Page 15 of 22
Posted: 23 Jan 2009 16:51
by Drunken Idaho
Freakzilla wrote:SandRider wrote:so you're saying that morally "we" are no better than "them" ?
I'm saying this is WAR, not a god damned tea party.
War for what reason?
War for the sake of war?
That's bullshit.
Too much pride in most Americans. No one wants to admit that there never should have been a war in the first place and that they should just back down. Nope. That would show weakness. Can't have that, we're America! In the meantime, we're gonna pretend like we were right all along!
Posted: 23 Jan 2009 17:00
by Freakzilla
Drunken Idaho wrote:Freakzilla wrote:SandRider wrote:so you're saying that morally "we" are no better than "them" ?
I'm saying this is WAR, not a god damned tea party.
War for what reason?
War for the sake of war?
That's bullshit.
Too much pride in most Americans. No one wants to admit that there never should have been a war in the first place and that they should just back down. Nope. That would show weakness. Can't have that, we're America! In the meantime, we're gonna pretend like we were right all along!
So it's wrong to hunt down the people that attack us? I don't think so.
Should we just say thanks for killing thousands of innocent civillians please kill more? I don't think so.
I think we need some MORE pride.
Posted: 23 Jan 2009 17:00
by Drunken Idaho
Freakzilla wrote:Drunken Idaho wrote:As far as I'm concerned, military combatants, and these people were picked up in Afghanastan while trying to do harm to our troops, do not deserve rights and in my opinion are lucky to be alive at all. Prison is too good for them. The only reason they are alive is for interrogation.
Oh, our troops! Our precious infallible troops who must not be harmed as they walk all over other countries! Damn to hell ANYONE who tries to stick up for themselves in the face of out glorious troops!
Please.
Don't tell me that you wouldn't support a little fighting back if your country was being occupied, and your towns were being fucked up by some outside force, all because they were looking for ONE GUY who might have been behind an attack on their homeland. Even if you didn't fight, you'd be damned proud to see others do so.
This is what I mean when I say it's all relative.
So the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are OK by you? That's not one person. We are not fighting freedom fighters over there. Ask the women. We are not trying to overthrow their government, they have violated our and their own people's humanitarian rights.
They need to either turn over the terrorists or get out of the way.
Of course they're not alright, they hate people like me! I'm just saying that no one wants to man up by backing down. If the US was really the peace-loving, diplomatic, freedom-promoting country they like to think they are, then they'll back off and pull their nose out of the Middle East. Fortunately, that has begun, to a certain degree... If it's war you want, then you have more Afghani-Pakistani Action to look forward to, because apparently that's what Obama's looking to refocus our war efforts on.
Hopefully diplomacy will prevail when it comes to Iran though.
Posted: 23 Jan 2009 17:06
by Freakzilla
Drunken Idaho wrote:Freakzilla wrote:Drunken Idaho wrote:As far as I'm concerned, military combatants, and these people were picked up in Afghanastan while trying to do harm to our troops, do not deserve rights and in my opinion are lucky to be alive at all. Prison is too good for them. The only reason they are alive is for interrogation.
Oh, our troops! Our precious infallible troops who must not be harmed as they walk all over other countries! Damn to hell ANYONE who tries to stick up for themselves in the face of out glorious troops!
Please.
Don't tell me that you wouldn't support a little fighting back if your country was being occupied, and your towns were being fucked up by some outside force, all because they were looking for ONE GUY who might have been behind an attack on their homeland. Even if you didn't fight, you'd be damned proud to see others do so.
This is what I mean when I say it's all relative.
So the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are OK by you? That's not one person. We are not fighting freedom fighters over there. Ask the women. We are not trying to overthrow their government, they have violated our and their own people's humanitarian rights.
They need to either turn over the terrorists or get out of the way.
Of course they're not alright, they hate people like me! I'm just saying that no one wants to man up by backing down. If the US was really the peace-loving, diplomatic, freedom-promoting country they like to think they are, then they'll back off and pull their nose out of the Middle East. Fortunately, that has begun, to a certain degree... If it's war you want, then you have more Afghani-Pakistani Action to look forward to, because apparently that's what Obama's looking to refocus our war efforts on.
Hopefully diplomacy will prevail when it comes to Iran though.
Even our Generals agree with you and say we should move the Marines to Afghanastan
If you know any American History or have even watched an American news broadcast, I don't see how you could call us peace-loving. Americans love a good fight and don't like to back down from one.
Posted: 23 Jan 2009 17:11
by Drunken Idaho
Freakzilla wrote:Drunken Idaho wrote:Freakzilla wrote:SandRider wrote:so you're saying that morally "we" are no better than "them" ?
I'm saying this is WAR, not a god damned tea party.
War for what reason?
War for the sake of war?
That's bullshit.
Too much pride in most Americans. No one wants to admit that there never should have been a war in the first place and that they should just back down. Nope. That would show weakness. Can't have that, we're America! In the meantime, we're gonna pretend like we were right all along!
So it's wrong to hunt down the people that attack us? I don't think so.
Should we just say thanks for killing thousands of innocent civillians please kill more? I don't think so.
I think we need some MORE pride.
We're talking about people picked up mostly in Iraq! bin Laden
might have been responsible. The only reason bush was in Iraq was because of WMD's. Then, it was establishing democracy. WTF does that have to do with 9/11???
And if any of them are as guilty as you're convinced that they are, where are the trials?
Posted: 23 Jan 2009 17:13
by Drunken Idaho
Freakzilla wrote:Americans love a good fight and don't like to back down from one.
That's the spirit.
Posted: 23 Jan 2009 17:18
by Freakzilla
Drunken Idaho wrote:Freakzilla wrote:Americans love a good fight and don't like to back down from one.
That's the spirit.
I make no excuses, that's just the way it is.
We've got to keep our heads until this peace craze blows over.
Posted: 23 Jan 2009 17:23
by Freakzilla
Drunken Idaho wrote:Freakzilla wrote:Drunken Idaho wrote:Freakzilla wrote:SandRider wrote:so you're saying that morally "we" are no better than "them" ?
I'm saying this is WAR, not a god damned tea party.
War for what reason?
War for the sake of war?
That's bullshit.
Too much pride in most Americans. No one wants to admit that there never should have been a war in the first place and that they should just back down. Nope. That would show weakness. Can't have that, we're America! In the meantime, we're gonna pretend like we were right all along!
So it's wrong to hunt down the people that attack us? I don't think so.
Should we just say thanks for killing thousands of innocent civillians please kill more? I don't think so.
I think we need some MORE pride.
We're talking about people picked up mostly in Iraq!
Where is that info from?
bin Laden might have been responsible.
So you disregard his video tap claiming responsibility?
The only reason bush was in Iraq was because of WMD's. Then, it was establishing democracy. WTF does that have to do with 9/11???
We've already been over that. There were older WMDs, and he had years to get rid of the newer ones thanks to the UN.
And if any of them are as guilty as you're convinced that they are, where are the trials?
I assume they're there because they were caputered on the battlefied and given a military tribunal. Like I said, they don't deserve rights granted by our Constitution.
Posted: 23 Jan 2009 17:40
by A Thing of Eternity
Kinda scary sometimes, this world and those in it.
I need a smiley shaking it's head for this one.
Posted: 23 Jan 2009 17:41
by Freakzilla
A Thing of Eternity wrote:Kinda scary sometimes, this world and those in it.
Someone should sell tickets.
Posted: 23 Jan 2009 17:43
by A Thing of Eternity
Freakzilla wrote:A Thing of Eternity wrote:Kinda scary sometimes, this world and those in it.
Someone should sell tickets.
Tickets are free. The tough part is giving them away when you're sick of watching the madness.
Posted: 23 Jan 2009 18:29
by Drunken Idaho
Freakzilla wrote:Drunken Idaho wrote:Freakzilla wrote:Drunken Idaho wrote:Freakzilla wrote:SandRider wrote:so you're saying that morally "we" are no better than "them" ?
I'm saying this is WAR, not a god damned tea party.
War for what reason?
War for the sake of war?
That's bullshit.
Too much pride in most Americans. No one wants to admit that there never should have been a war in the first place and that they should just back down. Nope. That would show weakness. Can't have that, we're America! In the meantime, we're gonna pretend like we were right all along!
So it's wrong to hunt down the people that attack us? I don't think so.
Should we just say thanks for killing thousands of innocent civillians please kill more? I don't think so.
I think we need some MORE pride.
We're talking about people picked up mostly in Iraq!
Where is that info from?
bin Laden might have been responsible.
So you disregard his video tap claiming responsibility?
The only reason bush was in Iraq was because of WMD's. Then, it was establishing democracy. WTF does that have to do with 9/11???
We've already been over that. There were older WMDs, and he had years to get rid of the newer ones thanks to the UN.
And if any of them are as guilty as you're convinced that they are, where are the trials?
I assume they're there because they were caputered on the battlefied and given a military tribunal. Like I said, they don't deserve rights granted by our Constitution.
I get the info solely from the fact that more troops are are in Iraq than in afghanistan, and it's been that way pretty much since they started the Iraq invasion. I don't have statistics on that (I'm sure they exist somewhere), I'm just guessing by the amount of effort put into Iraq. The Afghani war was basically the US feinting. The real target was Saddam. The whole time.
I find it pretty damned likely that bin Laden is responsible, but just because he claims it so doesn't make it true. Maybe he thinks he was the mastermind, but certain corporate-minded leaders of America felt that the threat would be a good opportunity to go back into the middle east. The intelligence was in front of them, and they let it happen. You think it's genetics that caused both Bushes to invade Iraq? No, both found lame escuses to step in (Kuwait, Connections with Al Queida), to serve their hidden agendas. For all we know, the master plan was eventually to strike at Iran. I'm sure we can all understand the concept of feints within feints.
You probably think I'm being radical here, but you should really consider this, because I do believe there is truth to A LOT of it. Look into Operation Northwoods. That's a good start.
Posted: 23 Jan 2009 21:52
by Nebiros
The reason I point out that Obama opposed the war in Iraq before it started is that he will not repeat the mistake Bush made by going to war based on lies. He will be a better judge at when to use military action. Military action will be used only as a last resort if all diplomatic efforts fail.
Freak you claim that you are all for diplomacy but that talk can only do so much. And yet you oppose talking to Iran. That pre-conditions bullshit that McCain spouted is not how diplomacy works. Do as we say or we will not talk to you! It shows that only your interests matter and not theirs. Not talking to your enemies only makes things worse. Diplomacy can stall or postpone war. Diplomacy will not make you LESS safe.
Freak, if you are not against diplomacy tell me what you thought about Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas last year. I heard that the Bush administration and many conservatives were irritated at what he did. You may think his efforts were fruitless, but how did he harm America's national security by trying? Hopefully you will surprise me and say you did support his attempt at diplomacy.
Now, it is true that there has been some minor and indirect diplomacy with Iran through the UN and European nations but my answer is: Try harder stupid. The United States should engage in full diplomacy instead of just spout demands.
I hope Obama does send Hillary Clinton to Iran to talk to Ahmadinejad. I wish I could see the look on the faces of the neo-conservatives when they see Hillary Clinton shake hands with Ahmadinejad!
Posted: 27 Jan 2009 13:15
by Freakzilla
What experience does Obama have to base military decisions on? He barely has any experience AT ALL. Oh yeah, he's from Chicago, which had more murders last year than the US Millitary had casualties in Iraq. He will have to rely on his chiefs of staff, just like GW did, and could very well make the same mistakes. He can't even bring himself to say "War on Terror" and is already demonstrating weakness. Arab leaders are not going to care how good Obama's speaking ability is or who played at his innauguration.
The US has a policy of not making deals with terrorists. That includes states that sponsor terrorists.
If Jimmy Carter had coordinated his effort with the White House I'd have been all for it. Otherwise he should go back to the peanut farm.
Oh yeah, Hillary gets along great with Arab leaders... BECAUSE THEY GIVE HER MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
Often, I must speak otherwise than I think. That is called diplomacy.
~Stilgar
Posted: 27 Jan 2009 13:16
by Freakzilla
Posted: 27 Jan 2009 14:31
by Seraphan
I dont think the USA should get out of the middle east; as much as i hate to admit it, very few countries in the middle east are capable to fend for themselves. How many years was Afghanistan under the Taliban regime? The giant fuck up the American government did was when they didnt support the local militias when they needed. That and obviously the sloppy Iraq invasion.
But i'd like to ask; if removing opressive regimes is the big goal, why isnt it an United Nations effort? Why isnt China suffering embargoes? Why did they let China obtain nuclear weapons in the first place?
Edit:
A Thing of Eternity wrote:Tickets are free. The tough part is giving them away when you're sick of watching the madness.
Sig worthy
Posted: 27 Jan 2009 14:39
by Freakzilla
Seraphan wrote:But i'd like to ask; if removing opressive regimes is the big goal, why isnt it an United Nations effort?
United who??? Like it would matter. All they do is say, "Stop it, or I'll tell you to stop again!".
Why isnt China suffering embargoes?
Because they have lots of money and are fast becoming the largest consumer group.
Why did they let China obtain nuclear weapons in the first place?
Wasn't my idea!
Posted: 27 Jan 2009 17:22
by Freakzilla
President Obama's $825B stimulus bill is enough money to:
Give every American mortgage holder $17,000
or
Buy every American gasoline for five years.
Which would stimulate the economy more, that or letting Congress spend it?
We can't even account for the $350B they just spent!
I'll take the $17K, OK THANKS!
Posted: 27 Jan 2009 17:24
by SandRider
hate to throw truth and honesty into a political discussion,
but you know this story's been debunked about a thousand
time over now, right ?
and christ, let's not worry about the prisoners at Gitmo.
the ones that are worth trying are going to be transferred to
the rolling gulag in the Federal Prison System and just disappear.
the rest will be sent to their home countries for summary execution.
by this time next year, the American public will have forgotten all about it ...
Posted: 27 Jan 2009 17:34
by Freakzilla
SandRider wrote:and christ, let's not worry about the prisoners at Gitmo.
I'm not, really. It's just a PR stunt.
Posted: 27 Jan 2009 17:45
by SandRider
I know this.
But it's back to the Culture of Fear issue again ....
I hate it when my Party does it, too.
That's one of the things that so attracted me to the (early) Obama
campaign. Obama simply said "Yes, we can"
everybody else said "You better not, you'll kill us all !"
after the Party hacks & regulars go ahold of the campaign, after
March, the tone changed somewhat, to my dismay. Barack himself
still seemed to keep an even keel. A lot of the fear-mongering attacks
seemed to roll off him like water on a duck's back.
You don't remeber this, but I'm sure you know of it - the 1964
Johnson ad against Goldwater with the little girl playing in a field
of flowers ? She looks up, and a mushroom cloud spouts on the horizon.
I was a Kennedy democrat back, supporting Johnson for the hell of it, but
I'll tell you, I was mad at all fuck at that ad. Even back then, I was seeing
this Culture of Fear bullshit and just knowing it wasn't good for the country....
Posted: 27 Jan 2009 17:54
by A Thing of Eternity
SandRider wrote:I know this.
But it's back to the Culture of Fear issue again ....
I hate it when my Party does it, too.
That's one of the things that so attracted me to the (early) Obama
campaign. Obama simply said "Yes, we can"
everybody else said "You better not, you'll kill us all !"
after the Party hacks & regulars go ahold of the campaign, after
March, the tone changed somewhat, to my dismay. Barack himself
still seemed to keep an even keel. A lot of the fear-mongering attacks
seemed to roll off him like water on a duck's back.
You don't remeber this, but I'm sure you know of it - the 1964
Johnson ad against Goldwater with the little girl playing in a field
of flowers ? She looks up, and a mushroom cloud spouts on the horizon.
I was a Kennedy democrat back, supporting Johnson for the hell of it, but
I'll tell you, I was mad at all fuck at that ad. Even back then, I was seeing
this Culture of Fear bullshit and just knowing it wasn't good for the country....
That's all I ever saw growing up (looking down at the US), that culture of fear is what
defines the USA in the eyes of most the people I know. I honestly can't imagine the US without, though I'd love to see it one day.
Of course, those who buy into it will insist that those of us who aren't afraid of... everything... aren't facing the truth, and that's exactly what we'll say about them, so it turns into a big useless circular conversation pretty quickly.
Posted: 27 Jan 2009 20:08
by Nebiros
What experience does Obama have to base military decisions on? He barely has any experience AT ALL. Oh yeah, he's from Chicago, which had more murders last year than the US Millitary had casualties in Iraq. He will have to rely on his chiefs of staff, just like GW did, and could very well make the same mistakes. He can't even bring himself to say "War on Terror" and is already demonstrating weakness. Arab leaders are not going to care how good Obama's speaking ability is or who played at his innauguration.
You do not need to serve in uniform to make good judgements. He will listen to his advisors indeed. What he will
NOT do is insist to intelligence gathering that he is correct and pressure them to tell him what he wants to hear. "I
KNOW there are weapons of mass destruction! Tell me what I want to hear or you're all fired!" This is what George Bush did.
Plus Robert Gates is much more competent and reliable than that idiot Donald Rumsfelt.
I said this before and I'll say it again: George Bush should have let Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors finish their inspections. Bush WANTED to go to war and he knew that if the UN concluded that there were no weapons of mass destruction, he would have no excuse to invade Iraq.
Posted: 28 Jan 2009 00:13
by SandRider
Nebiros wrote:What experience does Obama have to base military decisions on? He barely has any experience AT ALL. Oh yeah, he's from Chicago, which had more murders last year than the US Millitary had casualties in Iraq. He will have to rely on his chiefs of staff, just like GW did, and could very well make the same mistakes. He can't even bring himself to say "War on Terror" and is already demonstrating weakness. Arab leaders are not going to care how good Obama's speaking ability is or who played at his innauguration.
You do not need to serve in uniform to make good judgements. He will listen to his advisors indeed. What he will
NOT do is insist to intelligence gathering that he is correct and pressure them to tell him what he wants to hear. "I
KNOW there are weapons of mass destruction! Tell me what I want to hear or you're all fired!" This is what George Bush did.
Plus Robert Gates is much more competent and reliable than that idiot Donald Rumsfelt.
I said this before and I'll say it again: George Bush should have let Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors finish their inspections. Bush WANTED to go to war and he knew that if the UN concluded that there were no weapons of mass destruction, he would have no excuse to invade Iraq.
Robert Gates was the number two asshole at the CIA under Bill Casey,
who started the whole "tailor intelligence to fit the President's agenda" bullshit
for Reagan in the 1980s. If anything, this has shown me Obama is getting
bad, bad, fucking advice from jump street.
Robert Gates shouldn't be kept on as SecDef. Robert Gates should be in Federal Prison.
Posted: 28 Jan 2009 06:52
by Seraphan
Nebiros wrote:I said this before and I'll say it again: George Bush should have let Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors finish their inspections. Bush WANTED to go to war and he knew that if the UN concluded that there were no weapons of mass destruction, he would have no excuse to invade Iraq.
But there were WMDs. At the time of the Iran-Iraq war, the US government supplied Saddam with those weapons. Guess who was in it?
From Wiki:
During his period as Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East (November 1983–May 1984), Rumsfeld was the most senior conduit for crucial American military intelligence, hardware and strategic advice to Saddam Hussein, then fighting Iran in the Iran–Iraq War. The United States' pro-Iraq policy was adopted when the tide of the Iran–Iraq War turned strongly in Iran's favor, and it looked as if Iran might overrun Iraq completely. Although the United States was hesitant to support a Soviet client state, the prospect of greatly expanded Iranian influence in the region outweighed these concerns. When Rumsfeld visited Baghdad on December 19–December 20, 1983, he and Saddam Hussein had a 90-minute discussion that covered Syria's occupation of Lebanon, preventing Syrian and Iranian expansion, preventing arms sales to Iran by foreign countries, increasing Iraqi oil production via a possible new oil pipeline across Jordan. According to declassified U.S. State Department documents Rumsfeld also informed Tariq Aziz (Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister) that: "Our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us ... citing the use of chemical weapons."[32] Rumsfeld brought many gifts from the Reagan administration to Saddam Hussein. These gifts included pistols, medieval spiked hammers and a pair of golden cowboy spurs. Until the 1991 Gulf War, these were all displayed at Saddam Hussein's Victory Museum in Baghdad which held all the gifts bestowed on Saddam by friendly national leaders.[33]
During his brief bid for the 1988 Republican nomination, Rumsfeld stated that restoring full relations with Iraq was one of his best achievements. This was not a particularly controversial position at the time, when U.S. policy considered supporting a totalitarian yet secular Iraq an effective bulwark against the expansion of Iranian revolutionary Islamist influence.