well, there was that soldier that got hit by a car in Germany....sergeriver wrote:
Are people dying because of that? I don't think so.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
An occupation is not a war. By your logic, World War 2 has not yet ended because we still have tons of troops in Germany and Japan...and that's just plain silly.sergeriver wrote:
What do you call what is going on in Iraq? People is dying because of giant mosquitos? It's a war dude. If you think America won the war you are very confused. They just removed Saddam, and created a scenario from a Dante's book.
If bush had'nt gone after saddam and turned his attention to saudi arabia then i would respect him more, The only reason we aint going after the saudi's is they have oil.
Did Clinton cut ties with Saudi?David.Podedworny wrote:
If bush had'nt gone after saddam and turned his attention to saudi arabia then i would respect him more, The only reason we aint going after the saudi's is they have oil.
saudi arabia is also the only country in the persian gulf (iran ofcourse) that we dont have any military personnel stationed.
"Guerilla warfare"Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
It's an occupation with an insurgency. Why must you continue with the petty charades?sergeriver wrote:
And what is it then?usmarine2005 wrote:
It is not war...at least they won't let them fight it like war should be fought.
I think we're playing with words here. Who is anyone to define what war is and what war isnt?
"1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict"
"2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>"
From http://m-w.com/dictionary/war
The first definition can be up for argument. Are the insurgents a state or nation? Not necessarily.
The second definition is a bit more related to this. This certainly is a state of hostility and conflict. And a struggle between opposing forces for a particular end (War on Terror).
It may just be a booky dictionary definition, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't consider this a war. And how you can compare Iraq to having soldiers stationed in Germany behooves me.
War is not rebuilding and security.Hurricane wrote:
It may just be a booky dictionary definition, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't consider this a war.
IED's are against the laws of war
non uniformed combatants are against the laws of war
recorded beheadings are against the laws of war
suicide bombing civilian areas of interest is against the laws of war.
non uniformed combatants are against the laws of war
recorded beheadings are against the laws of war
suicide bombing civilian areas of interest is against the laws of war.
If you are going to rely on such a vague definition of the word, it loses all meaning.
the projectile ppping out of the muzzel of an m16 spinning towards center mass of some asshole with an RPG and a mask doesnt care about the definitions of war
neither does the iraqi child whos limbs are in peices around the local market intersection
but, a war is only a war when one government declares it on another government.
neither does the iraqi child whos limbs are in peices around the local market intersection
but, a war is only a war when one government declares it on another government.
No he didn't. In fact it was during Bill's "The great diplomat" administration that the level of Anti-American resentment on foreign policy was allowed to reach a level it did just prior to the attacks. Turns out Billy wasn't impressing anyone with his attempts to resolves middle eastern conflicts.usmarine2005 wrote:
Did Clinton cut ties with Saudi?David.Podedworny wrote:
If bush had'nt gone after saddam and turned his attention to saudi arabia then i would respect him more, The only reason we aint going after the saudi's is they have oil.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
This is a great thread Ryan.
I know Bush doesn't make war policy. The betrayal of the conservative princibles ( sp ) though, how do you excuse that when it's so bad?
I know Bush doesn't make war policy. The betrayal of the conservative princibles ( sp ) though, how do you excuse that when it's so bad?
I would rather have 8 years of Bush than 4 years of Clinton, although either makes me want to puke. Where are the Ronald Regans and Thomas Jeffersons of today? Our society is sick to be electing such asshats to ruin our country.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/mf13.htmlMajor_Spittle wrote:
I would rather have 8 years of Bush than 4 years of Clinton, although either makes me want to puke. Where are the Ronald Regans and Thomas Jeffersons of today? Our society is sick to be electing such asshats to ruin our country.
"Fillmore refused to join the Republican Party; but, instead, in 1856 accepted the nomination for President of the Know Nothing, or American, Party'
Bad ass....
Ryan wrote:
This is a great thread ATG.
Ha ha, very funny.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Ryan wrote:
This is a great thread ATG.
Reagan's rotting in the grave where he belongs. At least I hope so, since we couldn't get anyone to volunteer to stake the fucker and make sure he doesn't go anywhere. Jefferson though, despite some of his failings was a pretty together guy, seemed to be all for the "If you're not fucking with me or anyone else, have a blast being yourself" idea.Major_Spittle wrote:
I would rather have 8 years of Bush than 4 years of Clinton, although either makes me want to puke. Where are the Ronald Regans and Thomas Jeffersons of today? Our society is sick to be electing such asshats to ruin our country.
we "declared war on" afghanistan to defend our country which was the right move. Iraq was just about oil and finishing daddy's job.
Better research on what "Daddy's job" was.Eugefunk84 wrote:
we "declared war on" afghanistan to defend our country which was the right move. Iraq was just about oil and finishing daddy's job.
I completely understand Afghanistan, and if I had been of age at the time, I would have been all for going over and killing some terrorist mother fuckers. It's Iraq I just don't understand. There may have been... "evidence of WMDs" but not nearly enough to declare a war on Iraq. I think it was more of a..."Daddy! Daddy! I got Hussein!" type thing, but that is just my opinion. I just don't like hearing news of our troops dying everyday from more IEDs or suicide bombings. The cowards need to come out and fight like men.
Afghanistan was justified. Iraq was not justified.Ryan wrote:
But imagine if you were in his position right now.
You are appointed the position of President of the United States of America.
September 11th rolls around, and you must do something to save your country.
You declare war on Iraq and begin dumping the troops in there.
Then we have all these people that hate Bush because of the way he is running our country.
Wouldn't you be the same if you ran it? Maybe he doesn't have a choice (ironic). Maybe the best thing he can think of is to use instinct and fight back.
So the next time you want to say "I hate Bush", just think about what you would be like if you were the president.
Sure, you may say "I would run the country much better than he does, and I would be extracting the troops as we speak." But actions speak louder than words.
Emmm, you would make as good a President as Bush, your memory is a bad as his. You forgot the bit about Afghanistan. You know the country that was run by the Taliban??? the people who harboured Osama & Co. The people who attacked the US on 9/11???Ryan wrote:
But imagine if you were in his position right now.
You are appointed the position of President of the United States of America.
September 11th rolls around, and you must do something to save your country.
You declare war on Iraq and begin dumping the troops in there.
Did you know that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi, your friends who buy all your shinny planes and shit?
You either have a selective memory or you know jack shit........................in fact you are perfect for the job!!
Ya, good thing Clinton distanced us from Saudi Arabia and went after Bin Laden........oh wait.JahManRed wrote:
Emmm, you would make as good a President as Bush, your memory is a bad as his. You forgot the bit about Afghanistan. You know the country that was run by the Taliban??? the people who harboured Osama & Co. The people who attacked the US on 9/11???Ryan wrote:
But imagine if you were in his position right now.
You are appointed the position of President of the United States of America.
September 11th rolls around, and you must do something to save your country.
You declare war on Iraq and begin dumping the troops in there.
Did you know that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi, your friends who buy all your shinny planes and shit?
You either have a selective memory or you know jack shit........................in fact you are perfect for the job!!
QFT. And if I were Bush I would have also bothered to do something about illegal immigration.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Afghanistan was justified. Iraq was not justified.Ryan wrote:
But imagine if you were in his position right now.
You are appointed the position of President of the United States of America.
September 11th rolls around, and you must do something to save your country.
You declare war on Iraq and begin dumping the troops in there.
Then we have all these people that hate Bush because of the way he is running our country.
Wouldn't you be the same if you ran it? Maybe he doesn't have a choice (ironic). Maybe the best thing he can think of is to use instinct and fight back.
So the next time you want to say "I hate Bush", just think about what you would be like if you were the president.
Sure, you may say "I would run the country much better than he does, and I would be extracting the troops as we speak." But actions speak louder than words.
This is about Bush isn't it?usmarine2005 wrote:
Ya, good thing Clinton distanced us from Saudi Arabia and went after Bin Laden........oh wait.JahManRed wrote:
Emmm, you would make as good a President as Bush, your memory is a bad as his. You forgot the bit about Afghanistan. You know the country that was run by the Taliban??? the people who harboured Osama & Co. The people who attacked the US on 9/11???Ryan wrote:
But imagine if you were in his position right now.
You are appointed the position of President of the United States of America.
September 11th rolls around, and you must do something to save your country.
You declare war on Iraq and begin dumping the troops in there.
Did you know that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi, your friends who buy all your shinny planes and shit?
You either have a selective memory or you know jack shit........................in fact you are perfect for the job!!
Why oh why when the failings of one President are highlight are the failings of the previous brought up as some kind of defence? Or is it to justify Bushes failing? Surely if he was any kinda man he would try and put right previous failings instead of repeating them?
When Clinton was boss, Bin Laden set off a bomb under the twin towers and killed how many? Clinton failed to catch him.
When Bush is boss, Bin Laden blows up the twin towers and killed how many? Bush continues to fail to catch him.
The US was overthrowing governments in the middle east long before Clinton got in. Suppose he blamed it on previous administrations while he did fuck all about it too.
Flying Bin Laden's family, Bush family friends, to safety from questioning or prosecution the day after the attack sets them apart more than anything IMO.
Last edited by JahManRed (2007-05-24 11:02:20)
It's the liberals' job to complain about everything without thinking deeply about it from all aspects and angles first. Just ignore their complaints of Bush, Kerry or Gore couldn't have done any better.Ryan wrote:
But imagine if you were in his position right now.
You are appointed the position of President of the United States of America.
September 11th rolls around, and you must do something to save your country.
You declare war on Iraq and begin dumping the troops in there.
Then we have all these people that hate Bush because of the way he is running our country.
Wouldn't you be the same if you ran it? Maybe he doesn't have a choice (ironic). Maybe the best thing he can think of is to use instinct and fight back.
So the next time you want to say "I hate Bush", just think about what you would be like if you were the president.
Sure, you may say "I would run the country much better than he does, and I would be extracting the troops as we speak." But actions speak louder than words.