision making capacity in the upper echelons of the military.

You left out that I have been a student of the art of war and military history for most of my 45 years.

You have a comprehension problem. No where have I denied that I brought up the use of Nukes in Vietnam. Also no where did I advocate the use of Nukes in Vietnam. Your education is finished, your learning capacity has reached its limitation. You can thank me later.

ChrisH · 04-08-2003, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JeremySF

Don't give me that b.s., that's all they have. Why don't Arab states put so much more of an effort in cultivating terrorism than actually alleviating the suffering of the Palestinian people.

If the Arabians gave the Palistinians a fraction of what the Americans give the world. They would be fine. However, there's no assistance from the Arab world for a real Palistine. They give them aprox. 100 million a year, whereas the US gives them around 90 million. That's fucking pathetic. All they care about is complaining.

It's just too much easier for them to tell there kids that Zionists must be killed. So when they turn 17-18 they blow themselves up. While the older assholes get their revenge and blame the......

You Guest It!!!

ChrisH · 04-08-2003, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
Centurion

You do not live in the real wolrd if you think the USA will stand by and allow itself to be repeatedly attacked without responding in a massive way. Thus far our response to 9/11 has been a rather suppressed response.

By the way I did not take the time to rip your post , as many of your points are not valid, because I am growing somewhat tired.

This is a crystal clear fact that goes unmentioned.

This country has shown real restraint in it's reponse. My god the mess it could have made.

ChrisH · 04-08-2003, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin

That would increase terrorism, not decrease it. Negotiating with terrorists sends a clear message that terrorism is an effective political tool.

Exactly!

In the 60's and 70's these cocksuckers hijacked planes, and usually had a list of prisoners they wanted released. At that time if we would have executed everyone on those lists, terrorism wouldn't have worked now would it.

Find them kill them. The only way to win.

ChrisH · 04-08-2003, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta

BTW, any news on Osama???

Yeah he is believed to be protected in the lawless region of north west pakistan.

We new that for sure when we caught Kalid Sheik Mohamad, but maybe as early as when we captured bin-Alshebbi. It wasn't from the info we got when we Hell Fire Missled the Al Qaeda caravan in Yemin from a UAV though.

Thanks for asking

ChrisH · 04-08-2003, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by helis
its weird how so many say the whole world doesnt want this war but when ever i see pool results weather it be online or in the paper more people say yes war is bad but this war is needed

helis,
All wars are bad, no one wants war.

This one is needed though. I agree.

ChrisH · 04-08-2003, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio
For all the fuckers that support the war -
Enjoy

Ever see the pics of the Kurds gassed in the north in 88?

How about the people that were gunned down by the thousands in the south in 91 when the US didn't interviene and stop it?

If this war lasts 6 weeks or 6 months there will be FAR less people RAPED and murdered by the Baath Party in that same time frame, that's a fact!

bhutocracy · 04-08-2003, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ChrisH

It wasn't from the info we got when we Hell Fire Missled the Al Qaeda caravan in Yemin from a UAV though.

If Bush had done that post 9/11 you'd be calling him a realist hero. Maybe you're missing the patently obvious fact that with time sensitive information (too quick for a missile strike even) that a group of navy seals or special forces would have been five times as late and just as inneffective.

ChrisH · 04-08-2003, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bhutocracy

If Bush had done that post 9/11 you'd be calling him a realist hero. Maybe you're missing the patently obvious fact that with time sensitive information (too quick for a missile strike even) that a group of navy seals or special forces would have been five times as late and just as inneffective.

Sept 11th was a total complete breakdown in inteligence. Having Moussaui in custody in August 01, and knowing that he'd fly a plane into a building and not thwarting what happend was a best a collapse.

Sorry, but the world is going to have to live with that.

Centurion · 04-08-2003, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ChrisH

Exactly!

In the 60's and 70's these cocksuckers hijacked planes, and usually had a list of prisoners they wanted released. At that time if we would have executed everyone on those lists, terrorism wouldn't have worked now would it.

Find them kill them. The only way to win.

I think you're confusing the Cubans with the Muslims there.
They were the #1 hijackers of planes back then.
And I still don't have a clue why anyone would want to hijack a plane TO Cuba.

View Poll Results: Should we be doing this?
Yes	91	56.88%
No	69	43.13%
Voters: 160. You may not vote on this poll

04-08-2003, 02:11 AM	#58
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	Centurion You do not live in the real wolrd if you think the USA will stand by and allow itself to be repeatedly attacked without responding in a massive way. Thus far our response to 9/11 has been a rather suppressed response. By the way I did not take the time to rip your post , as many of your points are not valid, because I am growing somewhat tired. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html Last edited by theking; 04-08-2003 at 02:21 AM..

04-08-2003, 04:17 PM	#79
Honeyslut Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Ass Valley, Ca Posts: 6,436	http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_030408163048 __________________ http://nakedlunchnews.comWhat's up ? Naked Lunch News !

04-08-2003, 12:21 AM	#55
ItBurnsWhenIpee Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The Beach, SoCal Posts: 1,288	It's always nice to see a thread turn out exactly how you planned it.... (proud)

04-08-2003, 08:27 AM	#66
helis Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 317	its weird how so many say the whole world doesnt want this war but when ever i see pool results weather it be online or in the paper more people say yes war is bad but this war is needed

04-08-2003, 08:40 AM	#67
TheFLY So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: http://www.thefly.net/ --- Quit your job and live off steady traffic. Posts: 11,856	more important question (yes/no) what do we do in the meantime... to solve the same question that keeps getting asked... communism socialialism capitalism it's all the same shit just recycled... when will it be solved -- when can man walk the earth in peace once again it starts right here baby

04-08-2003, 08:41 AM	#68
TheFLY So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: http://www.thefly.net/ --- Quit your job and live off steady traffic. Posts: 11,856	one more time around just like you

04-08-2003, 02:42 PM	#70
Antonio Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Spartaaaaaaaaa Posts: 14,136	For all the fuckers that support the war - Enjoy

04-08-2003, 03:01 PM	#73
rooster Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,384	http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...168/3qpqh.html http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_030408163048 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Apr7.html

04-08-2003, 04:38 PM	#82
Centurion Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: SeATtle Posts: 6,033	The King posted: "FYI I am fully aware that The Second World War is over. I am fully aware that the US had allies. If there was a point to be made, you failed." We wouldn't have won WWII if we didn't have those allies! We couldn't conquer the muslim nations today that are you are talking about without them either. That's the point! DUH! -------------------------- The King posted: "Wrong. When the Second World War ended we had sixteen million people in uniform." We did not have 16 million American men in combat when WWII ended! "FYI I am fully aware what percentage of forces are support and what are combatants. I spent 12 years in the Army. FYI it is approximately 90% support and 10% combatants." Thank you for proving my point! 10% of 16 million is 1.6 million. And that was cumulative..not final tally! And we did not occupy FRANCE, BELGIUM, NETHERLANDS, ITALY that we fought in! The "natives" took full control. And in the end..we only occupied 1/4th of the nation of Germany. Again, totally different from going it solo against the rest of the Islamic nations! ------------------------ The King posted: "Wrong. There was not a military loss in Vietnam and we could have ended the war in one day with the use of Nukes, within thirty days with 24/7 conventional bombing (11 days of 24/7 brought them to the peace table), within ninety days with ground forces if the military would have been allowed to invade the North." Thank you for showing me and the world that you should NEVER be in a command role in the military or politics! WE SHOULD HAVE USED NUKES IN VIETNAM? You seemed like a fairly reasonable person until you posted that! How utterly INSANE! And as for the rest of your war plan for Vietnam..MAN..why didn't the combined military genius over a 10 year period come up with the same solution you just did in 30 secs? You obviously have much more military intelligence and expertise on that time period readily available on your computer than the combined military/political establishment had combined!

04-08-2003, 04:43 PM	#83
foreverjason Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,452	majority wins! lol