Put on your tinfoil hats, folks

Fat Burger said:
I disagree, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere discussing those any farther.

That still leaves the War of 1812, the Mexican War, and World War I.
Click to expand...

none of which were overt acts of aggression on our part...there were underlying issues galore
 
why_ask_why said:
I don't think many people want george bush in office any longer but every country that deals with us will deal with his regime and not the people
Click to expand...
Bush wasnt the only one who went for a war in Iraq, the senate by overwhelming majority supported him (80/20 or something similar) and congress. In all fairness it was something that was going to have to be done eventually. Unless of course you are one of the people who think Hussien was a great humanitarian. If you had ties to people over there you'd know that the vast majority of Iraqis are happy about him not being in power anymore, the news doesnt really report it but eh. Most IEDs are of Iranian manufacture, and shockingly the only reason Iraqis are killing each other now is because they havent had the freedom to do it in the past.

Im not going to bother justifying it or essaying about it though because your post has nothing to do with what we were discussing, it's just a red herring. I'm talking about how wars are viewed through time and you just vomited up something about Bush.

blah
 
Fat Burger said:
Ok, apparently you're using some new definition of "aggression" that means something different than all the dictionaries I can find.
Click to expand...


*sigh*
I grow weary of this thread

we didn't just wake up one morning and say "LET'S GO FUCK PEOPLE UP"
there were many layers of shit involved in all cases and you are extremely over simplifying things by just stating "we started it"...that's wrong
 
Fat Burger said:
Ok, apparently you're using some new definition of "aggression" that means something different than all the dictionaries I can find.
Click to expand...
I cant figure if he's really that thick or just doesnt want to admit arguing a bad point. There is no shame in learning something or admitting being wrong.
 
why_ask_why said:
*sigh*
I grow weary of this thread

we didn't just wake up one morning and say "LET'S GO FUCK PEOPLE UP"
there were many layers of shit involved in all cases and you are extremely over simplifying things by just stating "we started it"...that's wrong
Click to expand...
We didnt just wake up one morning and say LETS GO INVADE AFGHANISTAN.
 
FlamingGlory said:
Bush wasnt the only one who went for a war in Iraq, the senate by overwhelming majority supported him (80/20 or something similar) and congress. In all fairness it was something that was going to have to be done eventually. Unless of course you are one of the people who think Hussien was a great humanitarian. If you had ties to people over there you'd know that the vast majority of Iraqis are happy about him not being in power anymore, the news doesnt really report it but eh. Most IEDs are of Iranian manufacture, and shockingly the only reason Iraqis are killing each other now is because they havent had the freedom to do it in the past.

Im not going to bother justifying it or essaying about it though because your post has nothing to do with what we were discussing, it's just a red herring. I'm talking about how wars are viewed through time and you just vomited up something about Bush.

blah
Click to expand...


sadam was a threat to no one...we had him contained and it was a BS fight to initiate...it was to devert attention from the abysmal failure in capturing bin laden

and you missed my analogy completely
 
why_ask_why said:
sadam was a threat to no one...we had him contained and it was a BS fight to initiate...it was to devert attention from the abysmal failure in capturing bin laden

and you missed my analogy completely
Click to expand...
Definitely not a threat to anyone in his own country. His sons god rest their little souls definitely werent doing anything wrong raping and torturing a huge number of people. etc etc

Wrong reasons, right war. It could have been presented better but we were more than justified taking him out. Afghanistan wasnt invaded to capture Bin Laden, we arent looking for just ONE person in this whole mess. We are trying to break a huge organisation which has gotten completely out of control in the past decades. Maybe Iraq wasnt the right target to follow up with but hindsight is always 20/20 and we arent exactly losing.
 
FlamingGlory said:
Definitely not a threat to anyone in his own country. His sons god rest their little souls definitely werent doing anything wrong raping and torturing a huge number of people. etc etc

Wrong reasons, right war. It could have been presented better but we were more than justified taking him out. Afghanistan wasnt invaded to capture Bin Laden, we arent looking for just ONE person in this whole mess. We are trying to break a huge organisation which has gotten completely out of control in the past decades. Maybe Iraq wasnt the right target to follow up with but hindsight is always 20/20 and we arent exactly losing.
Click to expand...

obviously he (saddam)was a problem to his own people but he was no direct threat to us despite our best efforts to make him appear so

and bin laden was the prime target along with his support infrastructure...all of which were in afghanistan

anywho, I haven't eaten since 9am and have shit to do so I must depart the thread
 
If we hadn't removed Sadaam the Liberals would be complaining about he keeps butchering people, and they'd complain about how Bush is incompetent because he didn't do anything after 9/11, and how we spend too much money on the military because they aren't doing anything, yada yada yada.
 
Fat Burger said:
You're right, this war is completely different from Korea, Vietnam, WWI, etc.
Click to expand...

yes, it is ENTIRELY :wtf:
in no other war did we invade someone that wasn't doing anything to anyone externally

in the above cases we had allies who we were helping from within their own countries as the base of operations...this is just us being a bully, period
 
why_ask_why said:
yes, it is ENTIRELY :wtf:
in no other war did we invade someone that wasn't doing anything to anyone externally

in the above cases we had allies who we were helping from within their own countries as the base of operations...this is just us being a bully, period
Click to expand...
Besides all the examples FatBurger gave...

Operation Just Cause, Operation Provide Relief, Operation Urgent Fury, Polar Bear Expedition, Occupation of Veracruz - 1914.

...
 
image2.gif
 
KNYTE said:
If we hadn't removed Sadaam the Liberals would be complaining about he keeps butchering people, and they'd complain about how Bush is incompetent because he didn't do anything after 9/11, and how we spend too much money on the military because they aren't doing anything, yada yada yada.
Click to expand...

Who are these 'Liberals' that you refer to. Are they anything like 'Them?'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back