[quote]snipeout wrote:
Indra, as far as saudi and Iran having to do with 9/11, keep in mind although a majority were saudi’s they all obtained visas and traveled through iran. JohnGalt you need to keep in mind that although binladen may want the infidel out of mecca, iran and its problems date back to the carter administrations inability(like all democrats) to handle an aggressor.
They do hate our way of life, they don’t like the fact that the average citizen has a say in government our that women have rights. Not to mention you just help emphasize my point of these prehistoric retards still fighting a crusade that ended roughly 600 years ago.
Much like a jail inmate, we give them what they want i.e. the gaza strip and they still want more. All you people who sympathize for the extremists(LIBERALS) don’t think for a minute these people wouldn’t saw your head off and hold it up for al-terroisteera or jazeera or whatever.
I’m just glad MY president isn’t afraid to take action, god forbid canada or france was attacked and I was a citizen of one of those countries. Well I mean france did take action against that rouge nation the ivory coast a few months back.[/quote]
Is English your second language or what? Not everone who opposes the war is a liberal and while I count many extreme liberals among my friends, not one of them supports the terrorists. I think maybe you lack discernment. I think maybe you don’t know the difference between appeasement and a willingness to hear what the other side has to say and perhaps take responsibility for one’s own actions. That’s just being mature. Nobody that I know about has suggested comitting economic or national suicide in response to terrorism, except those hawks using a reductio ad absurdum argument to attack their opposition.
When did Iraq attack us? And I am glad you support YOUR president, because he needs all the help he can get. Especially when he rides his bike.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
WMD wrote:
doogie wrote:
Can one of you peacenik douchebags explain what the U.S. could do, short of everyone converting to Islam, to make the terrorists happy?
Send you and RJ to Iraq?
Yes, indeed, WMD you have hit the nail on the head. I would rather be a peacenik who claimed it then a warnik who talked the talk, but let others walk the walk. Oh, whats that doogie? You would rather stay and teach the schoolchildren… go home at night to your own children?
Those damn peaceniks, I hate those cowardly bastards!
Hey WMD and Elkhntr,
Have you douchebags been camping out in Crawford, protesting the war? Have you sent Moveon.org 50% of your net income?
If you think this war is wrong, that our soldiers are dying needlessly, and that we are just in it for the oil, what are you doing to stop it, other than hanging out on the internet?
You see I think the war is right, and it is happening. So pretty much all I have to do in order not to be a hypocrite is pay my taxes and vote Republican. I do a little more than that. I have bought two A/C units for the troops, I donated my last two income tax returns to military charities, and everytime there is a supply drive for the troops I drag my kids down to Wal-Mart to spend $50 or so for stuff the troops need.
You on the other hand think the war is morally wrong. That means you are obligated to try and stop it. So what are you doing? I’ll bet you paid your income taxes the last two years, hypocrites. I’ll bet you still drive an automobile instead of peddling everywhere you go. I’ll bet you still waste electricity while jerking off to Vroom’s picture on the computer.
[/quote]
I ride my bike all the time, own a small motorcycle for longer trips around town and own an economical car. You are very prone to making assumptions and painting everyone with the same broad brush aren’t you? Are nuances difficult for you?
Imagine the word HYPOCRITE on a suppository. Insert it in your fanny, repeat. While that $50 is a step in the right direction, why don’t your organize a drive to buy someone some body armor. Maybe it’ll keep someone from dying.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
Would you like to PROVE that someone , in this thread, actually is an appeaser or an apologist, or are you just throwing these labels around because other people who know what they mean are using them?
It’s just like Bush said. If you are not against terrorism and everythng it stands for, then are no better than the terrorists themselves. That is a paraphrase, but you get the idea.
Now - you want me to point my finger and tattle? Sorry I 'm not taking you bait.
But if you are an appeaser/apologist, then you are as much a part of the problem as the terrorists.
I don’t need FACTS to support my opinion of those ABBers that would harbor terrorists, or sympathize with them.
I could give a shit if I’ve convinced you, or any other apologist/appeaser on here. So you can stop trying to force me into a corner. I’m not going.
[/quote]
He doesn’t need facts. That is the most honest thing ever written on any forum by any Bush Backer I’ve ever seen.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Gl;itch.e wrote:
rainjack wrote:
It’s just like Bush said. If you are not against terrorism and everythng it stands for, then are no better than the terrorists themselves. That is a paraphrase, but you get the idea.
yeah and if you cant see the flawed logic in that theres something wrong… . theres a fucking huge difference from “not giving a shit about terrorism” and actually going out and blowing people away. …
terrorism is a boogey man plain and simple… . its not much worse today than it was 10-20-30 years ago… . its easy to worry about something that doesnt actually matter… . it clouds your mind and keeps your eyes off the big picture… . would you wage a war against vechiles around your country since road deaths in the us alone are a staggering 42,000 a year? shit thats a good 40,000 more than terrorists claimed the world around last year… . you know what? FALLING DOWN costs the US more lives each year than 3 combined 9/11’s but you dont hear that shit on the news. …
its easier for the government to keep everyone in line with some little ghost storys about “some foreign guys that might blow you up when you least expect it” but its only masking much bigger and more important issues such as the energy future of the US and much of the western world. …
Whatever you say. What was I thinking? Supporting the President is for pussies, right? [/quote]
[quote]WMD wrote:
So you ARE a pussy. Takes a real man to admit it.[/quote]
Is that the best you’ve got? You are reduced to calling Bush Backers pussies?
I figured that being the big, strong, non-pussy that you seem to think you are you would actually have something to say. I must beg your forgiveness for overestimating your abilities by such a huge margin.
I guess, void of anything of substance to say, you think you will score points by wasting server space with your self-important little quips.
If that’s what it takes to make you feel important - knock yourself out. You certainly must need it.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’m not sure why invading Syria and creating a buffer between them and the Iraqi border is so offensive to you.
[/quote]
so…
your saying you are pro world domination? am i taking this literally too? i dont know how to interpret “Leveling” a country but i think it has a negative connotation. correct me if im wrong.
the US is not a puppet master with other countries as a puppet. you cant just walk right into another country because it would make a good buffer.
“He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.” Michel de Montaigne
When they shot at our planes, when they tried to assasinate an ex-president, when they invaded an ally, when they sponsored countless acts of terrorism against another ally.
[quote]UB07 wrote:
so…
your saying you are pro world domination? am i taking this literally too? i dont know how to interpret “Leveling” a country but i think it has a negative connotation. correct me if im wrong. [/quote]
Leveling may have a negative connotation in the peacenik handbook, but it can hardly be mistaken for “world domination”. No one but the anti-war crowd has ever said anything like that. So I would thank you NOT to be putting words in my mouth. I clarified my statement. Do you need me to use smaller words?
What the fuck are you even talking about? Invading Syria has been mentioned on more than one occasion. You really need to pay closer attention to what’s going on. Just because you can type does not mean you know what you are saying.
[quote]“He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.” Michel de Montaigne
[/quote]
Nor does the ability to copy and paste. My opinion is not an argument. I think your "world domination bullshit would be more along the lines os noise. In fact it’s a fucking lie. But the anti-waar left could give a shit about the truth - it might get in the way making their ‘point’.
Well, ZEB does it all the time. Why isn’t anyone else allowed to?
No actually I don’t Ma’m.
Actually, you do. The only evidence you ever post is pulled out of your own butt or off of right wing websites. YOu have never in anything I’ve seen you post provide a neutral, empirical peer reviewed source of evidence. And you always expect us to just take your word without any application of critical thought. :)[/quote]
Oh, pious one, read this, then read it again, and again. This is you… and you may have the mental capacity to understand it. Someone like flapquack who’s guilty as well never will, but there’s hope for you, oh moral and pious one.
Sorry it took so long to address the drivel. Been finishing up some school work.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
I have stated my view on this before. You act as if there is a solution (through force) where the world will be in perfect balance (for the US).[/quote]
You hippies want balance. I want U.S. domination, plain and simple.
I know bad guys will always exist, and I want America to be in a position to smite them when they stick their heads up out of the sand. You are the ones who think we could solve our problems with diplomacy. I’m still waiting for you to tell me what we could do to keep them from hating us. If Iran developed a suitcase nuke, do you really think we could prevent them from giving that to terrorists through diplomacy?
[quote]I have said this before and I will now say it again, Saddam was a paper tiger and the fact that he wasn’t holding to a U.N. resolutions was hardly an excuse to invade. The only justifiable reason for invasion which Bush and company manipulated everyone on was “Mushroom cloud over US” “Imminent threat” “Can launch WMD to American shores within forty five minutes” none of which were proven to be true for those of us who knew this was BULLSHIT from the start. Those reasons would have been the only justifiable reasons to start war to invade another country.
Saddam could have been delt with on numerous diplomatic and even lethal covert means to get rid of him that would have been effective albeit taken more time, but patience in my opinion is warranted when you are talking about American and innocent Iraqi lives. Call me a peacenick, I just have that weak stupid value for human life.
No these alternatives weren’t explored because the Bush camp thought, yes, Strategic control benefiting the U.S., but also lucrative profits for you guessed it Good ol Dick Cheney’s old company Haliburton. We can kill two birds with one stone get our desired strategic power-base and rake in some powerful profits for our buddies in the oil business. No, No, you say that is preposterous? Even though Bush and Cheney come from big corp. America and Oil money this could never be true, again, PREPOSTEROUS.
So, let’s see was Iraq an imminent threat. Well, from the Bush camps perspective what does it matter! We can start our invasion and you know what because everybody loves “FREEDOM” American style we will crush any resistance and then the joyous populace will greet us with flowers so , then all the doubters will be forced to shut up, we have our strategic power and Haliburton has it’s fingers in all of the oil business dealings and life is grand.
But, wait a minute, if it doesn’t work out, and we will only spend a few seconds focusing on this side of the fence, why should we care? It’s not like the twins are in the 3RD Armored Calvary Unit. Dickey are any of your daughters in the Army or nieces or nephews? What’s that no? Good, good, you Rumsfield, Wolfowitz? No, good! [/quote]
The title of the thread is “FORCE AGAINST IRAN”. I know there is only one letter’s difference between Iraq and Iran, but focus. The only relevant comment concerning Iraq in this thread is “Thanks to the invasion of Iraq, we now have troops on both sides of Iran.”
Like Pat Tillman?
You seem to have a very low opinion of our military. I never looked at them as a bunch of low class, white trash, uneducated morons. I’m pretty sure 100% of them volunteered to serve. I don’t think any of them would appreciate your looking down on them as victims of Bush’s greed.
[quote]But, hey let’s not think like that because thats not gonna happen. Let’s forget about history lessons of the past and what happens when you try to forcibly change and control a country that doesn’t want to be controlled.
What we’ll do is this, we’ll put a tight lock on the media so we don’t have to deal with that damn Vietnam era death on the evening news every night and we won’t show civilian causalities for the freedom starving Iraqi’s. We’ll sanitize this and if one of those pesky idiots who disagrees with us says anything we’ll tell em shut up asswipe don’t you know we built a school yesterday, but we won’t tell about the twenty kids killed by friendly fire who won’t be going to that school. Nope, not a word of that.
From my perspective doogie there were many other alternatives. The world as we know it wasn’t going to end if we didn’t invade Iraq. The experts knew it but were laughed at when the said it. The world, the US, England isn’t any safer from Terrorism and the meat grinder that is Iraq grinds on daily until one day when someone finally has the sense whether it finally is Bush or the next President who says this waste is going to stop and stops it.
It it is Bush, he will never admit to total failure instead he will paint some rosy picture about giving them freedom and withdraw leaving a power vacuum for our enemies which may eventually drag us into WWIII nuclear holocaust. [/quote]
I’ll again refer you to the thread title.
Repeat after me. Iraq and Iran are two different countries. Iraq and Iran are two different countries. Repeat until it sinks in.
Wow. Way to make a difference big guy. You really feel like spending 10 minutes a day TYPING is sufficient to stop what you see as such an atrocity? I’m glad FDR (did he serve in the military?) and Churchill didn’t think sitting on their ass and typing was sufficient to stop the holocaust.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Can one of you peacenik douchebags explain what the U.S. could do, short of everyone converting to Islam, to make the terrorists happy?
Well, I don’t identify with your statement at all, but I would suggest that nobody is talking about trying to make “terrorists” happy.
Are you another one of those warmongering cheerleaders that can’t tell the difference between the general populace of the Middle East and those that are actively of a terrorist mindset?
Who the hell cares if terrorists are happy or not?
When someone you think is a peacenik douchebag is expressing concerns, its generally not about the terrorists… if it is, then go on about your ridiculous assertions.[/quote]
I’ve read this response five times now. I still don’t see your alternative to force solution. Tell me, Vroom. How do we keep Iran from developing nukes?
terrorism is a boogey man plain and simple… . its not much worse today than it was 10-20-30 years ago… . its easy to worry about something that doesnt actually matter… . it clouds your mind and keeps your eyes off the big picture… .[/quote]
I agree terrorism is about the same as it was 20 years ago WORLDWIDE. Once they started attacking the U.S. on our own soil, our attitude changed. Don’t you think that is understandable? More importantly, there is now the fear of these wackos getting ahold of a nuke. That is different than hijacking a boat or a plane in the 1980s. We aren’t going to let that happen. You can damn us all you want, but 10 years from now when N.Z. isn’t a melted, glowing blob you can thank us.
I was watching Richard Jeni (comedian) last night. He was talking about the stupid hippies saying, “Terrorism is a word, man. You can’t wage war on a word.” He responded by saying that it was pretty easy to figure out where to bomb, just look at the people who were dancing in the streets celebrating on 9/11. Those are the people who want us to die.
Do you really believe that if Iran developed a suitcase nuke, they wouldn’t hesitate to either use it on us themselves or give it to someone who would? Really?
It used to be “America. Love it or leave it.” Now it is “Earth. Love America or leave it.” That might suck for you, but it sounds damn good to me.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
A bunch of off topic stuff about Iraq, followed by…
As for Iran, let it go. Just redefine the triggers for mutual assured destruction: any suitcase bomb goes off anywhere and the mullahs and musharraf and dear leader all get the nuclear treatment on the same glorious day. We’ve lived with this scenario before.[/quote]
Russians didn’t believe that they’d end up in heaven with 72 virgins. Russians didn’t think that God wanted them to kill us. You can’t apply the same common sense approach that we used with Russia to Iran.
I don’t know about you, but the thought that after my family is nuked a lot of Iranians will be nuked also doesn’t really put my mind at ease.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Iran is and has been a much greater threat to the U.S. and world at large than Iraq. If Iraq, why not Iran? Or why not Iran instead of Iraq? Too late now-we are involved and I think we need to stay involved and fulfill our committment to resolve things as much as we possibly can. But this is something we should’ve thought of a long time ago. Some people did.[/quote]
You think it is just sheer blind luck that we have Iran surrounded now?
Well, doogie my boy, I spent time in the first Gulf War commanding a C&J platoon. What did you do? Remain stateside pushing paper as part of the chairborne? [/quote]
Technically, yes. I was still in high school during the first Gulf “War”. What is C&J? I was tempted to come up with my own explanations, but I have more respect for the military than that.
[quote]
If the only thing you can come up with is more wars on more fronts without enough troops and materiel for the one we’re already engaged in, you are a moron. [/quote]
Actually, dipshit, I think we should just nuke all of their reactors. Or provide Israel with the means to do the job.
What other war have we fought we such efficiency? Vietnam? WWII? I mourn for each of the nearly 2000 troops we’ve lost, but I don’t think a single one of them was wasted. Unless you are talking about Grenada and Panama, I’d like to know when the U.S. military has ever been more efficient.
What response? Lay it out.
No matter what consequence you name, it won’t be as severe as being nuked by Iranian bombs.
You can’t negotiate with religious zealots. Even Clinton learned that in Waco.
Don’t you think any covert actions would be quickly tied to us? “Oh shit, all of our reactors blew up at once. What are the chances of that happening? It must have been an act of God!!”
I have no problem with dropping little notes all over Iran saying “We are going to nuke these specific locations on this date. If you don’t want to glow in the dark, move.”
[quote]doogie wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Iran is and has been a much greater threat to the U.S. and world at large than Iraq. If Iraq, why not Iran? Or why not Iran instead of Iraq? Too late now-we are involved and I think we need to stay involved and fulfill our committment to resolve things as much as we possibly can. But this is something we should’ve thought of a long time ago. Some people did.
You think it is just sheer blind luck that we have Iran surrounded now?[/quote]
Wow, doogie, you must have been a General who planned strategy when you were in the reserves! Brilliant, simply Brilliant, we’ve got em surrounded… whew hoo, our troops can’t drive safely from Camp Freedom to the Baghdad airport, but hey, we’ve got Iran surrounded. Insurgents are still fighting in Afghanistan and Bin Laden’s on the loose, but hey General doogie says don’t worry from my strategic post in Texas (kinda like Georgy) I’m telling ya folks… we’ve got Iran surrounded!!! Why, did you ever leave the reserves? They need your brilliant skills at the Pentagon General doogie!
‘You on the other hand think the war is morally wrong. That means you are obligated to try and stop it. So what are you doing? I’ll bet you paid your income taxes the last two years, hypocrites. I’ll bet you still drive an automobile instead of peddling everywhere you go.’
Not that you’re prone to generalizing or anything, but my opposition to the war is on other grounds besides morality. Like it was stupid, wasteful and promulgated on false information. A nation as powerful as we are can come up with better ways of doing things.[/quote]
So you are saying that you don’t object purely on moral grounds and are therefore somehow excused from trying to stop it? If you think our troops are being wasted in a stupid war promulgated on false information, what are you doing to stop it? Risking carpal tunnel syndrome?
Again, I was in the reserves during the mid-to-late 90s. I spent most of my time in Texas. Two weeks here, two weeks there. Nothing even remotely resembling combat.
I’m thankful for your service. I don’t know how saying you were in Iraq prevents you from being a tree-hugging hippie freak, though. Thinking we can reason with Iran makes you a hippie douchebag.
[quote]And the douchebag comment is just brilliant.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
doogie wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Iran is and has been a much greater threat to the U.S. and world at large than Iraq. If Iraq, why not Iran? Or why not Iran instead of Iraq? Too late now-we are involved and I think we need to stay involved and fulfill our committment to resolve things as much as we possibly can. But this is something we should’ve thought of a long time ago. Some people did.
You think it is just sheer blind luck that we have Iran surrounded now?
Wow, doogie, you must have been a General who planned strategy when you were in the reserves! Brilliant, simply Brilliant, we’ve got em surrounded… whew hoo, our troops can’t drive safely from Camp Freedom to the Baghdad airport, but hey, we’ve got Iran surrounded. Insurgents are still fighting in Afghanistan and Bin Laden’s on the loose, but hey General doogie says don’t worry from my strategic post in Texas (kinda like Georgy) I’m telling ya folks… we’ve got Iran surrounded!!! Why, did you ever leave the reserves? They need your brilliant skills at the Pentagon General doogie![/quote]
So, Elkfucker, are you saying that we’d be in a better strategic position in regards to Iran if we DIDN’T have troops on two of their borders? Please explain that to me.
If you were planning on isolating Iran, how would you have gone about it? No fair using the word “diplomacy” unless you completely explain what you would have done diplomatically.
