1 edit
Originally posted by CliffLandinIts not 100,000 iraqi dead, it is no more than 27,000 dead. And of those 27000, coalition forces are responsible for few of them.
Boy you really are confused.
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.
So, you should be asking, are 27000 more people going to have to die, before people see that the US is in the right? Or, will the terrorists have to come to america too, and strap an IED to your daughter, and blow her up when you try to help her.
Originally posted by iamrootCan you back that 27,000 number up with more than one source (preferrably not a website as we all know you can put whatever you want on a website and that doesn't make it fact)
Its not 100,000 iraqi dead, it is no more than 27,000 dead. And of those 27000, coalition forces are responsible for few of them.
So, you should be asking, are 27000 more people going to have to die, before people see that the US is in the right? Or, will the terrorists have to come to america too, and strap an IED to your daughter, and blow her up when you try to help her.
So you think that if we keep killing people that they will come to embrace us? I don't really like to devolve to name calling but are you really that stupid?
When Timothy McVey blew up the Murrah building did you want to go and take out Michigan? Or maybe you felt that we should take out the militia that he was a member of. Or is it okay to kill Americans as long as you are American?
As far as the US being right, well, right wing maybe, but in the right... I'm sorry I couldn't type because I was laughing too hard.
What, exactly, do you think our justification for going to war with Iraq was? If you say breaking UN sanctions then you are an idiot. N.Korea and Iran break those same sanctions every year, but we ain't going in to war with them because they can bite back.
If you say it was to unseat a despotic regime, why did we start there? Why didn't we once again attack N.Korea or number two on the list of human rights violators, Saudi Arabia.
The fact is you believed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. They didn't. You also swallowed the weapons of mass destruction and trying to by yellow cake nuclear materials arguements. The fact is, you were duped and now you have to back up your beliefs by changing the facts.
Be a man. Admit you were wrong.
And by the way God isn't on the side of anyone that is killing others. Us or them.
Originally posted by CliffLandin1. try iraqi body count. it is a website, but what do you expect me to do on an INTERNET FORUM, mail you a book?
Can you back that 27,000 number up with more than one source (preferrably not a website as we all know you can put whatever you want on a website and that doesn't make it fact)
So you think that if we keep killing people that they will come to embrace us? I don't really like to devolve to name calling but are you really that stupid?
When Timothy ...[text shortened]... re wrong.
And by the way God isn't on the side of anyone that is killing others. Us or them.
2. We are killing terrorists. We do not want them to embrace us, we want them to die. And about the name calling, its ok, I understand thats all you desperate liberals can resort to. Lies and personal attacks.
3. No, when mcveigh bombed us, i thought we should take out mcveigh. Its that simple. I do not endorse any killing, but it is ok to DEFEND yourself. When someone attacks you, you attack them. Its that simple.
4. "because you were laughing so hard" so, you are trying to make up a stupid excuse for not being able to respond with a legitimate statememt?
5. I have posted my thoughts in this forum about what we should do with N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, and other terrorists states. Why don't you try reading them before calling someone an idiot.
6. You are right, we haven't attack n korea because they can defend themselves. If america were to stoop down to that so early without getting support from china, and trying to do it peacefully, there would be much more than even 100,000 dead. There would be millions dead, just from the initial shelling we would have to do on N Korea before we invade. You know why? Because unlike the Iraqis, the n koreans will not side with us, because they fear their government more. They will run at us by the thousands. So, if you think we should take the same approach as we did in Iraq, then you are stupid, and illogical.
7. Don't tell me what I believe. I will tell you what I believe.
8. You haven't proven me wrong.
9. I do not believe in God.
Originally posted by iamrootWhen you say that you wanted to take out McVeigh and not his cohorts I have one question, Why? Why is okay for Americans to plot to kill and destroy Americans? Why is it different when foriegners do it?
1. try iraqi body count. it is a website, but what do you expect me to do on an INTERNET FORUM, mail you a book?
2. We are killing terrorists. We do not want them to embrace us, we want them to die. And about the name calling, its ok, I understand thats all you desperate liberals can resort to. Lies and personal attacks.
3. No, when mcveigh b ...[text shortened]... ll tell you what I believe.
8. You haven't proven me wrong.
9. I do not believe in God.
You say we are killing terrorists. They say you are killing freedom fighters.
For every terrorist you kill, you create two. With that said, how do you expect this to end?
As for desperate liberals, well, I am neither desperate nor particularly liberal. I just know right from wrong. I would lie, but the Republicans have that genre locked up. Does this sound familiar "Saddam Hussein is plotting to by nuclear materials" or maybe "Iraq has stockpiles of WMDs"
So we are defending ourselves by attacking a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11? Please elaborate.
I have read many of your ignorant posts. They are based in fantasy not in reality. Do you think we have the abibility to wage unilateral war all over the world. If we were to do that you and I both would be drafted even though I am nearly forty.
I am not out to prove you wrong. Frankly, I don't need to. The ignorance that you spew is proof enough.
I don't believe in God either, so we can at least agree on that.
Originally posted by Shonkytonki think iamroot is spot on.
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?
the insurgency's effectiveness is not a measure of its justification, or of its support by the populace. you'll probably find much more support for the insurgency among selected RHP posters than among the general Iraqi populace. but note those RHP posters are sitting comfortably at home and don't have to deal with the insurgency. just with their bitter memories of the last US election results.
imagine the insurgency's tactics were picked up by the aborigines in Austraya, or the Mohawks in New York, or the (Paiutes? whatever the local tribes were) in Colorado? would shonkytonk, no1marauder, and CliffLandin be singing a different tune?
(on the other hand, it might not change their minds, they are pretty rockheaded ...)
Originally posted by zeeblebotWe should start the zeeblebot confused thread.
i think iamroot is spot on.
the insurgency's effectiveness is not a measure of its justification, or of its support by the populace. you'll probably find much more support for the insurgency among selected RHP posters than among the general Iraqi populace. but note those RHP posters are sitting comfortably at home and don't have to deal with the in ...[text shortened]... nt tune?
(on the other hand, it might not change their minds, they are pretty rockheaded ...)
1) The insurgency's effectiveness is a measure of it's justification. In the American Revolution a vaste majority of the population was opposed to or undecided on the war until the Continental Army proved that it could fight and win against a vastly superior, better armed British Army. The more effective the insurgency is the more recruits they get. Since this isn't apparent to you we will assume the you no nothing of history. And like I said before, those that do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.
2) As for the native american tribes, they would have used the same methods had they had the material to do so. Instead they slaughtered innocents and sewed terror among the populace in their own style.
Please think before posting. The ignorance the two of you are portraying is an embarassment to all Americans.
Originally posted by CliffLandinCliffLandin, no1marauder, and various liberal pundits running around hysterically crying "the insurgents are here!!!" doesn't make them effective.
We should start the zeeblebot confused thread.
1) The insurgency's effectiveness is a measure of it's justification. In the American Revolution a vaste majority of the population was opposed to or undecided on the war until the Continental Army proved that it could fight and win against a vastly superior, better armed British Army. The more effectiv ...[text shortened]... before posting. The ignorance the two of you are portraying is an embarassment to all Americans.
if a bomb went off in Podunk, CO and a mysterious letter turned up at the local news, demanding the mayoralty be turned over to the "<insert random group here>", would you do it? how about 20 bombs? what'd be the point at which you rolled over?
Originally posted by zeeblebotIf China invaded the US and said you need to form a communist nation just like ours, would you do it?
CliffLandin, no1marauder, and various liberal pundits running around hysterically crying "the insurgents are here!!!" doesn't make them effective.
if a bomb went off in Podunk, CO and a mysterious letter turned up at the local news, demanding the mayoralty be turned over to the "<insert random group here>", would you do it? how about 20 bombs? what'd be the point at which you rolled over?
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou see it as functional democracy, they see it as system that is rotting from the inside out. And in case you haven't been paying attention, China's despotic communism is functioning more smoothly than our functional democracy.
despotic tyranny -> functional democracy
vs.
function democracy -> despotic communism
hhhmmm ... what to do, what to do? ....
And you still didn't answer my question.
Would you do what an invading nation told you to do?
Would you change your whole system of government, your beliefs and your way of life if the US was invaded by a foriegn nation?
Or would you do whatever you could to fight?
Not understanding our enemy is half the reason we are in the quagmire now.
Originally posted by CliffLandini think you didn't understand my answer to your question ... look up there and read it again. it's the "transition 1 vs. transition 2" part.
You see it as functional democracy, they see it as system that is rotting from the inside out. And in case you haven't been paying attention, China's despotic communism is functioning more smoothly than our functional democracy.
And you still didn't answer my question.
Would you do what an invading nation told you to do?
Would you change you ...[text shortened]... ou could to fight?
Not understanding our enemy is half the reason we are in the quagmire now.
on what basis do you say China's despotism is functioning more smoothly than our functional democracy?
what is this "we" part? just because you and no1m and various fellow travellers think it's a quagmire doesn't make it one. if you recall, at this point (according to various predictions) we were supposed to have had tens of thousands of U.S. casualties by now.
what level of casualties would you call reasonable in securing a nation of 25 million?
Originally posted by zeeblebotTypical to most Republicans you didn't answer a direct question.
i think you didn't understand my answer to your question ... look up there and read it again. it's the "transition 1 vs. transition 2" part.
on what basis do you say China's despotism is functioning more smoothly than our functional democracy?
what is this "we" part? just because you and no1m and various fellow travellers think it's a quagm ...[text shortened]... y now.
what level of casualties would you call reasonable in securing a nation of 25 million?
Would you bow to the will of an invading nation?
Answer the question and then we can move on.
Originally posted by CliffLandinNo, I would not bow to the will of an invading nation. But, I would welcome a liberating nation. IF you haven't noticed, MOST of the insurgents are not even citizens of iraq!
Typical to most Republicans you didn't answer a direct question.
Would you bow to the will of an invading nation?
Answer the question and then we can move on.