Here are two new threads started by iamroot;
1. Violence Leads to Violence - Violence leads to violence which leads to a resolution! Wars are ended when one side loses the will to fight! By not supporting your country in this time of need, you are helping the terrorists win the war!
2. Iraqi underground backed by Iran - The other day, soldiers stopped a truck that was carrying Irani weapons to the iraqi underground insurgency. I have long speculated that Iran may of been supporting the insurgency, but this may be a piece of evidence that proves it. Who here believes the insurgency may be backed by Iran. Keep in mind, the insurgents have stepped up there attacks in effectiveness.
These two threads kind of contradict each other. In one you are saying that retaliation to violence leads to stopping violence (which is laughable). Then in another you are saying that Iran is helping Iraq which to me seems to be indicating more violence. And to top it off, you say that the insurgents have stepped up there attacks in effectiveness (this doesn’t seem to indicate that Iraq is “losing” the will to fight)? Which one is it?
Originally posted by Shonkytonkwell no answer is one form of evidence, isn't it.
Here are two new threads started by iamroot;
1. Violence Leads to Violence - Violence leads to violence which leads to a resolution! Wars are ended when one side loses the will to fight! By not supporting your country in this time of need, you are helping the terrorists win the war!
2. Iraqi underground backed by Iran - The other day, soldiers stopp ...[text shortened]... veness (this doesn’t seem to indicate that Iraq is “losing” the will to fight)? Which one is it?
Originally posted by ShonkytonkThis entire thread is pointless. Clearly if you do not understand what I am trying to say, then you are the one who is confused.
Here are two new threads started by iamroot;
1. Violence Leads to Violence - Violence leads to violence which leads to a resolution! Wars are ended when one side loses the will to fight! By not supporting your country in this time of need, you are helping the terrorists win the war!
2. Iraqi underground backed by Iran - The other day, soldiers stopp ...[text shortened]... veness (this doesn’t seem to indicate that Iraq is “losing” the will to fight)? Which one is it?
1. If you do not retaliate for violence, then the one who committed the violence will think that he can do what he wants without retaliation. For instance, if it was legal to kill everywhere, without going to jail, then I would bet most of all of us would be murderers. The threat of consequence acts as a deterent.
2. I never said that the insurgents are losing the will to fight. The entire point of my thread was that we are losing the will to fight. Because of all the war protestors in america, the insurgents can see a way to win the war: if they drag it on long enough, the popularity of it will drop so much that the US will be forced to pull out. Also, the Iran thread has nothing to do with the retaliation->resolution thread, because one was meant to be a statement, and the other was meant to be a debate.
Another thing, don't be a fag and try to kick me in the balls. This would of been appropriate to post in my retaliation-> resolution thread. There was no point in making a new thread about it, unless you were trying to make me look like an idiot. IMO, it is you who looks like an idiot, which is the reason I did not post in this thread at first.
Originally posted by iamrootCan i kick you in the balls? Please?
This entire thread is pointless. Clearly if you do not understand what I am trying to say, then you are the one who is confused.
1. If you do not retaliate for violence, then the one who committed the violence will think that he can do what he wants without retaliation. For instance, if it was legal to kill everywhere, without going to jail, then I w ...[text shortened]... , it is you who looks like an idiot, which is the reason I did not post in this thread at first.
Nah you dont have any do you?
yes, actually you can kick me in the balls. Anyone who feels like it has the freedom to come up and kick me in the balls, anytime they want to, thanks to people like me who fight for their country.
But on the other hand, I exercise my right to bear arms, and you will have to find a way to deal with that if you want to kick me in the balls and live to tell someone about it.
**edit
I don't have any you say? Then what was the point of calling me a d*ckhead? The last time I checked, dicks have balls. Maybe you are more confused then you originally thought.
Originally posted by iamrootMacho macho man! I want to be, a macho man! Have you ever heard of SMS? Small Man Syndrome? I think you have it.
yes, actually you can kick me in the balls. Anyone who feels like it has the freedom to come up and kick me in the balls, anytime they want to, thanks to people like me who fight for their country.
But on the other hand, I exercise my right to bear arms, and you will have to find a way to deal with that if you want to kick me in the balls and live to tel ...[text shortened]... last time I checked, dicks have balls. Maybe you are more confused then you originally thought.
Originally posted by ShonkytonkI don't attack people who do not share my ideas, extremists do. I attack people who attack me, which is what TRUE americans do.
Exactly, so why do you feel the need to attack everyone who does not share your right wing....sorry, redneck views?
And how did you prove me wrong?
And how did I prove you wrong? Read my post. I don't think it is neccessary to repeat myself in a forum, as I what I have already said still stands.
Originally posted by iamrootYou attacked me first because you think i am a "liberal". Just like you attack ANYONE who is a "liberal" even if they are not even speaking to you.
I don't attack people who do not share my ideas, extremists do. I attack people who attack me, which is what TRUE americans do.
And how did I prove you wrong? Read my post. I don't think it is neccessary to repeat myself in a forum, as I what I have already said still stands.
Originally posted by jammerIf i could give you a rec, I would.
I see the liberals have reverted to there best form of "debate" ... personal, adolecent namecalling.
When you have no facts ... dazzle them with bullshite.
Deep.
..................
Of course violence will lead to more violence.
You hit me. I hit you back. Back and forth 'til someone is knocked out or quits. Maybe you win, so I sneek up on you later a ...[text shortened]... 'd kinda like to see the Europinkies over run by the Huns just one more time.
They deserve it.
Which is mightier, the pen or the sword?
It all depends on how you use them?
In a fight, the pen is by far mightier than the sword. A war of words can defeat an army faster than the blitzkrieg took Paris.
But, a statement etched in blood from the tip of a sword will definately grab the people's attention away from a news article written in ink.
Originally posted by iamrootBoy you really are confused.
If i could give you a rec, I would.
Which is mightier, the pen or the sword?
It all depends on how you use them?
In a fight, the pen is by far mightier than the sword. A war of words can defeat an army faster than the blitzkrieg took Paris.
But, a statement etched in blood from the tip of a sword will definately grab the people's attention away from a news article written in ink.
So how is that vengence thing working out?
And where does it end?
Is one hundred thousand Iraqi deaths sufficient for two thousand American dead or do we need to get that ration up to 100:1?
When you are finished playing god will you turn some water in to wine or do you just have the vengence part of being god down so far.
p.s. spend the pennies to join and you can rec whoever you want.