- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Posts
- 1,942
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 29
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Al-Qaida Backs McCain as President
- Thread starter 1BiGG1
- Start date
Yes, that proves we are currently at war. However, it does not prove an isolated attack constitutes as war.
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Posts
- 1,942
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 29
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
"... a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end"
Why'd you post that? I read the definition, proves nothing except that we are currently at war. I can do that too:
attack - definition of attack by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Notice, war is not a synonym
attack - definition of attack by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Notice, war is not a synonym
I was going to respond to quite a few of the so-called self-proclaimed geniuses here directly and their ongoing gibberish; then , I realized, none of the aforementioned twits would be able to understand anything which directly addressed them. In the absence of that, I will instead give my commentary on Iraq.
Iraq was once a very happy, proud and independent nation. Then the outsiders came barging in. There have been many; but, in all fairness, it did not become woefully destructive until the early years of the twentieth century. At that time the British came riding in-they were obviously in distress as they could see their many jewels, including India, were slipping away and they needed new land to take over-behold Iraq.
It wasn't all bad, at the threat of death, my grandfather went to work for them and in the process learned English which served him well, when several years later after more outsiders came in-I present the United States well before Saddam Hussein-he (my grandfather) decided to leave Iraq and head to the land of hope and promise-The United States. He secured passage for himself, his daughter (my mother) and several of his grandchildren (my siblings and me) to come to The United States-where we had a sponsor family. This however is another matter entirely and is shifting focus away from the matters of Iraq.
Now, at some point in time, The United States decided to befriend Saddam Hussein-they even encouraged him to go after that dreadful Iran. The U.S.A. even went as far as funnelling funds to help Iraq secure arms. All the while, they knew Saddam was the leader of the nation and becoming somewhat more insane daily-absolute power has a way of doing that to people.
Fast forward and the U.S.A. suddenly realized (yeah, um, suddenly-sure I believe that (no I don't)) that Saddam wanted Kuwait. Now, let's see, Saddam gases the Kurds, destroys thousands of acres of land in Iraq and the U.S.A. sits idly by doing nothing, all of a sudden Iraq goes towards Kuwait and it's the end of the world. Thus we found the U.S.A. once again going into Iraq.
As to Iraq-leave the place alone. The nation does quite well on its own and doesn't need a bunch of do-gooders gumming up the gears. If other nations got out, Iraq would amazingly enough find a way to continue on.
Warheads from Iraq headed towards Israel? Again, not until after the U.S.A. came in and attacked Saddam and his army-nice going U.S.A. you just rolled a thousand tanks over defenseless aged men, women and children (a fact not told outside of Iraq, the news media has kept silent on that factor of Gulf Fiasco of 1991). Iraq knew, as did and does, most of the world, that Israel is the love interest of all U.S. politicians, therefore, Saddam saw fit to hit them with all he could as a retaliatory attack after what the U.S. had done. At no time back then did George H.W. Bush, even bother to seriously offer to sit down and negotiate. What option did Saddam have? If you are pushed down and kicked, would you just lay there so your attacker could then spit on you and shoot you while you lay there? No, of course not. You'd do all which was in your power to get up and fight back. This is all that Saddam did.
Saddam kept the nation in check (as someone earlier indicated). Not always nicely, I will admit; but the general rule was, if you didn't instigate trouble against him, you'd be left alone.
Fast forward again and the U.S.A. has the terrible tragedy of September 11, 2001. In an effort to once again look powerful, the U.S. seizes the moment and declares the need to go into Iraq-not because BinLaden was there. Not because Al Quaida was there. They went because it seemed like an easy mark. Sadly, they were mistaken. In the 8 or 9 years since The U.S.A. had last been there, the resolve of both the citizens and of Saddam Hussein had strenthened a thousand-fold. However, armed with spy photos showing what could be missile silos the U.S.A. convinced itself and other nations that an aggressive mission was the only answer.
Ah, the U.S.A. did you ever see a country distance themselves faster, once Saddam was in custody? They knew he'd be led to the gallows; but, hey, it wasn't their problem. What many haven't gotten to this day, is that this was one thing which was exactly what Saddam Hussein would have wanted (had his thinking still been anything less than warped). He goes down in the books of Iraqi history (or at least some of them) as a martyr. Nice going George W. Bush and both houses as well and both sides of the aisle-since all were eager to get this thing under way-check the voting logs and you'll see how both Dems. and Repubs. voted for it.
As long as politicians wish to use various nations (Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Somalia/Lybia/Grenada/Vietnam/Korea-the list goes on) to boost their image, the U.S.A. will be at war. It is time the U.S. returned to its isolationist policies and tended to its own matters and yanked its browning nose out of other places.
(the above reperesents views of one Iraqi born, now citizen of The U.S.A. and is not intended to be representitive of all Iraqi-Americans)
Iraq was once a very happy, proud and independent nation. Then the outsiders came barging in. There have been many; but, in all fairness, it did not become woefully destructive until the early years of the twentieth century. At that time the British came riding in-they were obviously in distress as they could see their many jewels, including India, were slipping away and they needed new land to take over-behold Iraq.
It wasn't all bad, at the threat of death, my grandfather went to work for them and in the process learned English which served him well, when several years later after more outsiders came in-I present the United States well before Saddam Hussein-he (my grandfather) decided to leave Iraq and head to the land of hope and promise-The United States. He secured passage for himself, his daughter (my mother) and several of his grandchildren (my siblings and me) to come to The United States-where we had a sponsor family. This however is another matter entirely and is shifting focus away from the matters of Iraq.
Now, at some point in time, The United States decided to befriend Saddam Hussein-they even encouraged him to go after that dreadful Iran. The U.S.A. even went as far as funnelling funds to help Iraq secure arms. All the while, they knew Saddam was the leader of the nation and becoming somewhat more insane daily-absolute power has a way of doing that to people.
Fast forward and the U.S.A. suddenly realized (yeah, um, suddenly-sure I believe that (no I don't)) that Saddam wanted Kuwait. Now, let's see, Saddam gases the Kurds, destroys thousands of acres of land in Iraq and the U.S.A. sits idly by doing nothing, all of a sudden Iraq goes towards Kuwait and it's the end of the world. Thus we found the U.S.A. once again going into Iraq.
As to Iraq-leave the place alone. The nation does quite well on its own and doesn't need a bunch of do-gooders gumming up the gears. If other nations got out, Iraq would amazingly enough find a way to continue on.
Warheads from Iraq headed towards Israel? Again, not until after the U.S.A. came in and attacked Saddam and his army-nice going U.S.A. you just rolled a thousand tanks over defenseless aged men, women and children (a fact not told outside of Iraq, the news media has kept silent on that factor of Gulf Fiasco of 1991). Iraq knew, as did and does, most of the world, that Israel is the love interest of all U.S. politicians, therefore, Saddam saw fit to hit them with all he could as a retaliatory attack after what the U.S. had done. At no time back then did George H.W. Bush, even bother to seriously offer to sit down and negotiate. What option did Saddam have? If you are pushed down and kicked, would you just lay there so your attacker could then spit on you and shoot you while you lay there? No, of course not. You'd do all which was in your power to get up and fight back. This is all that Saddam did.
Saddam kept the nation in check (as someone earlier indicated). Not always nicely, I will admit; but the general rule was, if you didn't instigate trouble against him, you'd be left alone.
Fast forward again and the U.S.A. has the terrible tragedy of September 11, 2001. In an effort to once again look powerful, the U.S. seizes the moment and declares the need to go into Iraq-not because BinLaden was there. Not because Al Quaida was there. They went because it seemed like an easy mark. Sadly, they were mistaken. In the 8 or 9 years since The U.S.A. had last been there, the resolve of both the citizens and of Saddam Hussein had strenthened a thousand-fold. However, armed with spy photos showing what could be missile silos the U.S.A. convinced itself and other nations that an aggressive mission was the only answer.
Ah, the U.S.A. did you ever see a country distance themselves faster, once Saddam was in custody? They knew he'd be led to the gallows; but, hey, it wasn't their problem. What many haven't gotten to this day, is that this was one thing which was exactly what Saddam Hussein would have wanted (had his thinking still been anything less than warped). He goes down in the books of Iraqi history (or at least some of them) as a martyr. Nice going George W. Bush and both houses as well and both sides of the aisle-since all were eager to get this thing under way-check the voting logs and you'll see how both Dems. and Repubs. voted for it.
As long as politicians wish to use various nations (Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Somalia/Lybia/Grenada/Vietnam/Korea-the list goes on) to boost their image, the U.S.A. will be at war. It is time the U.S. returned to its isolationist policies and tended to its own matters and yanked its browning nose out of other places.
(the above reperesents views of one Iraqi born, now citizen of The U.S.A. and is not intended to be representitive of all Iraqi-Americans)
trumasseur
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2008
- Posts
- 189
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 24
- Points
- 103
- Location
- Omaha NE USA
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Northland
thank you for real life knowledge! hopefully the arguing/psuedo-informed will stop posting now.....
thank you for real life knowledge! hopefully the arguing/psuedo-informed will stop posting now.....
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Posts
- 1,942
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 29
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
So to sum up your homespun style post lacking many pertinent facts we can say Saddam and his crooked friends in the UN made a big mistake thinking it was a good idea to fuck the USA by mocking every surrender obligation he ever made. I guess the next extremely brutal two-bit piece-of-shit dictator will think before doing that in the future.
And isolationist, yeah, thats a great idea! Gee, lets become isolationists while the scum of the planet keeps breeding.
Hahaha, you think Al Qaeda is allied with Iran, and you expect us to take you seriously? Of course, McCain makes that same mistake, so I guess I can't blame you....
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Posts
- 1,942
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 29
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
B_starinvestor
Experimental Member
The question is, have you ever thought about that? This religiously fanatical group, who have brainwashed and educated their youth, will wake up and fall asleep every night to their hatred for the U.S.
The liberals think this will just go away if we pull out of Iraq. It won't. When we leave them to their own convictions and anymosity, their hatred will grow only worse, and their resolve will become only more powerful and dangerous.
Laissez-faire politics (Clinton Admin) got us into this mess. We can't make the same mistake twice, or thrice.
McCain understands how dangerous these religious fanatics are..Obama wants to have coffee with them. Its nauseating to entertain the possibilities of this amateur strategy.
But terror does exist. We have to deal with reality. And there are plenty Democrat crooks too. And if Republicans have always been crooks, then was Abraham Lincoln a crook?
Still don't get it, do you? Al Qaeda and Iran are about as likely to be friends as Al Qaeda and the Vatican. I know you think that all Muslims are suicidal terrorists, but that doesn't really make it reality. Please look up Sunni and Shia.
No shit. Thank you Cpt. Obvious. You probably don't know since you haven't been posting much until recently, but I had been defending the war for this very reason on here up until our financial system began to collapse a month or 2 ago. I see no point in rebuilding another contry when ours is falling apart. We're wasting money on rebuilding Iraq yet refuse to rebuild our own economy and infrastructure. It's a terrible situation.
If the wrong person gets into power, we will take them out, guarenteed; we are America, that is what we do. On top of that, these religious factions pose a greater threat to Europe than they ever will us. These groups do not have the kind of funds you people are trying to make them out as having, not even close. Deep pockets? They camp out every night and live in fucking caves for god's sake. Since they don't have vast amounts of wealth, or WMDs, or naval ships, or even planes and helicopters, their BEST and only viable option for a mass attack would be on European nations, not us, who they despise just as much as they do us. If things get to a point where there actually is a very serious threat, I trust our European allies will be right there to counteract the threat, being that they are practically on the same continent and all. And if they are incapable of doing this, we will step in, like always. The fact that our allies are abondoning us speaks volumes about how small the threat really is. They aren't anti-America, they aren't pussies, they just realize there is no threat.
You want to stop terrorism in America? Two words: border patrol. I guaren-fuckin-tee you more terrorists have snuck across the Mexican border than you could ever imagine. It's the doorway to America, and it's still wide open. Absolutely pathetic in my eyes.
What are you shitting me? Every terrorist who's ever done anything on American soil was here legally, including all 22 men involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Patrolling a border that large isn't feasible, or necessary.
Starinvestor said:
No, the liberals know that you can't go to war with an abstract concept, or religious fervor. The war on terror is as much a boondoggle as the war on poverty. Us being in Iraq provides a target and incentive for would-be terrorists in the region....who weren't there before. If there was one positive thing that Saddam did, it was keep out the radical Muslim elements. Radical Islam is around due to poverty and poor education, and unless you fix that problem, it will always be.
If our target was radical Islamic terrorists, we would have stayed in Afghanistan.
You can't remotely back this up. This is literally a fabrication, and I can't wait to see if you backpedal, change subjects, or straight up ignore me on this.
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Posts
- 1,942
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 29
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
- When saying their friends does not automatically mean anybody is sleeping together as the word has meaning far beyond your limited thinking. friend - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
- And please speak only for yourself when saying Muslims are all suicidal terrorists and do not attach my name to such pathetic ignorance again in the future.
- No reason for me to look up various Islamic factions and I suggest you refrain from any further actions in that department until you learn the definition of friends and how it can correctly be used in many ways, and learn how to stop making things up about other people as your alleged clairvoyant abilities only impress you and a few other dipshits that buy into that crap.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Posts
- 22,256
- Media
- 213
- Likes
- 32,281
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
