^^ That could have been done years before Bush.
Ahh, so you shouldn't have gone after Iraq...actually going after the Saudis would have been more prudent.IG-Calibre wrote:
No.. i'm arguing that the Saudis should of been / still heavily sanctioned, and, that the President rather than listening to God in dreams, listened to the advice he was given about what would happen if he removed Saddam ,& not got into the 3 way cluster fuck that is now Iraq, that has no happy outcome, no matter how the administrations try and spin it. Stayed in Afghansatn, done the job there properly , & cought Osama, actuallyPug wrote:
So you're arguing we should be at war with the Saudis so that the US President can be smarter.IG-Calibre wrote:
someone with half a brain making the decisions for the most powerful nation in the world would be a start!
How compelling.
See my point yet?
No, I don't, because you haven't actually made one yet! it's not an "I told you So" Bush and his cronies still keep whailing on about "Winning" in Iraq, that that is where Al qaeda is, Iran is the enemy etc etc. Fact of the matter is, the poison in the middle east is seeping from Saudi Arabia and your President does nothing about it, the British are taking casualties nearly greater than WW2 because you did a half arsed job in Afghanistan and then went charging off into Iraq. Poor leadership by the commander in ChiefPug wrote:
Ahh, so you shouldn't have gone after Iraq...actually going after the Saudis would have been more prudent.IG-Calibre wrote:
No.. i'm arguing that the Saudis should of been / still heavily sanctioned, and, that the President rather than listening to God in dreams, listened to the advice he was given about what would happen if he removed Saddam ,& not got into the 3 way cluster fuck that is now Iraq, that has no happy outcome, no matter how the administrations try and spin it. Stayed in Afghanistan, done the job there properly , & cought Osama, actuallyPug wrote:
So you're arguing we should be at war with the Saudis so that the US President can be smarter.
How compelling.
See my point yet?
Are you implying the Brits cannot hold their own without the US? I think you will find that an unpopular assumption.IG-Calibre wrote:
No, I don't, because you haven't actually made one yet! it's not an "I told you So" Bush and his cronies still keep whailing on about "Winning" in Iraq, that that is where Al qaeda is, Iran is the enemy etc etc. Fact of the matter is, the poison in the middle east is seeping from Saudi Arabia and your President does nothing about it, the British are taking casualties nearly greater than WW2 because you did a half arsed job in Afghanistan and then went charging off into Iraq. Poor leadership by the commander in ChiefPug wrote:
Ahh, so you shouldn't have gone after Iraq...actually going after the Saudis would have been more prudent.IG-Calibre wrote:
No.. i'm arguing that the Saudis should of been / still heavily sanctioned, and, that the President rather than listening to God in dreams, listened to the advice he was given about what would happen if he removed Saddam ,& not got into the 3 way cluster fuck that is now Iraq, that has no happy outcome, no matter how the administrations try and spin it. Stayed in Afghanistan, done the job there properly , & cought Osama, actually
See my point yet?
He's suggesting the brits are taking casualties cos American military leadership sucks ass.usmarine2005 wrote:
Are you implying the Brits cannot hold their own without the US? I think you will find that an unpopular assumption.IG-Calibre wrote:
No, I don't, because you haven't actually made one yet! it's not an "I told you So" Bush and his cronies still keep whailing on about "Winning" in Iraq, that that is where Al qaeda is, Iran is the enemy etc etc. Fact of the matter is, the poison in the middle east is seeping from Saudi Arabia and your President does nothing about it, the British are taking casualties nearly greater than WW2 because you did a half arsed job in Afghanistan and then went charging off into Iraq. Poor leadership by the commander in ChiefPug wrote:
Ahh, so you shouldn't have gone after Iraq...actually going after the Saudis would have been more prudent.
See my point yet?
Have you taken a knock to the head of late?!
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
The Brits sent troops to Iraq yes?m3thod wrote:
He's suggesting the brits are taking casualties cos American military leadership sucks ass.
Have you taken a knock to the head of late?!
No you are the one who is implying it, i'm stating fact..usmarine2005 wrote:
Are you implying the Brits cannot hold their own without the US? I think you will find that an unpopular assumption.IG-Calibre wrote:
No, I don't, because you haven't actually made one yet! it's not an "I told you So" Bush and his cronies still keep whailing on about "Winning" in Iraq, that that is where Al qaeda is, Iran is the enemy etc etc. Fact of the matter is, the poison in the middle east is seeping from Saudi Arabia and your President does nothing about it, the British are taking casualties nearly greater than WW2 because you did a half arsed job in Afghanistan and then went charging off into Iraq. Poor leadership by the commander in ChiefPug wrote:
Ahh, so you shouldn't have gone after Iraq...actually going after the Saudis would have been more prudent.
See my point yet?
The Brits sent troops to Iraq correct or not?IG-Calibre wrote:
No you are the one who is implying it, i'm stating fact..usmarine2005 wrote:
Are you implying the Brits cannot hold their own without the US? I think you will find that an unpopular assumption.IG-Calibre wrote:
No, I don't, because you haven't actually made one yet! it's not an "I told you So" Bush and his cronies still keep whailing on about "Winning" in Iraq, that that is where Al qaeda is, Iran is the enemy etc etc. Fact of the matter is, the poison in the middle east is seeping from Saudi Arabia and your President does nothing about it, the British are taking casualties nearly greater than WW2 because you did a half arsed job in Afghanistan and then went charging off into Iraq. Poor leadership by the commander in Chief
and?usmarine2005 wrote:
The Brits sent troops to Iraq correct or not?IG-Calibre wrote:
No you are the one who is implying it, i'm stating fact..usmarine2005 wrote:
Are you implying the Brits cannot hold their own without the US? I think you will find that an unpopular assumption.
Yes.....(whats that got to do with the incompetent Commander in Chief?)usmarine2005 wrote:
The Brits sent troops to Iraq correct or not?IG-Calibre wrote:
No you are the one who is implying it, i'm stating fact..usmarine2005 wrote:
Are you implying the Brits cannot hold their own without the US? I think you will find that an unpopular assumption.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
where do you think Osama Bin Laden is from...Bertster7 wrote:
Hang on a minute....
You're not suggesting that any terrorists come from Saudi Arabia are you? That can't be true, they love the US and their fair and just democratic Saudi government. This must all be liberal propaganda. There's no way that the Saudis are responsible for the bulk of major terror attacks. Of course there's no way that America would treat them any differently because they invest heavily in the US, spend loads on Western arms (mostly UK/US) and are sitting on the biggest supply of oil anywhere in the world.....
Ahh, I thought you were arguing that we should have left the ME alone.IG-Calibre wrote:
No, I don't, because you haven't actually made one yet! it's not an "I told you So" Bush and his cronies still keep whailing on about "Winning" in Iraq, that that is where Al qaeda is, Iran is the enemy etc etc. Fact of the matter is, the poison in the middle east is seeping from Saudi Arabia and your President does nothing about it, the British are taking casualties nearly greater than WW2 because you did a half arsed job in Afghanistan and then went charging off into Iraq. Poor leadership by the commander in Chief
So they have no blame in not sending THEIR troops to Afghanistan instead of Iraq?m3thod wrote:
Yes.....(whats that got to do with the incompetent Commander in Chief?)usmarine2005 wrote:
The Brits sent troops to Iraq correct or not?IG-Calibre wrote:
No you are the one who is implying it, i'm stating fact..
not at all..Pug wrote:
Ahh, I thought you were arguing that we should have left the ME alone.IG-Calibre wrote:
No, I don't, because you haven't actually made one yet! it's not an "I told you So" Bush and his cronies still keep whailing on about "Winning" in Iraq, that that is where Al qaeda is, Iran is the enemy etc etc. Fact of the matter is, the poison in the middle east is seeping from Saudi Arabia and your President does nothing about it, the British are taking casualties nearly greater than WW2 because you did a half arsed job in Afghanistan and then went charging off into Iraq. Poor leadership by the commander in Chief
Yeah? thats fucking why Tony Blair is now gone, becasue of Iraq..usmarine2005 wrote:
So they have no blame in not sending THEIR troops to Afghanistan instead of Iraq?m3thod wrote:
Yes.....(whats that got to do with the incompetent Commander in Chief?)usmarine2005 wrote:
The Brits sent troops to Iraq correct or not?
But I am referring to your post about Afghanistan deaths. You blame it on the US, yet the Brits went to Iraq also instead of building up their troop strength in Afghan.IG-Calibre wrote:
Yeah? thats fucking why Tony Blair is now gone, becasue of Iraq..usmarine2005 wrote:
So they have no blame in not sending THEIR troops to Afghanistan instead of Iraq?m3thod wrote:
Yes.....(whats that got to do with the incompetent Commander in Chief?)
Why would they want to do that? Afghanistan/Taliban was the US problem, not the Brits.usmarine2005 wrote:
So they have no blame in not sending THEIR troops to Afghanistan instead of Iraq?m3thod wrote:
Yes.....(whats that got to do with the incompetent Commander in Chief?)usmarine2005 wrote:
The Brits sent troops to Iraq correct or not?
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Fuck middle east, i hope my country will stop buying oil and begin to invent some other power reliable machines.
Politics in middle east is religion, they are still in the medieval, so dont hope to much on them to solve anything in the world.
Politics in middle east is religion, they are still in the medieval, so dont hope to much on them to solve anything in the world.
Ask them, they went there.m3thod wrote:
Why would they want to do that? Afghanistan/Taliban was the US problem, not the Brits.usmarine2005 wrote:
So they have no blame in not sending THEIR troops to Afghanistan instead of Iraq?m3thod wrote:
Yes.....(whats that got to do with the incompetent Commander in Chief?)
Is your head ok?
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-07-17 13:08:05)
Come on. The Brits have just been pathetically following the US around. This has never been about the brits.usmarine2005 wrote:
But I am referring to your post about Afghanistan deaths. You blame it on the US, yet the Brits went to Iraq also instead of building up their troop strength in Afghan.IG-Calibre wrote:
Yeah? thats fucking why Tony Blair is now gone, becasue of Iraq..usmarine2005 wrote:
So they have no blame in not sending THEIR troops to Afghanistan instead of Iraq?
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Went along behind sniffing US ass. Afghanistan/Iraq wont be remembered as a British failure.usmarine2005 wrote:
Ask them, they went there.m3thod wrote:
Why would they want to do that? Afghanistan/Taliban was the US problem, not the Brits.usmarine2005 wrote:
So they have no blame in not sending THEIR troops to Afghanistan instead of Iraq?
Is your head ok?
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
You can't have it both ways.m3thod wrote:
Come on. The Brits have just been pathetically following the US around. This has never been about the brits.usmarine2005 wrote:
But I am referring to your post about Afghanistan deaths. You blame it on the US, yet the Brits went to Iraq also instead of building up their troop strength in Afghan.IG-Calibre wrote:
Yeah? thats fucking why Tony Blair is now gone, becasue of Iraq..
You want the Brits to share 50% of the blame for ME adventures failure?Pug wrote:
You can't have it both ways.m3thod wrote:
Come on. The Brits have just been pathetically following the US around. This has never been about the brits.usmarine2005 wrote:
But I am referring to your post about Afghanistan deaths. You blame it on the US, yet the Brits went to Iraq also instead of building up their troop strength in Afghan.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
They're all fuckin evil man. Why do all ME countries resort to internal violence when they don't like something. Their mentality is you took my land so I'll blow myself up; you talked shit about Muhamed so I'll blow myself up; The US is evil so I'll blow myself up; Your sunni so I'll blow myself up; Your shiite so I'll blow myself up; I can't get pussy so I'll blow myself up. Yup, they are all evil.sergeriver wrote:
Wait Saudi from Saudi Arabia? The US ally? The same guys who helped with the planes into the twin towers? No way. There must be a mistake. Those guys are good people. The bad guys are Syria and Iran.
No blame on the terrorists I guess.m3thod wrote:
You want the Brits to share 50% of the blame for ME adventures failure?Pug wrote:
You can't have it both ways.m3thod wrote:
Come on. The Brits have just been pathetically following the US around. This has never been about the brits.