New Draft For War On Terror

[shiznit]

lol pretty soon one of these kooks is gonna start saying a nuclear bomb would catch the unerground oil fields on fire and cause the landmass of the country to collapse into the ground from all the heat.

Good man 

549820[/snapback]

 

Who you calling a kook bud? I think you guys are the kooks for being so hot & horny to use them. Only people who are a few fries short of a happy meal would really want that.

 

what ruling body?!?!?!??!  do you think the current gov't in afganistan is going to argue with us?  who put them there?  WHY are they in power?  oh yeah cuz we came there to get terrorists OUT of thier country.  do you think they're going to tell us "no you can't use your weapons to hunt down and kill terrorists in our country"????  that's what caused us to come and take out the former gov't.

549845[/snapback]

 

Are you serious? Do yo honestly thing the big, bad U.S. of A. scares any of the countries? Gawd you are a funny guy Yes Afghanistan has a government. It had one before the allied nation entered to chase down the terrorists and that same government will be there when everyone eventually leaves. And yes, those nations (including yours) had to convince that government to allow them to come in and do so. Don't believe me? Go take a look! We didn't just waltz in with guns a-blazin' we asked nicely.

 

And yes I do think they will tell you "No you can't use your nukes in OUR country". What sane country's leader would? And you know what? There is jack squat that G.W. Bush can do about it!

 

Oh and by the way, you did not "take out" the former government of Afghanistan. The Taliban was not Afghanistan's government. You negotiated with the existing government to allow you to come in and prosecute the Taliban and Al-Qaeda for their attack on 9/11.

 

You are confusing with Afghanistan and the travesty in Iraq. But then I can see how you might get them confused. They are all 'over there' and none of them have any kind of governments right?

Edited September 25, 2005 by shiznit

[LoArmistead]

Oh and by the way, you did not take out the former government of Afghanistan. You negotiated with the existing government to allow you to come in and prosecute the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. You are getting confused with Afghanistan and the travesty in Iraq.

550275[/snapback]

 

Uh...buddy... the former government of Afghanistan WAS the Taliban... We went in "guns a'blazin" and forcefully removed the dictatorship that is the Taliban from power. And who said we were going to use nukes? You kooks work under the impression that we are actually WANTING to use them. You don't know us well do you? You see the United States as a bunch of war mongering imperialists... but that's what you get for believing the press. So..yeah your above post is about 145.3% FALSE.

[shiznit]

Uh...buddy... the former government of Afghanistan WAS the Taliban... We went in "guns a'blazin" and forcefully removed the dictatorship that is the Taliban from power.  And who said we were going to use nukes?  You kooks work under the impression that we are actually WANTING to use them.  You don't know us well do you?  You see the United States as a bunch of war mongering imperialists... but that's what you get for believing the press.  So..yeah your above post is about 145.3% FALSE.

550277[/snapback]

 

The Taliban was a minority part if Afghanistan's government - an opposition - not the ruling government. That you see the Taliban was Afghanistan's ruling government only shows a narrow minded view of governments in the middle-eqastern world.

 

For Afghanistan I have repeatedly used the words "We" and "Allied Nations". The U.S. was, and is not in that particular venture alone so don't assume it is. You have had help from a lot of allied countries. Allies that would not be so steadfastly loyal to you if you start using these nukes. Allies that are still ggifing that help even though the U.S. has committed far more resources to chasing down its interests in Iraq.

[LoArmistead]

The Taliban was a minority part if Afghanistan's government - an opposition - not the ruling government. That you see the Taliban was Afghanistan's ruling government only shows a narrow minded view of governments in the middle-eqastern world.

 

For Afghanistan I have repeatedly used the words "We" and "Allied Nations". The U.S. was, and is not in that particular venture alone so don't assume it is. You have had help from a lot of allied countries. Allies that would not be so steadfastly loyal to you if you start using these nukes. Allies that are still ggifing that help even though the U.S. has committed far more resources to chasing down its interests in Iraq.

550283[/snapback]

 

God forbid a country be able to do two things at once... and yes, I am narrow minded, but I am also fairly well in-tune with the middle eastern world, seeing as though I get to deal with it in some way or another, directly and indirectly, everyday. The Taliban seized Kabul in '96, and controlled 95% of the country with the more extremist laws of Islam. The only resistance the Taliban had (before we came in and kicked their asses) was the Northern Alliance; they controlled a few caves and mudhuts in Northern Afghanistan, and are the ones who helped us seek out and destroy Al Qaeda forces in Northern Afghanistan in Tora Bora.

 

I think you are trying to blow smoke up my butt, shiznit. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan with an iron fist before we liberated the Afghani people. There was no other government. The Taliban leadership in Afgahanistan was exactly like the dictatorship under Saddam Hussein...except for some reason more people agree with removing the Taliban than removing Saddam, gotta hate Bush for something, I guess? If ANYHTING, it was more important to go into Iraq than Afghanistan. Afghanistan wasn't threatening to use their nuclear arsenal against us if we impeded their country's progress to the Information Age.

[bigred]

and people wonder why terrorists come after us... they have people like him to fear

 

 

shiznit, I'm curious now, what is your plan? how do you handle a hostile organization like Al Queida? a little hand holding, butt kissnig, bend over take up the rear? do tell.

 

 

 

**** this should be real entertaining *****

[LoArmistead]

Hah, his problem, bired, is that he doesn't KNOW what we should've done. He's a typical lib, always complaining about what we are doing wrong but never offering any advice on how to fix it. A BBC brainwashee.

[shiznit]

God forbid a country be able to do two things at once... and yes, I am narrow minded, but I am also fairly well in-tune with the middle eastern world, seeing as though I get to deal with it in some way or another, directly and indirectly, everyday.  The Taliban seized Kabul in '96, and controlled 95% of the country with the more extremist laws of Islam.  The only resistance the Taliban had (before we came in and kicked their asses) was the Northern Alliance; they controlled a few caves and mudhuts in Northern Afghanistan, and are the ones who helped us seek out and destroy Al Qaeda forces in Northern Afghanistan in Tora Bora.

 

I think you are trying to blow smoke up my butt, shiznit.  The Taliban ruled Afghanistan with an iron fist before we liberated the Afghani people.  There was no other government.  The Taliban leadership in Afgahanistan was exactly like the dictatorship under Saddam Hussein...except for some reason more people agree with removing the Taliban than removing Saddam, gotta hate Bush for something, I guess?  If ANYHTING, it was more important to go into Iraq than Afghanistan.  Afghanistan wasn't threatening to use their nuclear arsenal against us if we impeded their country's progress to the Information Age.

550286[/snapback]

 

I don't give a flying crap about Bush. At the end of this term he will be out and someone else will have to clean up his mess.

 

Iraq was threadening the U.S. with a nuclear arsenal? What nuclear arsenal? Yeah, right. Have you seen China's defence minister's speech before the Chinese government replaced him? Now that is what I call a much more real threat than was found in Iraq. I think North Korea is a much larger threat than Iraq ever was. Bush's argument of entering Iraq to find WMD was based on flawed intelligence. I will say this once: Since the U.S. invaded Iraq, absolutely no WMD were found so Iraq could not have threatened anyone with a nuclear arsenal. The original premise for that invasion was baloney. So stop trying to blow your own smoke up my butt.

 

and people wonder why terrorists come after us...  they have people like him to fear

shiznit, I'm curious now, what is your plan?  how do you handle a hostile organization like Al Queida?  a little hand holding, butt kissnig, bend over take up the rear?  do tell. 

**** this should be real entertaining *****

550290[/snapback]

So, it is now my responsibility to chase down and prosecute terrorists? Is it yours? Don't be stupid man. Nothing that is discussed here will ever make one iota difference one way or another. This is a forum for venting opinions, nothing more. If you think it is more than that, you need help.

 

But tell us, do you really think dropping a mountain on a few terrorist cells, even with a bunker buster nuke will stop them or even slow them down? Do you really think they will nicely all congregate in one place for you to come along do that. Do you think that by taking out all of the terrortist cells you find in one, two or even three countries will wipe them out? Do you? If you do, pass some of what you're smoking over this way. You're having some pretty rosy dreams there.

 

Look around at the big picture. Terrorism is everywhere. Ireland, Germany, The netherlands, Canada, and yes even in America. Terrorism is everyone's problem. Dropping a bomb on it won't make it go away. Nor will firing a hundred nukes at them. You take out one cell, 5 more will pop up and take its place.

 

So you are asking me if I have a plan for taking out the Al-qaeda, no. I don't. If I did, I sure as crap wouldn't be outlining those plans here with you now would I. From what i've seen you don't have any more than I do so how about cutting the posturing and getting this thread back on topic huh?

Edited September 25, 2005 by shiznit

[LoArmistead]

Typical, all criticism, no solution. It's like it goes in one ear and out the other with these guys.

 

Shiznit... Look at the UN weapons inspectors reports for 2002. Saddam had a very large nuclear arsenal that was "legal" for self defense.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81213,00.html

 

He also would not let weapons inspectors go into several of his facilities. Why would he do this? I'm sure you are thinking, "Well duh, he wouldn't let the UN in because the place was messy and he had to get housekeeping to tidy it up first, you uninformed closed-minded conservative!" Heh, well, the reason he wouldn't let them in is because he had contraband weapons. When the UN pressed Saddam to let them see what was inside those facilities, he kicked them out of the country (seven consecutive times)... did he have anything to hide? Nah.... These people still think we should've tried UN weapons inspections before going into Iraq. Jeeze, we tried it for 12 years! How long do we have to do it before we realize it wasn't gonna work!

 

I have a plan to defeat terrorism, it's what we are doing now. And believe it or not, it's working. It's not going to be a quick war, but slowly but surely we are taking ground.

 

Saddam DID have WMD's. You didn't think he was going to leave them in the living room of one of his palaces when he skipped town did you? The bastard hid them, and sent $50 milllion worth to Europe. The rest he buried in the east Syrian desert. You'll just have tot ake my word on it for now because I don't know if this has filtered through the media yet. Trust me, though, sooner or later we will find them exactly where I've told you they are at, and you liberals will have SOMETHING ELSE to complain about.

[Bionix]

Lo, you are my hero dude. You explain everything so well. I am in a huge liberal hotspot... and many of them are just plain stupid. Sometimes I have a hard time argueing with them beacuse they are so close minded. I wish I could have you follow me around and when summoned, you will own them.

Edited September 25, 2005 by Bionix

[LoArmistead]

Like a genie in a bottle...

 

But I hear ya, it's tough to argue with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about or where they stand on the issue. They just prance in circles and argue the "emotional" details of the subject rather than the facts.

[shiznit]

Typical, all criticism, no solution.  It's like it goes in one ear and out the other  with these guys. 

 

Shiznit... Look at the UN weapons inspectors reports for 2002.  Saddam had a very large nuclear arsenal that was "legal" for self defense. 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81213,00.html

 

He also would not let weapons inspectors go into several of his facilities.  Why would he do this?  I'm sure you are thinking, "Well duh, he wouldn't let the UN in because the place was messy and he had to get housekeeping to tidy it up first, you uninformed closed-minded conservative!"  Heh, well, the reason he wouldn't let them in is because he had contraband weapons.  When the UN pressed Saddam to let them see what was inside those facilities, he kicked them out of the country (seven consecutive times)... did he have anything to hide?  Nah....  These people still think we should've tried UN weapons inspections before going into Iraq.  Jeeze, we tried it for 12 years!  How long do we have to do it before we realize it wasn't gonna work!

 

I have a plan to defeat terrorism, it's what we are doing now.  And believe it or not, it's working.  It's not going to be a quick war, but slowly but surely we are taking ground.

 

Saddam DID have WMD's.  You didn't think he was going to leave them in the living room of one of his palaces when he skipped town did you?  The bastard hid them, and sent $50 milllion worth to Europe.  The rest he buried in the east Syrian desert.  You'll just have tot ake my word on it for now because I don't know if this has filtered through the media yet.  Trust me, though, sooner or later we will find them exactly where I've told you they are at, and you liberals will have SOMETHING ELSE to complain about.

550322[/snapback]

 

Heh, and you accuse me of listening too much to the press. Fox News? LOL

 

Here's a quote from that story:

Saddam Threatens Global War if Iraq Attacked

Sunday, March 16, 2003

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq

Edited September 25, 2005 by shiznit

[LoArmistead]

The U.N. weapons inspectors were expelled from Iraq seven times by Saddam Hussein himself. Fact.

 

I must've not found the right story (I didn't read it, I just put it there to please the liberals), but Saddam threatened nuclear war on anyone who went to war with him. Fact. This was in the mid 90's, before the big WMD beef.

 

You completely push aside the fact that he stopped inspectors from looking at certain facilities...why? Saddam had contraband WMD's, my occupation makes me privy to certain information the press doesn't see everyday (at least not immediately). If Saddam was smart (which he was believe it or not) he got the weapons out of the country before we got there... and that's what he did. I am telling you, "somewhere" in Europe and eastern Syria. There are things going on in your backyard that you don't even know about yet, friend.