|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 6:28 pm
Enough of you trying to convince us the war is lost, enough! You're wrong and I can prove it!
19,000 militant fatilities since '03 -USA TODAY sept 27
"More than 19,000 militants have been killed in fighting with coalition forces since the insurgency began more than 4 years ago"
"The increase in enemy deaths this year reflects more agressive tactics adopted by American forces and an additional 30,000 U.S. troops ordered by the white house this year," The surge is working you quitters! You were skeptical, but how does it feel to be faced with the facts proving you were so wrong!
"There are 25,000 detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq,"
"Since the insurgency began after Baghdad fell in spring 2003, 19,429 militants have been killed in clashes with coalition forces," You still with me liberals?
"The information in the database is only as good as the information entered into it by it's operators on the ground at the time, follow up infromation to make corrections is done whenever possible,"
This is how liberals lost us Vietnam.
I'm trying to prove to you that the left is WRONG. I hate to be so cruel about it but you need to be shocked awake. You need to realize that your party base is blatantly, consistently, and conciously lies to the public in order to embarrass the president. You must see that your party base exists solely to bring down the leaders in Washington. How is that patriotic?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 8:50 pm
I hate to tell you but most of the democrats supported the war. Research your facts next time, the democrats aren't even unanimously against the war and even the ones who are don't do jack s**t about it and obviously don't care that much.
I'm not a liberal but on this one I'll defend anyone against the war (right wingers too, as some are, and many are anti-bush). How does that prove we're winning? We're shooting a bunch of people. So ******** what? Some estimations are of over 500,000 civilian deaths since the begining (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116052896787288831-8l5AMVpCdg07M3w6XdmTXoPuzno_20061109.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top), so what does that prove?
The more soldiers we send, the more enemies are created because when you kill someone who has nay friends or relatives, then those people get angry and want revenge. Just because more of them are dying doesn't mean we're winning. Show some solid evidence. Plus, what would you call victory in Iraq? No one has actually given a clear view of what it was. First we were in to kick out Saddam and find WMDs, then we were in to kill Osama, then we were in to get rid of terrorism, then we were in to stabilize the country, then we were in to install democracy! All the while oil bills are being passed, American companies are covering Iraq, Union leaders are being murdered at the same rate as they were when Saddam was in power, and people are being killed faster (read any decent news source and you'll learn more).
So how is current Iraq better then past Iraq? Sure, kicking Saddam out and leaving would have been a passable excuse, but more people are murdered now then throughout all of Saddam's power.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:01 am
The Leninator! I hate to tell you but most of the democrats supported the war. Research your facts next time, the democrats aren't even unanimously against the war and even the ones who are don't do jack s**t about it and obviously don't care that much. I'm not a liberal but on this one I'll defend anyone against the war (right wingers too, as some are, and many are anti-bush). How does that prove we're winning? We're shooting a bunch of people. So ******** what? Some estimations are of over 500,000 civilian deaths since the begining (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116052896787288831-8l5AMVpCdg07M3w6XdmTXoPuzno_20061109.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top), so what does that prove? The more soldiers we send, the more enemies are created because when you kill someone who has nay friends or relatives, then those people get angry and want revenge. Just because more of them are dying doesn't mean we're winning. Show some solid evidence. Plus, what would you call victory in Iraq? No one has actually given a clear view of what it was. First we were in to kick out Saddam and find WMDs, then we were in to kill Osama, then we were in to get rid of terrorism, then we were in to stabilize the country, then we were in to install democracy! All the while oil bills are being passed, American companies are covering Iraq, Union leaders are being murdered at the same rate as they were when Saddam was in power, and people are being killed faster (read any decent news source and you'll learn more). So how is current Iraq better then past Iraq? Sure, kicking Saddam out and leaving would have been a passable excuse, but more people are murdered now then throughout all of Saddam's power. Dude, I never said democrats, I said liberals, as I'm sure you know there is a difference. Dude the casualty rate for our soldiers vs. them is almost 5:1 thats huge. As far as civilian deaths. I never said war was pretty Sidenote: Watch your mouth leninator As for creating more enemies. Then will kill them too, and then anyone that makes an enemy of. If we have to eliminate Iraq then thats what we will do. Contrary to what Bush has said, Iraq was NEVER about the war on terror, getting rid of saddam and promoting a stable Iraq, and instilling democracy go hand in hand. Saddam NEVER had WMD's in my belief, we went in to PREVENT him from attaining them, because in the past he has proved his willingness to use such agents. Oil companies covering Iraq, such is the magic of capitalism, anyone can seize an opportunity for themselves, the oil companies saw a way to make money and they seized it. You can't blame them for it its human nature to try to expand ones self. Union leaders being killed, thats because we haven't been there long enough People dying faster, see above also in Fadah, one of the previously most violent regions in the country, the civilians decided we don't want these terrorist jerks here and turned them in. Since then (february) there has not been one car bomb in that city. Okay how is present day Iraq better let me walk you through it, In previous Iraq: If you were a dissent, (a communist would be a dissedent) sometime in the middle of the night special forces would bust down your door, rape and kill your family in front of you, drag you away. lash you across the back, legs, and feet with a cane for hours, followed by cutting off your tounge, if you're lucky. If you're unlucky which is the more likely of scenarios, you would be taken to one of two rooms. you would either get the room that is flooded with water and then the water is electrified. or you could get the room with two hooks hanging from the cieling. if you got this room you would be in for the most unpleasant experience known to man. hooks would be sunk into your eyeballs, the hooks would then be slowly lifted until you are dead. So in light of the torture techniques used by saddam's police (I researched them in anticipation of this debate) I would say that present day Iraq is much better for people who don't like whats going on. At least now they can say they don't like what's going on without fear of torture.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:17 pm
It's not that Iraq is lost, it's that it's completely pointless.
They have made it quite clear that they don't want the kind of government we want to install, the people just want us there (some of them at least), like their version of the Cold War: they do nothing while we bankrupt ourselves.
I mean, there are so many more pressing matters outside the middle east:
Burma, Darfur... and yet, we only slap them on the wrist....
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:20 pm
Yukio-Vil It's not that Iraq is lost, it's that it's completely pointless. They have made it quite clear that they don't want the kind of government we want to install, the people just want us there (some of them at least), like their version of the Cold War: they do nothing while we bankrupt ourselves. I mean, there are so many more pressing matters outside the middle east: Burma, Darfur... and yet, we only slap them on the wrist.... If those places are more pressing matters, then why doesn't the rest of the world step up and act to correct those problems?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:00 pm
We ALREADY won in Iraq and Afhganistan.
We are currently OCCUPYING those nations, we are currently experiencing extremely few uprisings, casualties, and terrorists.
Hell, how often does a suicide bomber show up? Every week or so?
Islamics are weak willed, they talk mighty, but they have no real courage. That's why they have to Hide their f***ing bombs and detonate them into civilians like the cowards they are.
However, there is someone more cowardly then the Islamics, the American Liberals and Media. Thanks to these b***ards they lost vietnam, Korea, and probably every war in the future.
Imagine what the world would be like if these, vermin, existed in 1941? OH NOEZ WE LOST 300,000 MEN AGAINST THE JAPANESE AND NAZIS, LET'S GIVE UP!
Utter f***ers, the Japanese gave everything they had to the defence of their country, only to be defeated because they were wrong about the americans giving up from the massive losses.
Yet here we are, just 50 years after that, you b***ards are whining about a mere 3,000 deaths? What, the, F**k.
This is an insult to all the heroes who gave their lives defending their countries, their dreams, their people.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:25 pm
FubarRedFerret We ALREADY won in Iraq and Afhganistan. We are currently OCCUPYING those nations, we are currently experiencing extremely few uprisings, casualties, and terrorists. Hell, how often does a suicide bomber show up? Every week or so? Islamics are weak willed, they talk mighty, but they have no real courage. That's why they have to Hide their f***ing bombs and detonate them into civilians like the cowards they are. However, there is someone more cowardly then the Islamics, the American Liberals and Media. Thanks to these b***ards they lost vietnam, Korea, and probably every war in the future. Imagine what the world would be like if these, vermin, existed in 1941? OH NOEZ WE LOST 300,000 MEN AGAINST THE JAPANESE AND NAZIS, LET'S GIVE UP! Utter f***ers, the Japanese gave everything they had to the defence of their country, only to be defeated because they were wrong about the americans giving up from the massive losses. Yet here we are, just 50 years after that, you b***ards are whining about a mere 3,000 deaths? What, the, F**k. This is an insult to all the heroes who gave their lives defending their countries, their dreams, their people. I heart you Very well said
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:16 pm
Ugh, so much is wrong here. FubarRedFerret We ALREADY won in Iraq and Afhganistan. We are currently OCCUPYING those nations, we are currently experiencing extremely few uprisings, casualties, and terrorists. Hell, how often does a suicide bomber show up? Every week or so? America never won in Afghanistan. You gave up on the country when you invaded Iraq, and left us Canadians (among others) to clean up your damned mess. America is NOT occupying Afghanistan. Iraq? Ha. You don't even control Baghdad, let alone the whole country. A suicide bomb every week (it actually happens more often than that) is a bit more than "extremely few uprisings, casualties, and terrorists". Quote: Islamics are weak willed, they talk mighty, but they have no real courage. That's why they have to Hide their f***ing bombs and detonate them into civilians like the cowards they are. Wow, way to slander an entire religious group there. It's true that some Islamic terrorists have bombed civilians, but, well, the US would be completely innocent of that, right? Yeah, the terrorists hide their bombs, just like American forces hide their bombs in stealth planes. It's not cowardice, it's strategy and common sense. Quote: However, there is someone more cowardly then the Islamics, the American Liberals and Media. Thanks to these b***ards they lost vietnam, Korea, and probably every war in the future. First glaring error here: not everyone opposed to the war is a liberal. Yeah, I know, it conflicts with the idiotic mindset of "If you aren't with my party, you're with that party" that so many Americans seem to have. There's a lot of people opposed to the war who voted for Bush. There's a lot of them who hate Democrats as much as you seem to. They're known as "free thinkers", those insane people who refuse to follow either party's stupidity. So, what makes you so sure that these people caused America to lose in Vietnam? That was was a tactical nightmare to begin with, not unlike Iraq. Quote: Imagine what the world would be like if these, vermin, existed in 1941? OH NOEZ WE LOST 300,000 MEN AGAINST THE JAPANESE AND NAZIS, LET'S GIVE UP! Utter f***ers, the Japanese gave everything they had to the defence of their country, only to be defeated because they were wrong about the americans giving up from the massive losses. Yet here we are, just 50 years after that, you b***ards are whining about a mere 3,000 deaths? What, the, F**k. Yeah, 3,000 deaths, 3,000 families who have lost someone, and 3,000 fewer people to defend America against an actual threat to its security. How petty of me. Oh, and before you start making ridiculous comparisons between Iraq and WWII (whoops, too late), you need to realize that Japan actually attacked the US first. Japan was posing a serious threat to America. Iraq was not, by any stretch of the imagination. There was a point to the US war in Japan. Not so much with Iraq. Quote: This is an insult to all the heroes who gave their lives defending their countries, their dreams, their people. You were the one who said that 3,000 of their deaths didn't matter. Which is more insulting?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:22 pm
Quote: America never won in Afghanistan. You gave up on the country when you invaded Iraq, and left us Canadians (among others) to clean up your damned mess. America is NOT occupying Afghanistan. I am Canadian, but sadly not very patriotic about it. I find it absurd to be patriotic about a country that was founded on cod and beaver, and has contributed almost nil to international history. The only good thing about us was our everlasting loyalty to the English throne. Besides, Canada is the 51st State of the US. We are allies and partners, whatever the yanks do, we should follow along like an obedient little brother we are, lest we get spanked. Quote: Iraq? Ha. You don't even control Baghdad, let alone the whole country. A suicide bomb every week (it actually happens more often than that) is a bit more than "extremely few uprisings, casualties, and terrorists". Baghdad is under full control, as is most of the country. Do you see the Iraqis have any armies? Corps? Divisions? They don't even have a bloody platoon of soldiers. Why? We beat their army into pulp. We are currently fighting partisans, not an army. We already won. Partisans are an annoyance, not a threat. Also, you will notice that the vast majority of Iraqis are not taking up arms. Hell, the french offered more resistance then the Iraqis. Oh fine, I was wrong, 2 suicide bombs a week. Still not many for a country of 27 million people. If there was a suicide bombing every hour, that would be a minor skirmish. Quote: Wow, way to slander an entire religious group there. It's true that some Islamic terrorists have bombed civilians, but, well, the US would be completely innocent of that, right? Yeah, the terrorists hide their bombs, just like American forces hide their bombs in stealth planes. It's not cowardice, it's strategy and common sense At least the US always painted their planes to ensure every knew who was bombing them and why they were being bombed. The Islamic terrorists are disguising themselves as civilians, thus presenting themselves as something you cannot shoot. Hence, completely cowardly, even stealth planes can be detected and fired back at. But how do you determine a civilian is a terrorist before it is too late? Even the french resistance wore armbands as uniforms to distinguish themselves as combatants. So really, these guys arn't following the Geneva convention, which means perhaps we should procede to slaughter all civilians in Iraq as there is no other safe way to eliminate the terrorist threat? You see, the differance between a terrorists and a soldier is that a soldier fights to protect his family and country, a terrorist is someone who hides behind their family and country to fight. Hence, it is the terrorists that are exposing their people to danger. Quote: First glaring error here: not everyone opposed to the war is a liberal. Yeah, I know, it conflicts with the idiotic mindset of "If you aren't with my party, you're with that party" that so many Americans seem to have. There's a lot of people opposed to the war who voted for Bush. There's a lot of them who hate Democrats as much as you seem to. They're known as "free thinkers", those insane people who refuse to follow either party's stupidity. I consider a liberal to be any treehugging hippie. I hate many republicans and conservatives just as much. I am a fascist and you will find no sympathy for many ideologies. Quote: So, what makes you so sure that these people caused America to lose in Vietnam? That was was a tactical nightmare to begin with, not unlike Iraq. Tactical Nightmare? Do you look at a map? Vietnam is a haven for Generals, it is a long, narrow strip of land, no room for manuever, coastline all alolng the country. Whoever has the most powerful ground forces and the ocean wins. And America had both of those. If you look at the casualties, the vietanmese were losing millions of people. The US lost only 50,000. Hardly a "tactical disaster". The war could have been easily won, except the media potrayed the atrocities that were nessecery for ultimate victory. And the Hippie movement killed most of the draftees for the US Military. Quote: Yeah, 3,000 deaths, 3,000 families who have lost someone, and 3,000 fewer people to defend America against an actual threat to its security. How petty of me. They are soldiers, they should be considered dead when they joined up. They should consider it an honour for heroicly sacrificing their blood for the Nation. Besides, 3,000 deaths is an hours worth of combat in WWI and WWII. It is extremely minor, hell you know its minor when they have the time to elaborate on each death on the news. Quote: Oh, and before you start making ridiculous comparisons between Iraq and WWII (whoops, too late), you need to realize that Japan actually attacked the US first. Japan was posing a serious threat to America. Iraq was not, by any stretch of the imagination. There was a point to the US war in Japan. Not so much with Iraq. Spetember 11 was an attack on the Americas, one that caused 3,000 deaths, as comapared to Pearl Harbours 1,000. Also, Japan was not much of a threat, especially since every day, the Japanese sent an offer for a conditional surrender, which the Americans refused until an unconditional surrender was signed. The Japanese plan was to hit America hard enough so as to know that it wouldn't be worth opposing Japanese expansion, then to negotiate and keep the Americans from intervening with their war in China. The Americans entrance into the war was just as silly as the one for invading Iraq, The Japanese are invading and killing the Chinese, and we have knowledge of their Naval Weapons of Mass Destruction, we must destroy them, and they attacked us. Quote: You were the one who said that 3,000 of their deaths didn't matter. Which is more insulting? Yes, I am insulting those 3,000 for their pompous mournings and media scenes. Their children joined the army for a reason. To fight and die, that is what the military exists for. Yet these tarts are complaining when they do their duty to the country and it just so happens that someone they know gets to eat the bullet? The military is not an ordinary job, they should have expected and prepared for it. The military exists to serve national interests and to pay for it in blood. Not for some aspiring student looking for the college money. I however praise the dead of the old for their bravery, and their family for continuing the war effort in spite of the death.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:35 pm
invisibleairwaves Wow, way to slander an entire religious group there. It's true that some Islamic terrorists have bombed civilians, but, well, the US would be completely innocent of that, right? No offense to you, but the Islams are a race of a country, not a religion. She was talking of the Islams, not of the Muslims which are the religion. Radical Islamics are the real threat, yes, but that would be racism and sectionalist and not stereotypical against their religion. Just wanted to point that out. Quote: Yeah, the terrorists hide their bombs, just like American forces hide their bombs in stealth planes. It's not cowardice, it's strategy and common sense. Well said, mate, well said! Quote: First glaring error here: not everyone opposed to the war is a liberal. Yeah, I know, it conflicts with the idiotic mindset of "If you aren't with my party, you're with that party" that so many Americans seem to have. There's a lot of people opposed to the war who voted for Bush. There's a lot of them who hate Democrats as much as you seem to. They're known as "free thinkers", those insane people who refuse to follow either party's stupidity. So, what makes you so sure that these people caused America to lose in Vietnam? That was was a tactical nightmare to begin with, not unlike Iraq. First I want to just ask why you're calling us individualists insane? Just because we're tired of the fued between two parties trying to show each other who does the worst s**t and never proving what they stand for so we leave political parties for good, this makes us insane? Also, we know the Democrats caused us to pull out. Back then the conservatives were all parading around, smoking pot and the liberals were off fighting the wars. The Demos became so pissed off that they were doing all the work that they decided to pull out. Now that the conservatives are actually fighting, the Demos want no part in the wars and are acting like little pussies over everything. Quote: Yeah, 3,000 deaths, 3,000 families who have lost someone, and 3,000 fewer people to defend America against an actual threat to its security. How petty of me. Lol, true, but we can't freak out over them like that idiot woman who lost her son did. She started blaming Bush for the war and so the death of her son...lady, get a grip. There is no draft so your son joined the army on his own accourd. He died honorably, and all your doing is pissing on his grave by disgracing him as such! Quote: Oh, and before you start making ridiculous comparisons between Iraq and WWII (whoops, too late), you need to realize that Japan actually attacked the US first. Japan was posing a serious threat to America. Iraq was not, by any stretch of the imagination. There was a point to the US war in Japan. Not so much with Iraq. Actually at the time we believed Iraq was a threat. They had just bombed the towers, and they were threatening us with WMDs right after an age where they used chemical warfare on their own people. Hell, it wasn't Bush that kept saying they had them, so anyone who wants to say Bush made it up needs to check their facts. Iraq was threatening us with them, so we were in the right by defending ourselves as such. Not only that, but it was Clinton who origianlly said they had WMDs. Bush only continued the job his father started since Clinton was too cowardly. Quote: You were the one who said that 3,000 of their deaths didn't matter. Which is more insulting? Wow, truthful, hurtful, and a burn! NICE!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:47 pm
FubarRedFerret I am Canadian, but sadly not very patriotic about it. I find it absurd to be patriotic about a country that was founded on cod and beaver, and has contributed almost nil to international history. The only good thing about us was our everlasting loyalty to the English throne. And the beer! Don't forget the beer! Lol Quote: Besides, Canada is the 51st State of the US. We are allies and partners, whatever the yanks do, we should follow along like an obedient little brother we are, lest we get spanked. Not really, I mean if you're going to consider it that far then you're more like a colony. I mean, if you were a state then you'd actually get a vote in our government and a say in everything that goes on in the US. As a colony you just get our protection while...we...enjoy your...land... DEAR GOD YOU ARE A COLONY OF THE U.S.! Lol, jk, but you are pretty close to one. If that deal with the Confederacy of US, Canadia and Mexico goes down then we'll be like one big country. Only problem is then Mexico will drag us two down. Oh wait, they do already do by not trying to fix their country and then fleeing in here where they bring their problems with them...I forgot...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:17 am
FubarRedFerret Quote: America never won in Afghanistan. You gave up on the country when you invaded Iraq, and left us Canadians (among others) to clean up your damned mess. America is NOT occupying Afghanistan. I am Canadian, but sadly not very patriotic about it. I find it absurd to be patriotic about a country that was founded on cod and beaver, and has contributed almost nil to international history. The only good thing about us was our everlasting loyalty to the English throne. Besides, Canada is the 51st State of the US. We are allies and partners, whatever the yanks do, we should follow along like an obedient little brother we are, lest we get spanked. I'm patriotic about the Canadian people and the fact that, while our government and Constitution are far from perfect, they're a lot better than they could be. And the thing about Canada obeying the US is grossly overstated. Quote: Baghdad is under full control, as is most of the country. Do you see the Iraqis have any armies? Corps? Divisions? They don't even have a bloody platoon of soldiers. Why? We beat their army into pulp. We are currently fighting partisans, not an army. We already won. Partisans are an annoyance, not a threat. Also, you will notice that the vast majority of Iraqis are not taking up arms. Hell, the french offered more resistance then the Iraqis. Oh fine, I was wrong, 2 suicide bombs a week. Still not many for a country of 27 million people. If there was a suicide bombing every hour, that would be a minor skirmish. Full control? The frequent suicide bombings and IED attacks say otherwise. Yes, the Iraq army is destroyed (and needs to be rebuilt so the Iraqis can be left to themselves), but the problem is that these partisans are not the same as the French in WWII. Iraq is currently in the midst of a civil war causing massive civilian casualties and getting US troops in the crossfire (or simply targeting them outright). And yes, two suicide bombings a week is a lot. Quote: At least the US always painted their planes to ensure every knew who was bombing them and why they were being bombed. The Islamic terrorists are disguising themselves as civilians, thus presenting themselves as something you cannot shoot. Hence, completely cowardly, even stealth planes can be detected and fired back at. But how do you determine a civilian is a terrorist before it is too late? Even the french resistance wore armbands as uniforms to distinguish themselves as combatants. So really, these guys arn't following the Geneva convention, which means perhaps we should procede to slaughter all civilians in Iraq as there is no other safe way to eliminate the terrorist threat? You see, the differance between a terrorists and a soldier is that a soldier fights to protect his family and country, a terrorist is someone who hides behind their family and country to fight. Hence, it is the terrorists that are exposing their people to danger. Yes, it's true that the disguises pose an immense challenge. However, you have to keep in mind that, with every inocent civilian killed, you create several enemies out of the friends and relatives of that civilian. Quote: I consider a liberal to be any treehugging hippie. I hate many republicans and conservatives just as much. I am a fascist and you will find no sympathy for many ideologies. Treehugging hippie? You'll have to be a bit more specific; I don't speak absurdgeneralization-ese. As for the fascism thing, I'd love to debate you on that one as well in a different thread sometime. Quote: Tactical Nightmare? Do you look at a map? Vietnam is a haven for Generals, it is a long, narrow strip of land, no room for manuever, coastline all alolng the country. Whoever has the most powerful ground forces and the ocean wins. And America had both of those. If you look at the casualties, the vietanmese were losing millions of people. The US lost only 50,000. Hardly a "tactical disaster". The war could have been easily won, except the media potrayed the atrocities that were nessecery for ultimate victory. And the Hippie movement killed most of the draftees for the US Military. I know what Vietnam's geography is like, and I know that it's no haven for a foreign invasion. The jungles are thick and treacherous, a nightmare for an invading force. And, whether it's the Russians in WWII, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Vietnamese communists, the fact is that with harsh terrain, the defenders have a massive advantage due to their experience with it. I'd consider losing tens of thousands of highly-trained, well equipped soldiers in a small country to be a disaster. And conscientious objectors were far too small in numbers to have any real impact on the number of draftees. Quote: They are soldiers, they should be considered dead when they joined up. They should consider it an honour for heroicly sacrificing their blood for the Nation. Besides, 3,000 deaths is an hours worth of combat in WWI and WWII. It is extremely minor, hell you know its minor when they have the time to elaborate on each death on the news. With the amazing equipment and training that the US has, no soldier should be considered dead upon joining up. And unfortunately, their sacrifices provide no benefit to the US. The US government is wasting the lives of its soldiers. That's pretty significant, even if it's "only" 3,000 of them. Quote: Spetember 11 was an attack on the Americas, one that caused 3,000 deaths, as comapared to Pearl Harbours 1,000. Also, Japan was not much of a threat, especially since every day, the Japanese sent an offer for a conditional surrender, which the Americans refused until an unconditional surrender was signed. The Japanese plan was to hit America hard enough so as to know that it wouldn't be worth opposing Japanese expansion, then to negotiate and keep the Americans from intervening with their war in China. The Americans entrance into the war was just as silly as the one for invading Iraq, The Japanese are invading and killing the Chinese, and we have knowledge of their Naval Weapons of Mass Destruction, we must destroy them, and they attacked us. Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The war in Iraq is not a response to 9/11. Japan was actually a threat at the time. The Japanese navy was massive, and an invasion of the mainland US was actually possible, unlike in Iraq.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:28 am
Jarc_The_Mighty invisibleairwaves Wow, way to slander an entire religious group there. It's true that some Islamic terrorists have bombed civilians, but, well, the US would be completely innocent of that, right? No offense to you, but the Islams are a race of a country, not a religion. She was talking of the Islams, not of the Muslims which are the religion. Radical Islamics are the real threat, yes, but that would be racism and sectionalist and not stereotypical against their religion. Just wanted to point that out. Islam is another word for the Muslim religion. Quote: First I want to just ask why you're calling us individualists insane? Just because we're tired of the fued between two parties trying to show each other who does the worst s**t and never proving what they stand for so we leave political parties for good, this makes us insane? Also, we know the Democrats caused us to pull out. Back then the conservatives were all parading around, smoking pot and the liberals were off fighting the wars. The Demos became so pissed off that they were doing all the work that they decided to pull out. Now that the conservatives are actually fighting, the Demos want no part in the wars and are acting like little pussies over everything. The "insane" thing was sarcastic, actually...I think both parties suck. Yeah, it's pretty weird how the Republicans used to be the anti-war, isolationist party. Even during the Clinton administration, the Republicans opposed the Democrat attacks on the Middle East. That all changed on 9/11, though. Quote: Lol, true, but we can't freak out over them like that idiot woman who lost her son did. She started blaming Bush for the war and so the death of her son...lady, get a grip. There is no draft so your son joined the army on his own accourd. He died honorably, and all your doing is pissing on his grave by disgracing him as such! Cindy Sheehan? Yeah, she doesn't seem to realize that her son re-enlisted knowing full well that he would probably go to Iraq. If there was a draft, she might have a point, but using her own son's death like that was shameful. Quote: Actually at the time we believed Iraq was a threat. They had just bombed the towers, and they were threatening us with WMDs right after an age where they used chemical warfare on their own people. Hell, it wasn't Bush that kept saying they had them, so anyone who wants to say Bush made it up needs to check their facts. Iraq was threatening us with them, so we were in the right by defending ourselves as such. Not only that, but it was Clinton who origianlly said they had WMDs. Bush only continued the job his father started since Clinton was too cowardly. Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, so they hadn't provoked the invasion. I know that Clinton believed Iraq had WMDs, and I think the problem lies in the intelligence community's mistakes, as well as Bush's over-eagerness to go to war on less-than-trustworthy intel.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:08 pm
Quote: FubarRedFerret Quote: America never won in Afghanistan. You gave up on the country when you invaded Iraq, and left us Canadians (among others) to clean up your damned mess. America is NOT occupying Afghanistan. I am Canadian, but sadly not very patriotic about it. I find it absurd to be patriotic about a country that was founded on cod and beaver, and has contributed almost nil to international history. The only good thing about us was our everlasting loyalty to the English throne. Besides, Canada is the 51st State of the US. We are allies and partners, whatever the yanks do, we should follow along like an obedient little brother we are, lest we get spanked. I'm patriotic about the Canadian people and the fact that, while our government and Constitution are far from perfect, they're a lot better than they could be. And the thing about Canada obeying the US is grossly overstated. Bah, Canada is nothing but a model Colony. It was the most loyal and productive of the English Colonies, and now serves as a model colony for the americans. Canada has never had complete authority on any matter. It is a mere puppet state. Quote: Quote: Baghdad is under full control, as is most of the country. Do you see the Iraqis have any armies? Corps? Divisions? They don't even have a bloody platoon of soldiers. Why? We beat their army into pulp. We are currently fighting partisans, not an army. We already won. Partisans are an annoyance, not a threat. Also, you will notice that the vast majority of Iraqis are not taking up arms. Hell, the french offered more resistance then the Iraqis. Oh fine, I was wrong, 2 suicide bombs a week. Still not many for a country of 27 million people. If there was a suicide bombing every hour, that would be a minor skirmish. Full control? The frequent suicide bombings and IED attacks say otherwise. Yes, the Iraq army is destroyed (and needs to be rebuilt so the Iraqis can be left to themselves), but the problem is that these partisans are not the same as the French in WWII. Iraq is currently in the midst of a civil war causing massive civilian casualties and getting US troops in the crossfire (or simply targeting them outright). And yes, two suicide bombings a week is a lot. 2 a week is not frequent. Let us calulate shall we? Iraqi population: 27,499,638 Number of suicide bombings a week: 2 Percentage of population determined enough to commit suicide in opposition to coalition forces each week: 0.00000007% And this is supposed to be a major threat? Quote: Two polls of Americans have found that between 65% to 85% believe Iraq is in a civil war.[6][7] However, a similar poll of Iraqis found that 61% did not believe that they were in a civil war wikipedia If 61% of the Iraqi populace doesn't think there is a civil war, there clearly isn't. Not to mention there has been an election and a central government. There are no independant factions proclaiming themselves independant from the government and forming their own and seizing control of territory. Quote: Quote: At least the US always painted their planes to ensure every knew who was bombing them and why they were being bombed. The Islamic terrorists are disguising themselves as civilians, thus presenting themselves as something you cannot shoot. Hence, completely cowardly, even stealth planes can be detected and fired back at. But how do you determine a civilian is a terrorist before it is too late? Even the french resistance wore armbands as uniforms to distinguish themselves as combatants. So really, these guys arn't following the Geneva convention, which means perhaps we should procede to slaughter all civilians in Iraq as there is no other safe way to eliminate the terrorist threat? You see, the differance between a terrorists and a soldier is that a soldier fights to protect his family and country, a terrorist is someone who hides behind their family and country to fight. Hence, it is the terrorists that are exposing their people to danger. Yes, it's true that the disguises pose an immense challenge. However, you have to keep in mind that, with every inocent civilian killed, you create several enemies out of the friends and relatives of that civilian. Not really, if you kill all the family and reletives, the problem is solved, ala Ghengis Khan. You don't have to kill all either, just enough for the people to fear you more then their belief. Fear is the best form of crowd control, and Islamics, being as weak willed as they are will be a pushover to intimidate if we procede to torture and terrorize them back. Quote: Quote: I consider a liberal to be any treehugging hippie. I hate many republicans and conservatives just as much. I am a fascist and you will find no sympathy for many ideologies. Treehugging hippie? You'll have to be a bit more specific; I don't speak absurdgeneralization-ese. As for the fascism thing, I'd love to debate you on that one as well in a different thread sometime Any sunnuvagun that believes in Freedom and Equality as the supreme ideals a state must follow. Any fool that believes the common people have the mental capability to lead a nation, or choose someone to lead it, any idiot that believes that peace and diplomacy can solve all problems are considered "treehugging liberal hippies" in my book. Quote: Quote: Tactical Nightmare? Do you look at a map? Vietnam is a haven for Generals, it is a long, narrow strip of land, no room for manuever, coastline all alolng the country. Whoever has the most powerful ground forces and the ocean wins. And America had both of those. If you look at the casualties, the vietanmese were losing millions of people. The US lost only 50,000. Hardly a "tactical disaster". The war could have been easily won, except the media potrayed the atrocities that were nessecery for ultimate victory. And the Hippie movement killed most of the draftees for the US Military. I know what Vietnam's geography is like, and I know that it's no haven for a foreign invasion. The jungles are thick and treacherous, a nightmare for an invading force. And, whether it's the Russians in WWII, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Vietnamese communists, the fact is that with harsh terrain, the defenders have a massive advantage due to their experience with it. I'd consider losing tens of thousands of highly-trained, well equipped soldiers in a small country to be a disaster. And conscientious objectors were far too small in numbers to have any real impact on the number of draftees. Jungles are easily removed, with convenient things like Napalm, Daisycutters, and various chemicals we dropped on the buggers. Not to mention we could have just proceded to bomb the hell out of them, safe in the sky, and simply allow soldiers to defend important cities. The problem is the Military was trying to defend everything. "He who defends everything, defends nothing" Fredrich the Great. Also, the US military at the time was not highly professional and well trained, it goes against the entire premise of a mass army which was nessecery for war against the Soviet Union. Also, a common infantryman only requires 3 months of training, they are not spec-op uber 1337 guys, they are the ordinary groundslogger meant to be the base for any army. Quote: Quote: They are soldiers, they should be considered dead when they joined up. They should consider it an honour for heroicly sacrificing their blood for the Nation. Besides, 3,000 deaths is an hours worth of combat in WWI and WWII. It is extremely minor, hell you know its minor when they have the time to elaborate on each death on the news. With the amazing equipment and training that the US has, no soldier should be considered dead upon joining up. And unfortunately, their sacrifices provide no benefit to the US. The US government is wasting the lives of its soldiers. That's pretty significant, even if it's "only" 3,000 of them. Equipment, yes. Unfortunately any military that depends solely on its equipment is bound to get licked. The Carthiginians had the greatest ships in the Punic wars. Rome copied their design, and built them en masse, and eventually won. The Germans had the most military in europe, so the Russians just copied it and mass produced it. The Japanese had the most developed aircraft carriers and doctrines, the Americans just copied it. As for training, god no. You are not even allowed to beat soldiers anymore, hell we allow WOMEN in the military now. Discipline is horrible, and the military is entirely based upon on risky Blitzkrieg Type Doctrines, which is probably why the US is having so much trouble with the occupation, especially as they cannot use traditional means of partisan suppression (ie: sheer ruthlessness). Quote: Quote: Spetember 11 was an attack on the Americas, one that caused 3,000 deaths, as comapared to Pearl Harbours 1,000. Also, Japan was not much of a threat, especially since every day, the Japanese sent an offer for a conditional surrender, which the Americans refused until an unconditional surrender was signed. The Japanese plan was to hit America hard enough so as to know that it wouldn't be worth opposing Japanese expansion, then to negotiate and keep the Americans from intervening with their war in China. The Americans entrance into the war was just as silly as the one for invading Iraq, The Japanese are invading and killing the Chinese, and we have knowledge of their Naval Weapons of Mass Destruction, we must destroy them, and they attacked us. Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The war in Iraq is not a response to 9/11. Japan was actually a threat at the time. The Japanese navy was massive, and an invasion of the mainland US was actually possible, unlike in Iraq. Close enough, he supported Terrorists. Besides it serves as an excellent strategic position for the US to lay down law in the middle east, needed especially as the Iranians are just asking for a whipping. An Japanese invasion of the US mainland? It was impossible. Not only was it logistically abysmal, the Japanese Army was already preocuupied in China, Burma, Indochina, Indonesia, New Guinea, and India. If there was a next target, it would have been Australia. Think about the sheer cost and waste of oil it would be to supply an army that would be capable of defeating a nation with 5 times more industry and 3 times more people then you, across the pacific ocean, while you are consecutively fighting muliple major nations. The Japanese plan was simple. Hit the Americans hard enough for them to not want to spend money and manpower to stop Japanese Expansion. So no, a Japanese invasion of America is nothing but high fantasy, as much as I wish it wasn't.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:30 am
FubarRedFerret Bah, Canada is nothing but a model Colony. It was the most loyal and productive of the English Colonies, and now serves as a model colony for the americans. Canada has never had complete authority on any matter. It is a mere puppet state. Quote: That's just plain ignorant. In case you haven't noticed, Canada refused to take part in the Iraq invasion. We're demanding billions of dollars of compensation from the US for the softwood lumber tariffs. Insulting the US government in the House of Commons seems to be a favourite pastime of our MP's. Should we assert our independence more often? Absolutely. Are we anywhere near being a "puppet state"? No. Quote: 2 a week is not frequent. Let us calulate shall we? Iraqi population: 27,499,638 Number of suicide bombings a week: 2 Percentage of population determined enough to commit suicide in opposition to coalition forces each week: 0.00000007% And this is supposed to be a major threat? Number of people killed by each suicide bombing: between 1 and >100 Number of people motivated to take part in the civil war due to the loss of family members or friends: You do the math. And that percentage doesn't include IED's, firefights, kidnappings, and all the other threats to US troops and Iraqi civilians. The idea that the country is "under control" is laughable at best. Quote: Not really, if you kill all the family and reletives, the problem is solved, ala Ghengis Khan. You don't have to kill all either, just enough for the people to fear you more then their belief. Fear is the best form of crowd control, and Islamics, being as weak willed as they are will be a pushover to intimidate if we procede to torture and terrorize them back. Yeah, then you've gone and made enemies out of the entire Muslim world (remember, they don't all hate the US yet), not to mention ruined the US's world reputation and more than a few alliances. Talk about an idiotic strategic move. Quote: Any sunnuvagun that believes in Freedom and Equality as the supreme ideals a state must follow. Any fool that believes the common people have the mental capability to lead a nation, or choose someone to lead it, any idiot that believes that peace and diplomacy can solve all problems are considered "treehugging liberal hippies" in my book. I don't believe peace and diplomacy can solve everything (there certainly is a time for war) but I believe firmly in your first two examples. So I guess I'm a treehugging (I'm actually against most of the environmental movement) liberal (last I checked, "liberal" most certainly did not mean "small government") hippie (I wash regularly and can't stand psychedelic music). Sorry, your statement makes absolutely no sense. Try again. Quote: Jungles are easily removed, with convenient things like Napalm, Daisycutters, and various chemicals we dropped on the buggers. Not to mention we could have just proceded to bomb the hell out of them, safe in the sky, and simply allow soldiers to defend important cities. The problem is the Military was trying to defend everything. "He who defends everything, defends nothing" Fredrich the Great. Also, the US military at the time was not highly professional and well trained, it goes against the entire premise of a mass army which was nessecery for war against the Soviet Union. Also, a common infantryman only requires 3 months of training, they are not spec-op uber 1337 guys, they are the ordinary groundslogger meant to be the base for any army. The common American infantryman, even in a time of conscription, was a hell of a lot better than the disorganized Vietnamese were. Quote: Equipment, yes. Unfortunately any military that depends solely on its equipment is bound to get licked. The Carthiginians had the greatest ships in the Punic wars. Rome copied their design, and built them en masse, and eventually won. The Germans had the most military in europe, so the Russians just copied it and mass produced it. The Japanese had the most developed aircraft carriers and doctrines, the Americans just copied it. As for training, god no. You are not even allowed to beat soldiers anymore, hell we allow WOMEN in the military now. Discipline is horrible, and the military is entirely based upon on risky Blitzkrieg Type Doctrines, which is probably why the US is having so much trouble with the occupation, especially as they cannot use traditional means of partisan suppression (ie: sheer ruthlessness). They even allow WOMEN! How terrible! You really are a fascist after all (and I certainly don't use that term in a complimentary way). The problem with all your examples is that they involve the other side copying the technologically superior one. But how are poor Iraqi insurgents with no factories or mechanical skill supposed to match an M1A1 Abrams? They can't. They have to try and figure out its weaknesses, and weaknesses in strategy. Quote: Close enough, he supported Terrorists. Besides it serves as an excellent strategic position for the US to lay down law in the middle east, needed especially as the Iranians are just asking for a whipping. It is pure myth to suggest that Hussein supported the 9/11 hijackers. Since when is it the US's job to "lay down law" around the world? Quote: An Japanese invasion of the US mainland? It was impossible. Not only was it logistically abysmal, the Japanese Army was already preocuupied in China, Burma, Indochina, Indonesia, New Guinea, and India. If there was a next target, it would have been Australia. Think about the sheer cost and waste of oil it would be to supply an army that would be capable of defeating a nation with 5 times more industry and 3 times more people then you, across the pacific ocean, while you are consecutively fighting muliple major nations. The Japanese plan was simple. Hit the Americans hard enough for them to not want to spend money and manpower to stop Japanese Expansion. So no, a Japanese invasion of America is nothing but high fantasy, as much as I wish it wasn't. Remember that, until they joined the war, the US military (and navy in particular) was nowhere near as powerful as it became later. Had the Japanese attack succeeded in destroying the carriers that were supposed to be at Pearl Harbour, the American navy would have been too crippled to repel a Japanese invasion. That wasn't Japan's plan, but the Americans didn't know that.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|