Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 13

 

2008-08-03 12:05:57
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6891

usmarine wrote:

Uzique wrote:

*Afghanistan was somewhat justified
somewhat?  k


also, i would bet the irish think you are imperialistic murderers tbh.
Oh my... debating with you really is impossible because you keep having throwbacks to 'Stupid Dick' zone.

I've said all along that British imperialism is over... and it IS. Your wisecracks to parry this?

"What about the Falklands?"
"The Irish hate you".

I cannot even summon the energy to expunge these points. Try to say something worth saying next time; something that adds some worth to the discussion and contention at hand.

BY THE WAY LOL, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AMERICA'S MODERN DAY IMPERIALISM: GEE I BET THOSE RED INDIANS THINK YOU ARE MURDERERS. It's like you remember random bits of information from Grade 3 History class and think you can throw it in to some devastating effect. Boring.

And yes, Afghanistan was 'somewhat' justified. You turned the manhunt for a single individual into a country-wide obliteration. I don't really care about Osama's links to the regime in power in Afghanistan, to me it doesn't justify sending thousands of troups to completely overhaul the country... Osama was the criminal, not the people of Afghanistan.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-03 12:07:28)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2008-08-03 12:08:36
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7182

you are fucking useless.
2008-08-03 12:10:07
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6891

usmarine wrote:

you are fucking useless.
Of course, thanks for another startling display of intelligence.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2008-08-03 12:11:04
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7182

Uzique wrote:

usmarine wrote:

you are fucking useless.
Of course, thanks for another startling display of intelligence.
oh and all your bs is mensa material.   rofl.
2008-08-03 12:14:34
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6891
I have more to say than "you suck / gtfo / lol wut about 'insert 'x' historical event that is 200 years the wrong way of relevance here", which is enough to continue a worthwhile discussion at least. You add the complimentary Forum overtones of trolling and predictable insipid shittiness, and that's pretty much where your contributions end in this thread. But yes, err, Mensa.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2008-08-03 12:15:43
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7182

well its the same old crap thats why.
2008-08-03 12:19:35
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6891
So if you're tired of the banality of these threads, why even bother posting? Nothing good to contribute, then don't contribute at all.

Not every thread needs your gracing posts in order to be valid and complete... hit back on your browser next time and instead try to refrain from filling up page-space unnecessarily? Sometimes I find your posts entertaining but what's up with lapses of logic like this?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2008-08-03 12:23:01
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7182

what lapse of logic?  you are calling us empire building, and we are not even close to that.  did you hit your head?

also, we dont need your iraq and afghan theories here also, so feel free to hit the back button also.
2008-08-03 12:26:53
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6826|North Carolina

usmarine wrote:

what lapse of logic?  you are calling us empire building, and we are not even close to that.  did you hit your head?

also, we dont need your iraq and afghan theories here also, so feel free to hit the back button also.
Marine, you're not debating.  He's offered his views and arguments, and so far, you've limited your responses to insults.
2008-08-03 12:27:21
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6891
I think you are very close to that; the unjustified occupancy of foreign states that have a suspicious abundance of desirable resources quickly loses the novelty 'we are givers of liberty, the protectors of freedom' tag. Iraq has its own government, its own military and its own restored culture and national identity... so to quote one of your own lines, "gtfo" America?

Turquoise wrote:

Marine, you're not debating.  He's offered his views and arguments, and so far, you've limited your responses to insults.
Not to forget the utterly pointless and valueless references to the Falklands and Irish nationalism.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-03 12:28:22)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2008-08-03 12:27:55
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7182

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

what lapse of logic?  you are calling us empire building, and we are not even close to that.  did you hit your head?

also, we dont need your iraq and afghan theories here also, so feel free to hit the back button also.
Marine, you're not debating.  He's offered his views and arguments, and so far, you've limited your responses to insults.
shut up turq.  you were blathering about kerry earlier.  dont like it?  dont fucking read it.
2008-08-03 12:29:01
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7182

Uzique wrote:

I think you are very close to that; the unjustified occupancy of foreign states
unjust?  ok then.  see, how can i even debate with you?  it wont do any good anyway.
2008-08-03 12:30:18
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6826|North Carolina

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

what lapse of logic?  you are calling us empire building, and we are not even close to that.  did you hit your head?

also, we dont need your iraq and afghan theories here also, so feel free to hit the back button also.
Marine, you're not debating.  He's offered his views and arguments, and so far, you've limited your responses to insults.
shut up turq.  you were blathering about kerry earlier.  dont like it?  dont fucking read it.
Derailment is still better than posts like your last few.

Granted, I would argue your parallel to Irish nationalism actually is relevant.
2008-08-03 12:31:23
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7182

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Marine, you're not debating.  He's offered his views and arguments, and so far, you've limited your responses to insults.
shut up turq.  you were blathering about kerry earlier.  dont like it?  dont fucking read it.
Derailment is still better than posts like your last few.

Granted, I would argue your parallel to Irish nationalism actually is relevant.
derail?  that started a long time ago.

btw, i am here for the ST...not the D.
2008-08-03 12:33:56
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7182

Turquoise wrote:

Granted, I would argue your parallel to Irish nationalism actually is relevant.
i know it does, but homeboy thinks it is an insult.
2008-08-03 12:36:34
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6891
Irish nationalism isn't really relevant to empire building- and aggressive examples of expansionism. Granted it's still a semi-relevant topic today, and is far from a resolved matter, but it's not as if the British army staged an invasion of Ireland and took Northern Ireland as their own in 2001. It's just an ugly mess that overhangs from our era of empire- where I stand by my statement earlier in which I said we have given most of it all back. Ireland is a tricky matter, it's not quite the same as handing back a principality in a faraway Asian continent ala Hong Kong.

I don't see how you think I'm being unreasonable here Usmarine. Our sole reason for going into Iraq was the threat posed by WMD's. There were no WMD's, I'm not even sure if the existence of WMD's is arguable anymore... pretty much everyone has come to accept that Cheney was smoking some serious crack rocks at the time. Sure you can paint Hussein out to be a malevolent devil-dictator but it's not as if he posed an inherent threat... we were shaking his hand a decade or two prior, and he hadn't exactly changed much in terms of the threat he posed. Really for me at the point when it became apparent that Saddam Hussein didn't have any threat-posing weapons capability, that's when the motives for occupying Iraq became a little less clear. Unjustified even.

Edit: I'm not insulted by the suggestion that the Irish have a good reason to hate the British. History dictates that. See paragraph one for why I think it was a pointless reference thrown into the discussion for no real good reason. Even if it was admissable that we still have an Imperialist stranglehold over Northern Ireland, it doesn't subtract from the contention that America are doing some empire building of their own (to a certain extent) in the Middle East.. It's basically a digression on a point of history that I don't see the use in delving into.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-03 12:38:42)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2008-08-03 12:38:21
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7182

well thats funny because we truly did not know until we actually went.  i mean, that is the only way to really know is to go have a look right?

and you know damn well there was more to it than that
2008-08-03 12:40:19
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6891

usmarine wrote:

well thats funny because we truly did not know until we actually went.  i mean, that is the only way to really know is to go have a look right?

and you know damn well there was more to it than that
Oh yeah I completely understand. All of your intelligence agencies, spies/espionage and surveillance resources are completely useless in determining whether a dictator has missiles. Only one real way to find out in this low-tech 21st century warfare; send in an entire army.

What more to it was there? Perhaps the fact that the country had Muslims, and all Muslims are terrorist enemies of America. I didn't see a clear link between Afghanistan's conflict and Iraq's conflict really- maybe I missed the key piece of intelligence. Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction and he wasn't a board-member of Al-Qaeda's directors, so what was the use in sending an entire military taskforce to Iraq? It's a little unwieldy to combat underground terrrorist networks with such a huge show of military force. I think it has become apparent over the last few years that these people aren't intimidated by shows of force or military strength... the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan back in the Soviet days proved that.

Did they go in on horseback?

Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-03 12:45:25)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2008-08-03 12:41:48
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7182

Uzique wrote:

usmarine wrote:

well thats funny because we truly did not know until we actually went.  i mean, that is the only way to really know is to go have a look right?

and you know damn well there was more to it than that
Oh yeah I completely understand. All of your intelligence agencies, spies/espionage and surveillance resources are completely useless in determining whether a dictator has missiles. Only one real way to find out in this low-tech 21st century warfare; send in an entire army.

Did they go in on horseback?
saddam thought he had them.  he was being lied to but he did not know that.

now who's not debating?  horseback?  and you have the nerve to yell at me.
2008-08-03 12:44:57
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6826|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

usmarine wrote:

well thats funny because we truly did not know until we actually went.  i mean, that is the only way to really know is to go have a look right?

and you know damn well there was more to it than that
Oh yeah I completely understand. All of your intelligence agencies, spies/espionage and surveillance resources are completely useless in determining whether a dictator has missiles. Only one real way to find out in this low-tech 21st century warfare; send in an entire army.

Did they go in on horseback?
The problem is that we had earlier info that suggested they had WMD's.  GS pointed out earlier that Saddam's own people were trying very hard to convince him that they were working on nukes and such.  Saddam desired WMDs, but his people were too afraid to point out that they weren't very capable of acquiring them with the sanctions and air strikes we had in place.  The fabrications used to keep up this facade of weapon development were apprehended by various intelligence agencies, and as a result, we got duped just like Saddam.
2008-08-03 12:46:04
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7182

Turquoise wrote:

we got duped just like Saddam.
turq, they cant accept that because it kills all their arguments about wmd's.

Last edited by usmarine (2008-08-03 12:46:25)

2008-08-03 12:49:11
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6891
Believe it or not, I actually don't buy that explanation. You have pretty sophisticated surveillance equipment, spy satellites etc. It's not exactly as if we're back in the 1940's where an army of cardboard tanks on the coasts of England fooled the Nazi's into thinking we had military supermight. When no WMD's were found, it seems like your administration tried pretty hard to cover its tracks and make up a plausible explanation as to why they were so far off the mark.

I honestly cannot believe the American people are not more questioning and critical of the explanations that their government offer them. Honestly, the American intelligence agencies were fooled by the modest Iraq people building fake/dupe WMD's in order to keep their dictator ignorantly happy. It sounds like something out of a movie.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-03 12:51:42)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2008-08-03 12:51:30
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7137

Uzique wrote:

Believe it or not, I actually don't buy that explanation. You have pretty sophisticated surveillance equipment, spy satellites etc. It's not exactly as if we're back in the 1940's where an army of cardboard tanks on the coasts of England fooled the Nazi's into thinking we had military supermight. When no WMD's were found, it seems like your administration tried pretty hard to cover its tracks and make up a plausible explanation as to why they were so far off the mark.
Lolque?

They hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both civilian areas so what? You hit the civilians, they will pressure their gov into surrendering (Very very hard for the Japanese since their Emperor is God)
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2008-08-03 12:51:51
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6826|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

Believe it or not, I actually don't buy that explanation. You have pretty sophisticated surveillance equipment, spy satellites etc. It's exactly as if we're back in the 1940's where an army of cardboard tanks on the coasts of England fooled the Nazi's into thinking we had military supermight. When no WMD's were found, it seems like your administration tried pretty hard to cover its tracks and make up a plausible explanation as to why they were so far off the mark.
You're right that they did.  They first tried to say that the WMD's had been moved to places like Syria.  The administration hardly wanted to look like a bunch of fools.

It wasn't until later that this duping was revealed.  The only reason I buy it is because of how embarrassing it is.  Usually, when you lie about something, you want to look dignified about it.  When it turned out we got tricked by Saddam's own people, I'm sure they didn't want to talk about it any sooner than they had to.
2008-08-03 12:54:19
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6891

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Believe it or not, I actually don't buy that explanation. You have pretty sophisticated surveillance equipment, spy satellites etc. It's not exactly as if we're back in the 1940's where an army of cardboard tanks on the coasts of England fooled the Nazi's into thinking we had military supermight. When no WMD's were found, it seems like your administration tried pretty hard to cover its tracks and make up a plausible explanation as to why they were so far off the mark.
Lolque?

They hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both civilian areas so what? You hit the civilians, they will pressure their gov into surrendering (Very very hard for the Japanese since their Emperor is God)
I really have no idea what you're on about I'm talking about the fake armies that the English built on the coasts of England in the lead-up to Operation Overlord, as a ruse to convince the Nazi spies/intelligence that we were going to lead an attack to a different location other than the beaches we chose in Normandy. Basically I'm saying it's not as if governments these days are using the same basic and crude surveillance equipment as the Nazi's did back there in the 1940's, i.e. I just don't buy it that the American government were fooled by Saddam's hot air.

Turquoise wrote:

When it turned out we got tricked by Saddam's own people, I'm sure they didn't want to talk about it any sooner than they had to.
You think they'd rather admit to the real reasons why they invaded Iraq than concede something as minorly 'embarassing' as that? I hate sounding conspiratorial because conspiracies normally just make me laugh, but it bemuses me that people still believe that the Iraq war was just about national security and the danger posed by fake paper-maché models of WMD's out in the desert. It was about empire.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-03 12:56:28)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 13

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard