[quote]doogie wrote:
pookie wrote:
If you had 160,000 civilians with handguns over there, you wouldn’t have to worry about pulling out, they’d be nodoby left to pull out.
Almost every man/boy in Iraq has at least 1 machine gun. We allow them to keep 1 per household for protection.[/quote]
Hey doogie, you’re not leaning towards gun controll are you?
Stay the course man, stay the course.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
Does anyone think this will work, or am I a complete nut?
I’ll go with complete nut.
[/quote]
Yeah, that’s where my money is.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
pookie wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
Does anyone think this will work, or am I a complete nut?
I’ll go with complete nut.
Yeah, that’s where my money is.[/quote]
I would be nuts is your view… I’m no where near the liberal-European view of crime. I for the death penalty. I’m for nuclear war. And I’m also for firebombing all of Belgium if she so much as opens a gate to harbour a terrorists.
The liberal attitude on crime and war is going to end soon… should be in about 2 years when the first serious threat comes about. america will wake up as we did in WW2. Right now we are sleeping giants with our pants tied around our ankles taking a ginat dump in the outhouse… meanwhile there are a bunch of rock chucking numnutz throwing boulders at the door disturbing our dumps. what you will see is a bazooka rocket up your ass when we are done taking a shit~e!
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
pookie wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
Does anyone think this will work, or am I a complete nut?
I’ll go with complete nut.
Yeah, that’s where my money is.[/quote]
I would be nuts in your view… I’m no where near the liberal-European view of crime. I’m for the death penalty. I’m for nuclear war. And I’m also for firebombing all of Belgium if she so much as opens a gate to harbour a terrorists.
The liberal attitude on crime and war is going to end soon… should be in about 2 years when the first serious threat comes about. America will wake up as we did in WW2. Right now we are sleeping giants with our pants tied around our ankles taking a giant dump in the outhouse… meanwhile there are a bunch of rock chucking numnutz throwing boulders at the door disturbing our dumps. What you will see is a bazooka rocket up your ass when we are done taking a shit~e!
[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
pookie wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
Does anyone think this will work, or am I a complete nut?
I’ll go with complete nut.
Yeah, that’s where my money is.
I would be nuts in your view… I’m no where near the liberal-European view of crime. I’m for the death penalty. I’m for nuclear war. And I’m also for firebombing all of Belgium if she so much as opens a gate to harbour a terrorists.
The liberal attitude on crime and war is going to end soon… should be in about 2 years when the first serious threat comes about. America will wake up as we did in WW2. Right now we are sleeping giants with our pants tied around our ankles taking a giant dump in the outhouse… meanwhile there are a bunch of rock chucking numnutz throwing boulders at the door disturbing our dumps. What you will see is a bazooka rocket up your ass when we are done taking a shit~e![/quote]
…interesting post.
…you’re totally wrong, of course.
[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
I’m for nuclear war.[/quote]
Maybe you’ll get lucky and someone will detonate a nuclear weapon in Florida one day. Make sure to be close enough to die immediately. Dying of radiation poisoning kinda sucks, I’m told.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
I’m for nuclear war.
Maybe you’ll get lucky and someone will detonate a nuclear weapon in Florida one day. Make sure to be close enough to die immediately. Dying of radiation poisoning kinda sucks, I’m told.
[/quote]
If its me or you buddy… I wouldn’t hesitate for one second to pull the trigger. I’m for nuken’ the whole middle east at this point. I don’t see the problem… its not like their mass producing automibles or televisions… or actually contribute to the world; woops I almost forgot… they produce terrorists. Can never have to many terrorists, they’re a barrel of laughs.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
pookie wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
Does anyone think this will work, or am I a complete nut?
I’ll go with complete nut.
Yeah, that’s where my money is.
I would be nuts in your view… I’m no where near the liberal-European view of crime. I’m for the death penalty. I’m for nuclear war. And I’m also for firebombing all of Belgium if she so much as opens a gate to harbour a terrorists.
The liberal attitude on crime and war is going to end soon… should be in about 2 years when the first serious threat comes about. America will wake up as we did in WW2. Right now we are sleeping giants with our pants tied around our ankles taking a giant dump in the outhouse… meanwhile there are a bunch of rock chucking numnutz throwing boulders at the door disturbing our dumps. What you will see is a bazooka rocket up your ass when we are done taking a shit~e!
…interesting post.
…you’re totally wrong, of course.[/quote]
Of course… my solution doesn’t match yours so it must be wrong. Thank you for correcting me God. Liberalism only goes so far… keep it domestic, once it travels foreign, that’s how we become known as the “people who carry a big stick and don’t have the balls to use it”.
[quote]hedo wrote:
ExNole wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
doogie wrote:
I think we might need to build a few big bases in Kurd territory, then withdraw everyone to there. Be prepared to swoop in and do what we need to do, but keep our troops out of day to day bullshit.
I think that’s a really good idea. I believe that idea has been offered by some generals as well. Getting the work done without being seen as “occupiers” would, I believe, be the key to finishing the job in Iraq.
That was basically Murtha’s idea, only having us outside of the country. We would mainly use airpower to support the Iraqi forces in quelling the insurgency.
He wanted to do it from outside the Middle East…Guam actually. That proposal was ridiculous.
[/quote]
He didn’t say Guam. First Kuwait, then Qatar, then Bahrain,(all in the middle east–opposite of outside fyi) and then Okinawa
he said:
REP. MURTHA: Kuwait?s one that will take us. Qatar, we already have bases in Qatar. So Bahrain. All those countries are willing to take the United States. Now, Saudi Arabia won?t because they wanted us out of there in the first place. So?and we don?t have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa. We, we don?t have?we can redeploy there almost instantly. So that?s not?that?s, that?s a fallacy. That, that?s just a statement to rial up people to support a failed policy wrapped in illusion.
MR. RUSSERT: But it?d be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa.
REP. MURTHA: Well, it?you know, they?when I say Okinawa, I, I?m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And?and?when they don?t know we?re coming. There?s no question about it. And, and where those airplanes won?t?came from I can?t tell you, but, but I?ll tell you one thing, it doesn?t take very long for them to get in with cruise missiles or with, with fighter aircraft or, or attack aircraft, it doesn?t take any time at all. So we, we have done?this one particular operation, to say that that couldn?t have done, done?it was done from the outside, for heaven?s sakes.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The Iraqi people have earned our support. They are our brothers.
“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother;”
from ‘Henry V’[/quote]
Are you about to shed your blood HH?
Didn’t think so.
[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
knewsom wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
pookie wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
Does anyone think this will work, or am I a complete nut?
I’ll go with complete nut.
Yeah, that’s where my money is.
I would be nuts in your view… I’m no where near the liberal-European view of crime. I’m for the death penalty. I’m for nuclear war. And I’m also for firebombing all of Belgium if she so much as opens a gate to harbour a terrorists.
The liberal attitude on crime and war is going to end soon… should be in about 2 years when the first serious threat comes about. America will wake up as we did in WW2. Right now we are sleeping giants with our pants tied around our ankles taking a giant dump in the outhouse… meanwhile there are a bunch of rock chucking numnutz throwing boulders at the door disturbing our dumps. What you will see is a bazooka rocket up your ass when we are done taking a shit~e!
…interesting post.
…you’re totally wrong, of course.
Of course… my solution doesn’t match yours so it must be wrong. Thank you for correcting me God. Liberalism only goes so far… keep it domestic, once it travels foreign, that’s how we become known as the “people who carry a big stick and don’t have the balls to use it”.
[/quote]
If you’re solution is nuclear war, all of a sudden I quite like the problem unsolved, thank you very much.
[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
Of course… my solution doesn’t match yours so it must be wrong. Thank you for correcting me God. Liberalism only goes so far… keep it domestic, once it travels foreign, that’s how we become known as the “people who carry a big stick and don’t have the balls to use it”.
[/quote]
No, your solution is a NON-solution that would create far more problems then it would solve. I don’t think anyone out in the world has a pussified image of the USA - most other countries resent our extreme power and the lightness with which we throw our weight around. When they criticize us, it’s not because they don’t fear us - it’s because they DO. Remember, we are thus far the only country in the history of humanity to use a nuclear device in warfare. THE ONLY ONE.
I’d rather have the balls to sacrifice a few willing young men than nuke an entire civilization.
[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
(1) We were correct in going into Iraq – Saadam trained and supported terrorists and it was only a matter of time before something really bad happened because of this.
That’s crap. It’s Afghanistan you invaded because of terrorist camps, remember? For Iraq it was the bullshit about WMDs even while the U.N. inspectors kept reporting that their was nothing to be found.
You’re so well informed about the issues, you can’t even spell Saddam correctly.[/quote]
At 1AM or 2 AM I am glad if I can spell “a.” lol
Anyway, once again if Bush was wrong on WMD’s tell that to Bill Clinton and his ilk, because he believed that also. [quote]
However, we cannot simply pull out of Iraq now – it would look like a defeat for the U.S. and that would not be good in further deterance of terrorism.
Agreed. Now that you’ve turn the place into a shithole of chaos and violence, you should stay and fix your mess. I really hope that’s what happens, but I think it’s more likely that the troops will be pulled out in the coming years and the region will be left more unstable than it was before you invaded. It will reinforce to the terrorists the image of the US as a “paper tiger” while having alienated a lot of worldwide support you had after 9/11. Yup, Bush really did a bang-up job here.
[/quote]
Easy to talk from Canada when you have us below you to protect you guys. Where would your country be if it weren’t for us? Don’t you realize that you would be a target also?
Terrorists don’t like freedom and free peoples. Evil doesn’t need a reason to kill – they just do.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
(1) We were correct in going into Iraq – Saadam trained and supported terrorists and it was only a matter of time before something really bad happened because of this.
That’s crap. It’s Afghanistan you invaded because of terrorist camps, remember? For Iraq it was the bullshit about WMDs even while the U.N. inspectors kept reporting that their was nothing to be found.
You’re so well informed about the issues, you can’t even spell Saddam correctly.
At 1AM or 2 AM I am glad if I can spell “a.” lol
Anyway, once again if Bush was wrong on WMD’s tell that to Bill Clinton and his ilk, because he believed that also.
However, we cannot simply pull out of Iraq now – it would look like a defeat for the U.S. and that would not be good in further deterance of terrorism.
Agreed. Now that you’ve turn the place into a shithole of chaos and violence, you should stay and fix your mess. I really hope that’s what happens, but I think it’s more likely that the troops will be pulled out in the coming years and the region will be left more unstable than it was before you invaded. It will reinforce to the terrorists the image of the US as a “paper tiger” while having alienated a lot of worldwide support you had after 9/11. Yup, Bush really did a bang-up job here.
Easy to talk from Canada when you have us below you to protect you guys. Where would your country be if it weren’t for us? Don’t you realize that you would be a target also?
Terrorists don’t like freedom and free peoples. Evil doesn’t need a reason to kill – they just do.
[/quote]
SQUAWK WHISTLE TERRORISTS ARE EVIL! TERRORISTS HATE FREEDOM! SQUAWK CANADA WOULD BE NOTHING WITHOUT US! WHISTLE SQUAWK
For fuck’s sake dude, just buy a fuckin’ parrot and save yourself the goddamn time.
[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
we become known as the “people who carry a big stick and don’t have the balls to use it”.[/quote]
There was another thread recommending the documentary “Why We Fight.” It think you should look it up and see all the ways in which you don’t use your big stick.
Your views are not only wrong, but extremely ignorant and regional. If you’re going to comment on world issues, you’d do better to at least be informed about the history, politics and cultures involved in conflicts and tensions throughout the Middle East.
Supporting nuclear annihilation of an entire region of the globe comes off as a reaction similar to a 4 year old who kicks his toys in anger because he can’t have seconds for dessert.
[quote]pookie wrote:
For Iraq it was the bullshit about WMDs even while the U.N. inspectors kept reporting that their was nothing to be found.[/quote]
They were wrong.
Both in fact and in theory.
JeffR
[quote]knewsom wrote:
SQUAWK WHISTLE TERRORISTS ARE EVIL! TERRORISTS HATE FREEDOM! SQUAWK CANADA WOULD BE NOTHING WITHOUT US! WHISTLE SQUAWK
For fuck’s sake dude, just buy a fuckin’ parrot and save yourself the goddamn time.[/quote]
I think it might be a good idea for YOU to be careful when castigating guys who parrot talking points. The whole glass house thing.
For example:
SQUAWK WHISTLE halliburton SQUAWK**WHISTLE Cheney SQUAWK**WHISTLEWMD*
Other key words: dumb, stolen election, my rights, police action, etc…
You know the drill.
JeffR
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
At 1AM or 2 AM I am glad if I can spell “a.” lol[/quote]
Yeah, laugh it off. The rest of it is spelled correctly, isn’t it? It’s almost as if you’d done very little reading about the whole situation and were simply content with parroting the sound bites Fox News gives you to pass off as “thinking deep and hard about the issues.”
I’d buy it for Ahmadinejad or even Nasrallah, but Saddam? I don’t think so.
If you weren’t there, we’d still be right here. We’d probably have a larger army and that’s it.
If we’re a target, it’s because some might see us as complicit with some of your foreign policies. Good thing we had enough sense to stay out of Iraq.
I’m flabbergasted that an adult can spout such ludicrous drivel and be entirely serious.
Yay! JeffRo the clown has arrived to amuse us! Tell us your loony tales, JeffRo! Make us laugh!
[quote]JeffR wrote:
They were wrong.
Both in fact and in theory.
JeffR[/quote]
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The Iraqi people have earned our support. They are our brothers.
“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother;”
from ‘Henry V’
Are you about to shed your blood HH?
Didn’t think so.[/quote]
Still hiding out in Brussels, while real men defend civilisation, eh Wreckless? Keep hiding, we’ll protect you.