Wow Necran! Where does one begin when having to wade through your monumental idiocy? You are PROFOUNDLY OUT OF TOUCH. I suppose I shall dissect them individually.
1: America struck the first blow against lot's of countries since the second world war, people don't call WWII the last truly justified war for no reason, it's a pretty bad example."
There have been in total 4 Major Wars involving US commitments since the conclusion of WWII.
The Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War in 1990, Current Iraq War.
Korean War was iniated By the Communist N. Here is a timeline.
And by the way between 1991- and 2001, there had been over 30,000 sorties in the Northern No fly zone alone. American airmen were being fire on daily. It had been a low grade series of aggresive actions by Saddam over a period of ten years. Look it up.
2: Over one million cambodians (mostly civilian) were killed with carpet bombs by america for reasons long forgotten.
The aerial bombings in Cambodia were intented to destroy the Ho Chi Minh Trai.
3: The American military follows it's own economic agenda, and feeds crap to the civilians so they think it was justified, There is still no evidence Bin Laden or anyone in Saudi Arabia had anything to do with 9/11
4: Just a couple days ago Something like a dozen military groups in Iraq said they would never attack anymore American military people there if they promised to leave in 2 more years, which was flatly denied by the Bush Administration, looks like they plan on occupying Iraq for at least 2 more years.
Don't ever have children. Our species CANNOT afford to have you transfer such useless genetic material into the population. THINK! If you were an insurgent, getting your ass handed to you, wouldn't you say this? It would give you time to recover your forces, consolidate, and attack when the opposition is weak. That is exactly what happened with the fall of saigon. I assume you would probably trust the word of an insurgent, you also probably believe the USA faked the moon landing to boost the sales figures for TANG too. I'm also going to quote a little chinese I know well, I've doubt you've read any Sun Tzu, in fact I've doubt you've READ.
All warfare is based on deception
If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.
If equally matched, we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him.
5: Do you even know what a Jihad is?
Um..I do in fact, I also know the history and the military expantion of Islam starting in the 7th century.
Now I will allocate some room to talk about conspiracy theories. You seem very fond of them necron. The great thing about conspiracy theories is they remove remove the burden of proof. The more they are approached with facts the bigger they get, until these ridiculous conspiracies infect every corner of the planet. It is amazing to me that people like you can dismiss reality and so called "Biased historical texts from long ago" to fit your warped perceptions. You formulate a universe based upon an emotional response, and then you create a mutilated version of facts to fit your whining. You can simultaneously ridicule Bush for Stupidity and credit him with the most vast, far reaching, insidious conspiratorial schemes; something only a super genious of hollywood proportions could pull off. Lay off the pipe, it makes you both vauntingly stupid and monumentally paranoid.
After reading your post and 20 links to material i have to agree Dakaas, America is the hand of god, even though the american military has killed more people than hitler and the second world war it was all justified, i was a fool to doubt it, your obviously better than everyone on earth, and we should all hang on your every word.
Look up jingoism by the way.
EDIT: why did you ignore all my truth about there never being a suicide bombing in the whole history of Iraq until the american occupation, and the true meaning of a jihad. i bet your a rush limbaugh fan.
And no i'm not muslim, i just have this thing about truth.
Originally posted by Dakaas Wow Necran! Where does one begin when having to wade through your monumental idiocy? You are PROFOUNDLY OUT OF TOUCH. I suppose I shall dissect them individually. 1: America struck the first blow against lot's of countries since the second world war, people don't call WWII the last truly justified war for no reason, it's a pretty bad example." There have been in total 4 Major Wars involving US commitments since the conclusion of WWII. The Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War in 1990, Current Iraq War.
Propaganda aside, Neither Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq ever attacked America. America has nukes and a history of using them.
If your Armies weren't in their countries in the first place they wouldn't have got shot at. The last country to attack America was Germany, after what happened to Japan every other country in the world has thought twice. No one attacks countries if they are known to have WMD. Everyone has seen the pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Countries with WMD are free to attack countries without WMD as they please. Countries with WMD are free from the threat of invasion. That's why Iran and North Korea are so desperate to get them.
And by the way between 1991- and 2001, there had been over 30,000 sorties in the Northern No fly zone alone. American airmen were being fire on daily. It had been a low grade series of aggresive actions by Saddam over a period of ten years. Look it up.
And exactly what do you think those sorties were doing?
They were flying over Iraq looking for people to bomb. If American bombers were not flying over Iraq, Iraqi's would not have shot at them. The way you tell it, it's hard to believe that no Allied Airmen were killed and hundreds of Iraqi targets (and their crews) were destroyed.
It's almost like you believe the opposite of history is true.
Iraqi's didn't move their anti aicraft guns over to America and without provocation start shooting American planes. If iraqi war planes were flying over America daily, would it be wrong for Americans to shoot at them?
A low grade series of aggressions by Saddam. Who are you trying to kid? A low grade series of defences.
I assume you are capabale of understanding the difference in the balance of power between the 3 third world countries you have mentioned and your own. None of them could have attacked America. None. They don't own weapon systems capable of hitting it.
"I assume you are capabale of understanding the difference in the balance of power between the 3 third world countries you have mentioned and your own. None of them could have attacked America. None. They don't own weapon systems capable of hitting it."
Yeah, don't you know there is no way a third world country could fund any attack on the US like that happened on September 11th. No way, that could happen, we are bigger then they are.
Ah Necron and Baff....sad sad sad....It appears blatant disregard of reality is both rapant and infectious.
READ A BOOK YOU TARDS!!! You two make this easy.
EDIT: why did you ignore all my truth about there never being a suicide bombing in the whole history of Iraq until the american occupation, and the true meaning of a jihad. i bet your a rush limbaugh fan.
Here is a history of suicidal attacks perpetrated by fanatics in Iraq. The insurgency consists mainly of foreigners, and ex-saddam loyalists. The Basij were known for suicidal wave attacks. Oh, I'm not a Rush Fan by the way.
I have allready sited the meaning of jihad but here is another. It seems it is fairly open to interpretation isn't it? The definition adapted by fundamentalist Wahabiist is the aggressive, offesive interpretation. These are facts. You can try to dismiss this by calling them propoganda but this only sheds light upon your basless emotional whinefest. In fact unless you want to deny the DICTIONARY we might as well throw out language as a valid form of communication, in which case "gkgjg ivf d58e renvdv wesh!!@".
Propaganda aside, Neither Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq ever attacked America. America has nukes and a history of using them.
We have used nuclear weapons twice in our history against Japan. These weapons inevitably saved more Japanese then they killed as the population was willing to sacrifice themselves to the last man in the case of a land invasion. Oh, and lets not forget the atrocities commited by the Japanese against the Chinese shall we?
And by the way, NOT PROPAGANDA; cold hard facts man! Something you two obviously feel uncomfortable with. The TRUTH is that all three of those conflicts began because of their acts of aggression. You can not claim compassion while sitting back and refusing to get involved when oppression is happening in front of you. It's like not intervening when someone is being lynched in the street. It doesn't make you a humanitarian, it makes you a hypocrite and a spinless coward.
And by the way between 1991- and 2001, there had been over 30,000 sorties in the Northern No fly zone alone. American airmen were being fire on daily. It had been a low grade series of aggresive actions by Saddam over a period of ten years. Look it up.
And exactly what do you think those sorties were doing?
Um...enforcing a treaty and protecting vulnerable population of Kurds who had suffered under Saddam from genocidal policy and chemical attacks over more than ten years. Keep up with the rest of class people! READ!
Granted Phoenixs. I'm just finding it hard to hyperlink my home library. I would like to think that people would do thier own research and give my fingers a break, but their silly retoric proves they do not.
Dakaas - You have severely misunderstood my statement about Democracy and furthermore, you have proceeded to refute the statement with grossly irrelevant scenarios.
I stated: Democracy cannot be spread through the barrel of a gun.
You stated: Of course it can: ex. American Revolution, English Civil War
The democratic or pseudodemocratic regimes that were born out of the American Revolution and the English Civil War have absolutely nothign to do with my statement. Firstly, these were not instances in which democracy was spread from one nation to another, but instances where democracy was chosen by the actions of the masses. No foreign country invaded America, ousted Britain and supervised the drafting of our constitution (though Spain and France were allied) during the American Revolution. The English Civil War by its nature, involved no force from an outside power, as it was a civil war. In both instances, it was the common will and effort of the people and not the intervention of a foreign power that led to the establishment of democratic governments.
Once again, Democracy cannot and should not be spread through the barrel of a gun.
Next time, Dakaas, rein in your misdirected indignance, and make sure your arguments are both more apt and more relevant.
Originally posted by viadi Originally posted by Vercades http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html we all know who owns fox"news" and his relationship with bush, we also know fox"news" has started selling products as a news story (skin creams) i no longer belive that fox "news" (yea i know im just driving home the point) can be trusted to give a balanced view on current events seems its all twisted into making you think something or buy something try this news scource
Ah yes ofcourse, an entire corporation just putting out completely false information as a favor for a buddy...
How obvious, your insight is astounding.
Not to sound like a tinfoil hat freak, but it somehow wouldn't surprise me.
Also it would be a fairly big favor, seeing as WMD's were Bush's premise for entering Iraq to begin with.
Wrong again bhagamu. Get your history strait. The Foreign invader were the English occupation troops and hessian mercenaries. The American revolution only succeeded with the intervention of the French, the fleets of Count de Grasse's French and the French general Rochambeau proved the decisive factor. It was the TREATY OF PARIS, that ended the American Revolution, unless the history books are refering to the little town of Paris, Kentucky I'm fairly sure that the Paris refered too is in France.
Now onto the English civil war. The Parliamentary forces continued an indecisive campaign until they gained support of the Scotts, an autonomous region at the time. The decisive battle of Marston Moor was only won by their help.
Do you want to keep proving your ignorance? I used those three examples because I assumed you might know what you were talking about, apparently not. Lets view some more recent history then. How about the establishment of West Germany? Japan post occupation? Both of these are Democratic republics spread through the barrel of a gun as you put it. How about Italy? The struggle for greek independance in 1821. Get it together, it appears you know significantly less then you think.
Dakaas - You again so adamantly resist understanding what I've been saying, and your examples prove it.
During the American Revolution:
You stated: The Foreign invader were the English occupation troops and hessian mercenaries. The American revolution only succeeded with the intervention of the French, the fleets of Count de Grasse's French and the French general Rochambeau proved the decisive factor.
The English were occupying the Americas, as we very well know; however, they did not force democracy onto this country! As you so indignantly and pointlessly tout, read your history books! The Virginia House of Burgesses was, for example, an elected body that was around before the Revolution itself. Democracy had already taken root in the Americas well before the English achieved ownership of the entire 13 colonies.
You stated: Do you want to keep proving your ignorance? I used those three examples because I assumed you might know what you were talking about, apparently not. Lets view some more recent history then. How about the establishment of West Germany? Japan post occupation? Both of these are Democratic republics spread through the barrel of a gun as you put it. How about Italy? The struggle for greek independance in 1821. Get it together, it appears you know significantly less then you think. I don't know who you think you're kidding, talking so abrasively as if you are the supreme authority about history. You're using these situations to prove absolutely nothing relevant to what I said. You cite West Germany; have you forgotten that after Bismarck, Germany was a Republic anyway? Democracy was already there; it was Hitler that temporarily corrupted the government of Germany. Greek Independence? Again, it was an independence movement, started by the people, not started by a foreign power seeking to impose democracy. There is a distinct difference between a people's uprising for democracy and a foreign nation invading another to impose democracy. You have failed to disambiguate the two, and you have mistakenly and quite rudely called me ignorant in the process. The worst part about this is that the statement was that it not meant to be taken at face value at all, but rather a statement that you should think about and reflect on.
Do you have any idea how stupid that statement was? Are you trying to suggest that everyone in the U.K. and other European countries is a poor drunk person who can't afford to buy the weekly groceries? Because that sure as hell is what it sounds like you're trying to say. My guess is that you've never even been to Europe. You really should go some time. I think you'd be completely amazed at how happy and technologically advanced those "poor drunks" over in Europe actually are. Saying that socialist practices don't work and leave people in perpetual poverty is completely stupid and uninformed.
I am thoroughly enjoying goading you. I must however point out your statements as incorrect once again, keep digging yourself deeper.
You made a broad statement
"Democracy cannot be spread through the barrel of a gun"
This was to me interpreted as "Democracy cannot grow thourgh the use of force", or "Democracy cannot be imposed upon a people", or "Violence is not a legitimate means of spreading democratic ideas." NO?
I was illustrating a series of historic examples where this was exactly the case. In fact, I know of no spontaneous democratic movement in history that has ever succeeded without foreign intervention. It just doesn't happen.
Here is my first legitimate post espressing the Bush administrations strategic concept for changing the middle east.
And here is additional illustrations, two which you clumsily used in an attempt to refute me.
The Weimar Republic was formed in 1919 in order to meet a condition of the peace treaty imposed after their defeat in WWI. The transition to a democratic government after the abdication of the Kaiser was imposed by a consequence of their defeat. A prime example of what I was talking about. Your attempt at nullifiing reality has merely further proven my point.
And the Greek rebellion. Romanticzied by western europe funded and supplemented by large numbers of Non-Greek volunteers. Most famously one being the English poet Lord Byron.
The revolt began under the leadership of Alexandros Ypsilanti (1792–1828). He was soon defeated, but in the meantime other rebels in Greece and on several islands gained control of the Peloponnese and declared Greek independence (1822). Three times the Turks attempted invasions. Internal rivalries prevented the Greeks from extending their control and consolidating their position. With Egyptian reinforcements, the Turks successfully invaded the Peloponnese and captured several cities, but the intervention of the European powers saved the Greek cause.
And now lets put things into perspective here in Iraq. The uprising to overthrow Saddam in 1991. We left these people to get massacered. We encourage them overthrow Saddam and then let get killed by the thousands. That alone should be justification for thier liberation. But think how things would have been different if we had supported them.
Who cares? I sure don't. I live in the US. Let them blow me up.
Some people are so anal about the dumbest threads people say. This will be my first and last post here, so there's no point in flaming me on MY OPINION!
It's that. Don't like it, go cut your wrist you emo bastards.
Originally posted by Gane1 Do you have any idea how stupid that statement was? Are you trying to suggest that everyone in the U.K. and other European countries is a poor drunk person who can't afford to buy the weekly groceries? Because that sure as hell is what it sounds like you're trying to say. My guess is that you've never even been to Europe. You really should go some time. I think you'd be completely amazed at how happy and technologically advanced those "poor drunks" over in Europe actually are. Saying that socialist practices don't work and leave people in perpetual poverty is completely stupid and uninformed.
Hmm, that makes perfect sense, because The United Kingdoms are socialists......... (I'll give you a hint, there might be a trace of sarcasm in that last sentence)
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment; We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
I am thoroughly enjoying goading you. I must however point out your statements as incorrect once again, keep digging yourself deeper.
You've done no such thing.
You made a broad statement
"Democracy cannot be spread through the barrel of a gun"
This was to me interpreted as "Democracy cannot grow thourgh the use of force", or "Democracy cannot be imposed upon a people", or "Violence is not a legitimate means of spreading democratic ideas." NO?
The second one is the most accurate.
I was illustrating a series of historic examples where this was exactly the case. In fact, I know of no spontaneous democratic movement in history that has ever succeeded without foreign intervention. It just doesn't happen.
I grow tired of explaining this: intervention is different from imposition. Your arguments are wholly misdirected.
Here is my first legitimate post espressing the Bush administrations strategic concept for changing the middle east.
And here is additional illustrations, two which you clumsily used in an attempt to refute me.
The Weimar Republic was formed in 1919 in order to meet a condition of the peace treaty imposed after their defeat in WWI. The transition to a democratic government after the abdication of the Kaiser was imposed by a consequence of their defeat. A prime example of what I was talking about. Your attempt at nullifiing reality has merely further proven my point.
Directly quoted from your source: From 1916 onwards, the 1871German Empire had effectively been governed by the military, led by the Oberste Heeresleitung (OHL, Supreme Army Command) with the Chief of Staff Paul von Hindenburg. When it became apparent that World War I was lost, the OHL demanded that a civil government be installed in order to meet a key peace talk condition from United States President Woodrow Wilson. Any attempt to continue the war after Bulgaria had left the Central Powers would only have caused German territories to be occupied. The new Reichskanzler Prince Max von Baden thus offered a cease-fire to President Wilson on October 3, 1918. On October 28, 1918, the 1871 constitution was finally amended to make the Reich a parliamentary democracy, which the government had refused for half a century: the Chancellor was henceforth responsible to Parliament, the Reichstag, and no longer to the Kaiser.
The plan to transform Germany into a constitutional monarchy similar to Britain quickly became obsolete as the country slid into a state of near-total chaos.
From 1916 onwards, the 1871German Empire had effectively been governed by the military, led by the Oberste Heeresleitung (OHL, Supreme Army Command) with the Chief of Staff Paul von Hindenburg. When it became apparent that World War I was lost, the OHL demanded that a civil government be installed in order to meet a key peace talk condition from United States President Woodrow Wilson. Any attempt to continue the war after Bulgaria had left the Central Powers would only have caused German territories to be occupied. The new Reichskanzler Prince Max von Baden thus offered a cease-fire to President Wilson on October 3, 1918. On October 28, 1918, the 1871 constitution was finally amended to make the Reich a parliamentary democracy, which the government had refused for half a century: the Chancellor was henceforth responsible to Parliament, the Reichstag, and no longer to the Kaiser.
The plan to transform Germany into a constitutional monarchy similar to Britain quickly became obsolete as the country slid into a state of near-total chaos.
The 'condition' you mistakenly referenced was a requirement for Germany to switch from a military controlled state to a civilian controlled state, proven by your source. The original plan was to convert Germany into a constitutional monarchy, and democracy came about as that failed, and the German people ratified the constitution of the Weimar Republic.
And the Greek rebellion. Romanticzied by western europe funded and supplemented by large numbers of Non-Greek volunteers. Most famously one being the English poet Lord Byron.
The revolt began under the leadership of Alexandros Ypsilanti (1792–1828). He was soon defeated, but in the meantime other rebels in Greece and on several islands gained control of the Peloponnese and declared Greek independence (1822). Three times the Turks attempted invasions. Internal rivalries prevented the Greeks from extending their control and consolidating their position. With Egyptian reinforcements, the Turks successfully invaded the Peloponnese and captured several cities, but the intervention of the European powers saved the Greek cause.
The Turks, like the French in the American Revolution, supported the Greeks during their revolution. The Turks did not orchestrate an invasion of Greece in an neoconish effort to impose democracy.
And now lets put things into perspective here in Iraq. The uprising to overthrow Saddam in 1991. We left these people to get massacered. We encourage them overthrow Saddam and then let get killed by the thousands. That alone should be justification for thier liberation. But think how things would have been different if we had supported them.
American intervention in the incident you cite would not have been what I was talking about at all. In that case, we would be an allied power assisting a mass rebellion instead of a foreign country planning an invasion in the effort to change a regime.
And by the way, this matters not but I majored in world history.
I'm sure you know your history. It hasn't done you any good at all, as you've continually misdirected your arguments, tried to prove points that have had no relevance to what I said, and worst of all, misunderstood your own source.
For the Record, There were no WMDs, if you read the entire story, it would say that they were fround long agfo and there bringing it up because, this country if failing and there trying to look successful, I hope some1 said that already.
2000 left handed people die from doing rigt handed things every year.
Comments
Wow Necran! Where does one begin when having to wade through your monumental idiocy? You are PROFOUNDLY OUT OF TOUCH. I suppose I shall dissect them individually.
1: America struck the first blow against lot's of countries since the second world war, people don't call WWII the last truly justified war for no reason, it's a pretty bad example."
There have been in total 4 Major Wars involving US commitments since the conclusion of WWII.
The Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War in 1990, Current Iraq War.
Korean War was iniated By the Communist N. Here is a timeline.
http://www.korean-war.com/TimeLine/1950/06-25to08-03-50.html
The Vietnam war was initiated by an attack in 1957 by the communist forces from the north. Again a timeline for the intellectually impared.
http://vietnam.vassar.edu/overview.html
Gulf war in 1990. Don't see why I would need to put this up but for the fact that necron has truly wowed me with his stupid.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/cron/
And here we go. Beyond my previously stated reasons here is some more. Treaty violations etc.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=98-D_33at
http://www.state.gov/p/io/fs/2003/18850.htm
And by the way between 1991- and 2001, there had been over 30,000 sorties in the Northern No fly zone alone. American airmen were being fire on daily. It had been a low grade series of aggresive actions by Saddam over a period of ten years. Look it up.
2: Over one million cambodians (mostly civilian) were killed with carpet bombs by america for reasons long forgotten.
The aerial bombings in Cambodia were intented to destroy the Ho Chi Minh Trai.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh_Traill
And might I remind you of a little guy named Pol Pot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot
3: The American military follows it's own economic agenda, and feeds crap to the civilians so they think it was justified, There is still no evidence Bin Laden or anyone in Saudi Arabia had anything to do with 9/11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
4: Just a couple days ago Something like a dozen military groups in Iraq said they would never attack anymore American military people there if they promised to leave in 2 more years, which was flatly denied by the Bush Administration, looks like they plan on occupying Iraq for at least 2 more years.
Don't ever have children. Our species CANNOT afford to have you transfer such useless genetic material into the population. THINK! If you were an insurgent, getting your ass handed to you, wouldn't you say this? It would give you time to recover your forces, consolidate, and attack when the opposition is weak. That is exactly what happened with the fall of saigon. I assume you would probably trust the word of an insurgent, you also probably believe the USA faked the moon landing to boost the sales figures for TANG too. I'm also going to quote a little chinese I know well, I've doubt you've read any Sun Tzu, in fact I've doubt you've READ.
All warfare is based on deception
If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him.
If he is in superior strength, evade him.
If equally matched, we can offer battle;
if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy;
if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him.
5: Do you even know what a Jihad is?
Um..I do in fact, I also know the history and the military expantion of Islam starting in the 7th century.
http://www.historyofjihad.com/
http://www.barkati.net/english/
Now I will allocate some room to talk about conspiracy theories. You seem very fond of them necron. The great thing about conspiracy theories is they remove remove the burden of proof. The more they are approached with facts the bigger they get, until these ridiculous conspiracies infect every corner of the planet. It is amazing to me that people like you can dismiss reality and so called "Biased historical texts from long ago" to fit your warped perceptions. You formulate a universe based upon an emotional response, and then you create a mutilated version of facts to fit your whining. You can simultaneously ridicule Bush for Stupidity and credit him with the most vast, far reaching, insidious conspiratorial schemes; something only a super genious of hollywood proportions could pull off. Lay off the pipe, it makes you both vauntingly stupid and monumentally paranoid.
After reading your post and 20 links to material i have to agree Dakaas, America is the hand of god, even though the american military has killed more people than hitler and the second world war it was all justified, i was a fool to doubt it, your obviously better than everyone on earth, and we should all hang on your every word.
Look up jingoism by the way.
EDIT: why did you ignore all my truth about there never being a suicide bombing in the whole history of Iraq until the american occupation, and the true meaning of a jihad. i bet your a rush limbaugh fan.
And no i'm not muslim, i just have this thing about truth.
Propaganda aside, Neither Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq ever attacked America. America has nukes and a history of using them.
If your Armies weren't in their countries in the first place they wouldn't have got shot at. The last country to attack America was Germany, after what happened to Japan every other country in the world has thought twice. No one attacks countries if they are known to have WMD. Everyone has seen the pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Countries with WMD are free to attack countries without WMD as they please. Countries with WMD are free from the threat of invasion. That's why Iran and North Korea are so desperate to get them.
And by the way between 1991- and 2001, there had been over 30,000 sorties in the Northern No fly zone alone. American airmen were being fire on daily. It had been a low grade series of aggresive actions by Saddam over a period of ten years. Look it up.
And exactly what do you think those sorties were doing?
They were flying over Iraq looking for people to bomb. If American bombers were not flying over Iraq, Iraqi's would not have shot at them. The way you tell it, it's hard to believe that no Allied Airmen were killed and hundreds of Iraqi targets (and their crews) were destroyed.
It's almost like you believe the opposite of history is true.
Iraqi's didn't move their anti aicraft guns over to America and without provocation start shooting American planes. If iraqi war planes were flying over America daily, would it be wrong for Americans to shoot at them?
A low grade series of aggressions by Saddam. Who are you trying to kid? A low grade series of defences.
I assume you are capabale of understanding the difference in the balance of power between the 3 third world countries you have mentioned and your own. None of them could have attacked America. None. They don't own weapon systems capable of hitting it.
Yes they shot at our planes that were flying over Iraq. But here is the rest of the details.
The planes where allowed to fly over Iraq to inspect for the UN.
They looked for targets that broke UN sanctions.
So, Iraq shot at UN sanctioned planes flying over them to bomb UN sanction breaking sites. So Iraq was breaking UN sanctions by shooting at US planes.
"I assume you are capabale of understanding the difference in the balance of power between the 3 third world countries you have mentioned and your own. None of them could have attacked America. None. They don't own weapon systems capable of hitting it."
Yeah, don't you know there is no way a third world country could fund any attack on the US like that happened on September 11th. No way, that could happen, we are bigger then they are.
Ah Necron and Baff....sad sad sad....It appears blatant disregard of reality is both rapant and infectious.
READ A BOOK YOU TARDS!!! You two make this easy.
EDIT: why did you ignore all my truth about there never being a suicide bombing in the whole history of Iraq until the american occupation, and the true meaning of a jihad. i bet your a rush limbaugh fan.
Here is a history of suicidal attacks perpetrated by fanatics in Iraq. The insurgency consists mainly of foreigners, and ex-saddam loyalists. The Basij were known for suicidal wave attacks. Oh, I'm not a Rush Fan by the way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseej
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/iran_iraq_war/iran_iraq_war1.php
I have allready sited the meaning of jihad but here is another. It seems it is fairly open to interpretation isn't it? The definition adapted by fundamentalist Wahabiist is the aggressive, offesive interpretation. These are facts. You can try to dismiss this by calling them propoganda but this only sheds light upon your basless emotional whinefest. In fact unless you want to deny the DICTIONARY we might as well throw out language as a valid form of communication, in which case "gkgjg ivf d58e renvdv wesh!!@".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
http://www.historyofjihad.com/
http://www.barkati.net/english/
Propaganda aside, Neither Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq ever attacked America. America has nukes and a history of using them.
We have used nuclear weapons twice in our history against Japan. These weapons inevitably saved more Japanese then they killed as the population was willing to sacrifice themselves to the last man in the case of a land invasion. Oh, and lets not forget the atrocities commited by the Japanese against the Chinese shall we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre
http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/
And by the way, NOT PROPAGANDA; cold hard facts man! Something you two obviously feel uncomfortable with. The TRUTH is that all three of those conflicts began because of their acts of aggression. You can not claim compassion while sitting back and refusing to get involved when oppression is happening in front of you. It's like not intervening when someone is being lynched in the street. It doesn't make you a humanitarian, it makes you a hypocrite and a spinless coward.
And by the way between 1991- and 2001, there had been over 30,000 sorties in the Northern No fly zone alone. American airmen were being fire on daily. It had been a low grade series of aggresive actions by Saddam over a period of ten years. Look it up.
And exactly what do you think those sorties were doing?
Um...enforcing a treaty and protecting vulnerable population of Kurds who had suffered under Saddam from genocidal policy and chemical attacks over more than ten years. Keep up with the rest of class people! READ!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm
http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html
"This article may not conform to the neutral point of view policy.
A Wikipedian has nominated this article to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page."
When even wikipedia warns about it, I would highly question it's objectivity.
Dakaas - You have severely misunderstood my statement about Democracy and furthermore, you have proceeded to refute the statement with grossly irrelevant scenarios.
I stated: Democracy cannot be spread through the barrel of a gun.
You stated: Of course it can: ex. American Revolution, English Civil War
The democratic or pseudodemocratic regimes that were born out of the American Revolution and the English Civil War have absolutely nothign to do with my statement. Firstly, these were not instances in which democracy was spread from one nation to another, but instances where democracy was chosen by the actions of the masses. No foreign country invaded America, ousted Britain and supervised the drafting of our constitution (though Spain and France were allied) during the American Revolution. The English Civil War by its nature, involved no force from an outside power, as it was a civil war. In both instances, it was the common will and effort of the people and not the intervention of a foreign power that led to the establishment of democratic governments.
Once again, Democracy cannot and should not be spread through the barrel of a gun.
Next time, Dakaas, rein in your misdirected indignance, and make sure your arguments are both more apt and more relevant.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
Ah yes ofcourse, an entire corporation just putting out completely false information as a favor for a buddy...
How obvious, your insight is astounding.
Not to sound like a tinfoil hat freak, but it somehow wouldn't surprise me.
Also it would be a fairly big favor, seeing as WMD's were Bush's premise for entering Iraq to begin with.
JsmasH the Magnificent
Wrong again bhagamu. Get your history strait. The Foreign invader were the English occupation troops and hessian mercenaries. The American revolution only succeeded with the intervention of the French, the fleets of Count de Grasse's French and the French general Rochambeau proved the decisive factor. It was the TREATY OF PARIS, that ended the American Revolution, unless the history books are refering to the little town of Paris, Kentucky I'm fairly sure that the Paris refered too is in France.
READ! http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/revwar-77.htm
Now onto the English civil war. The Parliamentary forces continued an indecisive campaign until they gained support of the Scotts, an autonomous region at the time. The decisive battle of Marston Moor was only won by their help.
READ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War
Do you want to keep proving your ignorance? I used those three examples because I assumed you might know what you were talking about, apparently not. Lets view some more recent history then. How about the establishment of West Germany? Japan post occupation? Both of these are Democratic republics spread through the barrel of a gun as you put it. How about Italy? The struggle for greek independance in 1821. Get it together, it appears you know significantly less then you think.
Dakaas - You again so adamantly resist understanding what I've been saying, and your examples prove it.
During the American Revolution:
You stated: The Foreign invader were the English occupation troops and hessian mercenaries. The American revolution only succeeded with the intervention of the French, the fleets of Count de Grasse's French and the French general Rochambeau proved the decisive factor.
The English were occupying the Americas, as we very well know; however, they did not force democracy onto this country! As you so indignantly and pointlessly tout, read your history books! The Virginia House of Burgesses was, for example, an elected body that was around before the Revolution itself. Democracy had already taken root in the Americas well before the English achieved ownership of the entire 13 colonies.
You stated: Do you want to keep proving your ignorance? I used those three examples because I assumed you might know what you were talking about, apparently not. Lets view some more recent history then. How about the establishment of West Germany? Japan post occupation? Both of these are Democratic republics spread through the barrel of a gun as you put it. How about Italy? The struggle for greek independance in 1821. Get it together, it appears you know significantly less then you think.
I don't know who you think you're kidding, talking so abrasively as if you are the supreme authority about history. You're using these situations to prove absolutely nothing relevant to what I said. You cite West Germany; have you forgotten that after Bismarck, Germany was a Republic anyway? Democracy was already there; it was Hitler that temporarily corrupted the government of Germany. Greek Independence? Again, it was an independence movement, started by the people, not started by a foreign power seeking to impose democracy.
There is a distinct difference between a people's uprising for democracy and a foreign nation invading another to impose democracy. You have failed to disambiguate the two, and you have mistakenly and quite rudely called me ignorant in the process. The worst part about this is that the statement was that it not meant to be taken at face value at all, but rather a statement that you should think about and reflect on.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
Uk's growing poverty.
France ghetto riots.
By the way the US has a lower pop. below poverty rate than the UK. Capitalism > than Socialism.
I am thoroughly enjoying goading you. I must however point out your statements as incorrect once again, keep digging yourself deeper.
You made a broad statement
"Democracy cannot be spread through the barrel of a gun"
This was to me interpreted as "Democracy cannot grow thourgh the use of force", or "Democracy cannot be imposed upon a people", or "Violence is not a legitimate means of spreading democratic ideas." NO?
I was illustrating a series of historic examples where this was exactly the case. In fact, I know of no spontaneous democratic movement in history that has ever succeeded without foreign intervention. It just doesn't happen.
Here is my first legitimate post espressing the Bush administrations strategic concept for changing the middle east.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/82792/page/23
And here is additional illustrations, two which you clumsily used in an attempt to refute me.
The Weimar Republic was formed in 1919 in order to meet a condition of the peace treaty imposed after their defeat in WWI. The transition to a democratic government after the abdication of the Kaiser was imposed by a consequence of their defeat. A prime example of what I was talking about. Your attempt at nullifiing reality has merely further proven my point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic#Controlled_revolution:_the_establishment_of_the_Republic_.281918.E2.80.931919.29
And the Greek rebellion. Romanticzied by western europe funded and supplemented by large numbers of Non-Greek volunteers. Most famously one being the English poet Lord Byron.
The revolt began under the leadership of Alexandros Ypsilanti (1792–1828). He was soon defeated, but in the meantime other rebels in Greece and on several islands gained control of the Peloponnese and declared Greek independence (1822). Three times the Turks attempted invasions. Internal rivalries prevented the Greeks from extending their control and consolidating their position. With Egyptian reinforcements, the Turks successfully invaded the Peloponnese and captured several cities, but the intervention of the European powers saved the Greek cause.
http://www.filetron.com/grkmanual/detailgreekchrono.html
And now lets put things into perspective here in Iraq. The uprising to overthrow Saddam in 1991. We left these people to get massacered. We encourage them overthrow Saddam and then let get killed by the thousands. That alone should be justification for thier liberation. But think how things would have been different if we had supported them.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
And by the way, this matters not but I majored in world history.
Who cares? I sure don't. I live in the US. Let them blow me up.
Some people are so anal about the dumbest threads people say. This will be my first and last post here, so there's no point in flaming me on MY OPINION!
It's that. Don't like it, go cut your wrist you emo bastards.
Uk's growing poverty.
France ghetto riots.
By the way the US has a lower pop. below poverty rate than the UK. Capitalism > than Socialism.
Hmm, that makes perfect sense, because The United Kingdoms are socialists......... (I'll give you a hint, there might be a trace of sarcasm in that last sentence)
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment;
We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
2000 left handed people die from doing rigt handed things every year.
2000 left handed people die from doing rigt handed things every year.