›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

World War III

13

Comments

  • KhuzarrzKhuzarrz Member Posts: 578
    Originally posted by Goldknyght
    Well then your argument aswell only furthers that our involvement should be non existant. We did the same thing to Iraq so why cant the russians do this to Georgia. We both had political goals influenced by our reasons for attack. Yet on this one im sure your buddies here will say Iraq was nessacary and this wasn't

     

    'Buddies' can have whatever say they want. Mine however, and I thought yours too, was that Iraq was an illegal war and shouldn't have happened. Neither should this.

     

    The fact is, Georgia had every right to do what they did, civilian casualties or otherwise. Russia however, did not; if Russia were really that horrified by the '2000 dead', and had stepped in with their 1992 peacekeeping powers, they'd be keeping the peace, NOT launching full scale ground assaults into the Georgian heartland.

  • PrecusorPrecusor Member UncommonPosts: 3,589

    Another disturbing development from Russia;



    Russia Warns Baltics, Poland To Pay For Georgia Stance-Report

    RIGA, Latvia (AFP)--Russia's ambassador to Latvia Monday warned the Baltic states and Poland that they would pay for their criticism of the Kremlin over the conflict in Georgia, the Baltic news agency BNS reported.

    "One must not hurry on such serious issues, as serious mistakes can be made that have to be paid for a long time afterwards," Alexander Veshnyakov was quoted as saying by BNS.

    Contacted by AFP, a spokesman for the Russian embassy in Riga confirmed the ambassador's comments but declined to elaborate.

    More at: Nasdaq

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183

    Why do these conflicts always seem to erupt where there's oil ? HMMMMMMM

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • olddaddyolddaddy Member Posts: 3,356
    Originally posted by BushMonkey


    DEBKAfile’s military sources note that the arrival of the three new American flotillas will raise to five the number of US strike forces in Middle East waters – an unprecedented build-up since the crisis erupted over Iran’s nuclear program.
    This vast naval and air strength consists of more than 40 carriers, warships and submarines, some of the last nuclear-armed, opposite the Islamic Republic, a concentration last seen just before the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
    Our military sources postulate five objects of this show of American muscle:
    1. The US, aided also by France, Britain and Canada, is finalizing preparations for a partial naval blockade to deny Iran imports of benzene and other refined oil products. This action would indicate that the Bush administration had thrown in the towel on stiff United Nations sanctions and decided to take matters in its own hands.
    2. Iran, which imports 40 percent of its refined fuel products from Gulf neighbors, will retaliate for the embargo by shutting the Strait of Hormuz oil route chokepoint, in which case the US naval and air force stand ready to reopen the Strait and fight back any Iranian attempt to break through the blockade.
    3. Washington is deploying forces as back-up for a possible Israeli military attack on Iran’s nuclear installations.
    4. A potential rush of events in which a US-led blockade, Israeli attack and Iranian reprisals pile up in a very short time and precipitate a major military crisis.
    5. While a massive deployment of this nature calls for long planning, its occurrence at this time cannot be divorced from the flare-up of the Caucasian war between Russia and Georgia. While Russia has strengthened its stake in Caspian oil resources by its overwhelming military intervention against Georgia, the Americans are investing might in defending the primary Persian Gulf oil sources of the West and the Far East.
    DEBKAfile’s military sources name the three US strike forces en route to the Gulf as the USS Theodore Roosevelt , the USS Ronald Reagan and the USS Iwo Jima . Already in place are the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea opposite Iranian shores and the USS Peleliu which is cruising in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.



     Yep its coming, i have accepted that fact since 1969.



    http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5499



     

    Meh......I would be more interested in noting whether this was new carrier groups arriving to relieve deployed carrier groups in a regular rotation basis. The fact that new carrier groups have arrived may or may not indicate an attack.

    Then again, maybe the drop in oil prices is causing some concern for the Bush administration, so air strikes on Iran are in order.

  • BushMonkeyBushMonkey Member Posts: 1,406
    Originally posted by bluberryhaze


    how in the fuck did george bush get dragged into this?
    the dark knight strikes again!
    and i tend to avoid discussing topics with people who use !!! to drive their frustrations via text, on a forum.
    settle down, have a cup of chillout...and look at the world without those 'hate bush goggles' that alot of people find fashionable these days.



     

     Because people like to forget history



    The text of the Congress Bipartisan resolution authorizing the President to use force

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/joint_resolution_10-11-02.html



     The UN resolution warning Iraq it faced "Serious Consequences" with a continued failure to comply

    http://massdiscussion.blogspot.com/2003/09/m-files-justifying-war-saddams.html

    Passed on November 8, 2002, UNSCR 1441 found that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its disarmament obligations. The resolution gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with those obligations. The resolution demanded that Iraq submit a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of its weapons of mass destruction and related programs within 30 days. Further demanded that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with the UN inspections. The resolution decided that false statements or omissions in Iraq's declarations and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution would constitute further material breach. Finally, the resolution recalled that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.



    The important thing to take from this resolution is that it is the seventeenth of its kind regarding Iraq's flagrant and obvious desire to not comply with the United Nations or with its obligations to disarm after the first Gulf War. It is important to note that Iraq was expected to accurately declare its programs and weapons within 30 days of November 8, 2002. Hans Blix, the UN head of UNMOVIC (the organization of inspectors sent by the UN to verify Iraq's cooperation in disarmament), noted several issues with their declaration in his briefing to the Security Council. Specifically, he addressed inconsistencies in the biological, chemical and missile portions of the document. 



     http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/



     Of course don't expect the Bush haters to accept any of it, to them it was all a plot to steal Iraq's oil.

    When in fact it would be more aptly labled a world wide plot to protect multinational business interests.

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2002/1218uscompanies.htm US-German involvement

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=05e_1186811761 French Involement

    And the largets supplier

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/13/134858.shtml Russia

     All going on while the US AirForce Pilots are being shot at while enforcing a UNAuthorized  No Fly Zone

    Seems there is enough blame to go around, but they would rather blame the man who stopped the BS.





     

  • olddaddyolddaddy Member Posts: 3,356
    Originally posted by BushMonkey
     Of course don't expect the Bush haters to accept any of it, to them it was all a plot to steal Iraq's oil. 



     

    Which, of course, we have still not gotten around to stealing.......

     

  • hazmatshazmats Member Posts: 1,081

    Time to put Ukraine into NATO.

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Originally posted by BushMonkey


    Of course don't expect the Bush haters to accept any of it, to them it was all a plot to steal Iraq's oil.

    When in fact it would be more aptly labled a world wide plot to protect multinational business interests.

    Either way we went to Iraq to suit our own interests , not to get Oil or heroically liberate oppressed people. Instead the goal was to create a pro American Iraqi government , providing us with oil and a base of operations in the region. The notion we went anywhere to fight "terrorists" is laughable. Fighting a war on terrorism,By invading muslim nations. Is like waging war on flies,by throwing poo around, You only escalate the problem.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • bluberryhazebluberryhaze Member Posts: 1,702
    Originally posted by Malickiebloo

    Originally posted by BushMonkey


    Of course don't expect the Bush haters to accept any of it, to them it was all a plot to steal Iraq's oil.

    When in fact it would be more aptly labled a world wide plot to protect multinational business interests.

    Either way we went to Iraq to suit our own interests , not to get Oil or heroically liberate oppressed people. Instead the goal was to create a pro American Iraqi government , providing us with oil and a base of operations in the region. The notion we went anywhere to fight "terrorists" is laughable. Fighting a war on terrorism,By invading muslim nations. Is like waging war on flies,by throwing poo around, You only escalate the problem.



     

    LOL.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

    our troops fighting a sworn enemy of the US, who also blew up wtc, uss cole, and other of our 'interests'.

    i do agree, we went to iraq to suit our interests. big fucking deal. it was a war of opportunity at its most sleaziest... democrats and republicans and the world were down with. 

    but, when we have drawn al queda to iraq and have our military persons killing them it does play into bush's hand of kill them there- and not here on our soil.

    Thanks for the info, Bushmonkey. most righteous reading. i shall spread the gospel to the in-laws and commit some to memory for future family arguments. facts are always better than emotions.

    -I will subtlety invade your psyche-

  • PrecusorPrecusor Member UncommonPosts: 3,589

    Just had to repost this

    Barack Obama today calls for the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Georgia.

    Memo to the Obama campaign: Russia has veto power in the United Nations Security Council.

     

  • BushMonkeyBushMonkey Member Posts: 1,406
    Originally posted by bluberryhaze

    Originally posted by Malickiebloo

    Originally posted by BushMonkey


    Of course don't expect the Bush haters to accept any of it, to them it was all a plot to steal Iraq's oil.

    When in fact it would be more aptly labled a world wide plot to protect multinational business interests.

    Either way we went to Iraq to suit our own interests , not to get Oil or heroically liberate oppressed people. Instead the goal was to create a pro American Iraqi government , providing us with oil and a base of operations in the region. The notion we went anywhere to fight "terrorists" is laughable. Fighting a war on terrorism,By invading muslim nations. Is like waging war on flies,by throwing poo around, You only escalate the problem.



     

    LOL.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

    our troops fighting a sworn enemy of the US, who also blew up wtc, uss cole, and other of our 'interests'.

    i do agree, we went to iraq to suit our interests. big fucking deal. it was a war of opportunity at its most sleaziest... democrats and republicans and the world were down with. 

    but, when we have drawn al queda to iraq and have our military persons killing them it does play into bush's hand of kill them there- and not here on our soil.

    Thanks for the info, Bushmonkey. most righteous reading. i shall spread the gospel to the in-laws and commit some to memory for future family arguments. facts are always better than emotions.

     Well here is a few other points you can bring  home

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg1748.cfm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_for_Food

     Plenty of corruption to be seen with the Oil for food program



     This is very interesting... a must read bluberry How deep did the French Rabbit hole go?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/timmerman200403220851.asp

    http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5135.html



    What i have  to ask is why we should stick our necks out any longer? Why be the UN's policeman?

    And where was the outpouring of rage by the left over this?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_bombing

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bombing_of_the_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia



     Some critics have accused the coalition of leading a war in Kosovo under the false pretense of genocide.[17] United States President Bill Clinton, and his administration, were accused of inflating the number of Kosovar Albanians killed by Serbians.[18] Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, said, "The appalling accounts of mass killing in Kosovo and the pictures of refugees fleeing Serb oppression for their lives makes it clear that this is a fight for justice over genocide."[19] On CBS' Face the Nation Cohen claimed, "We've now seen about 100,000 military-aged men missing...They may have been murdered."[20] Clinton, citing the same figure, spoke of "at least 100,000 (Kosovar Albanians) missing".[21] Later, talking about Serbian elections, Clinton said, "they're going to have to come to grips with what Mr. Miloševi? ordered in Kosovo...They're going to have to decide whether they support his leadership or not; whether they think it's OK that all those tens of thousands of people were killed...".[22] In the same press conference, Clinton also claimed "NATO stopped deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide."[23] Clinton compared the events of Kosovo to the Holocaust. CNN reported, "Accusing Serbia of 'ethnic cleansing' in Kosovo similar to the genocide of Jews in World War II, an impassioned President Clinton sought Tuesday to rally public support for his decision to send U.S. forces into combat against Yugoslavia, a prospect that seemed increasingly likely with the breakdown of a diplomatic peace effort."[24] Clinton's State Department also claimed Serbian troops had committed genocide. The New York Times reported, "the Administration said evidence of 'genocide' by Serbian forces was growing to include 'abhorrent and criminal action' on a vast scale. The language was the State Department's strongest yet in denouncing Yugoslav President Slobodan Miloševi?."[25] The State Department also gave the highest estimate of dead Albanians. The New York Times reported, "On April 19, the State Department said that up to 500,000 Kosovar Albanians were missing and feared dead."[26] The claims of purported genocide had subsequently been proven untrue





    Oh yeah Bill Clinton was President at that time....

     





     

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Originally posted by bluberryhaze

    Originally posted by Malickiebloo

    Originally posted by BushMonkey


    Of course don't expect the Bush haters to accept any of it, to them it was all a plot to steal Iraq's oil.

    When in fact it would be more aptly labled a world wide plot to protect multinational business interests.

    Either way we went to Iraq to suit our own interests , not to get Oil or heroically liberate oppressed people. Instead the goal was to create a pro American Iraqi government , providing us with oil and a base of operations in the region. The notion we went anywhere to fight "terrorists" is laughable. Fighting a war on terrorism,By invading muslim nations. Is like waging war on flies,by throwing poo around, You only escalate the problem.



     

    LOL.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

    our troops fighting a sworn enemy of the US, who also blew up wtc, uss cole, and other of our 'interests'.

    i do agree, we went to iraq to suit our interests. big fucking deal. it was a war of opportunity at its most sleaziest... democrats and republicans and the world were down with. 

    but, when we have drawn al queda to iraq and have our military persons killing them it does play into bush's hand of kill them there- and not here on our soil.

    Thanks for the info, Bushmonkey. most righteous reading. i shall spread the gospel to the in-laws and commit some to memory for future family arguments. facts are always better than emotions.

     Giving bush credit for anything going on in Iraq today is unbelievably naive. The only people who deserve credit are the men and woman serving our goverment over there valiantly. The suits in washignton at any level or party deserve nothing but contempt , They didn't plan this war properly and foolishly rushed into a "war of opportunity". on top of that it was an illegal war , the world wasn't behind it at all.

    Al'qaeda is one of many groups operating in Iraq right now,insurgents from all over the region are waging jihad,  using this as an opportunity to kill Americans. However it's a foolish notion we're going to beat them , you don't beat an enemy like this , there is no victory to be had. Every time you kill one another will take their place. Didn't our goverment learn anything when we supported the same people we're fighting, against the russians? They don't give up .

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Originally posted by BushMonkey







    Oh yeah Bill Clinton was President at that time....

     





     

     

    This is exactly why party politics crack me up .Bill Clinton , G.W , G.H.W. and yes even Reagan were no better or worse than each other, They all have good and bad things to reflect back on . But none of them except for one committed an international War Crime. Maybe you should look past the Bush love and Bush hate and realize the guy made many mistakes.

     

     

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • GazenthiaGazenthia Member Posts: 1,186
    Originally posted by Malickiebloo

    .Bill Clinton , G.W ,  They all have good and bad things to reflect back on . But none of them except for one committed an international War Crime. Maybe you should look past the Bush love and Bush hate and realize the guy made many mistakes.

     

    Bill Clinton and GW just made mistakes huh?



    Do you have any idea what you are talking about?



    Bill Clinton tossed out important banking and business regulations that led to several recessions, and what is looking to be a global depression. The GMO Patenting and Mansanto monopoly also occurred on his watch. The USA is the only nation on the face of the earth that tolerates that.



    GW not only allowed these things to continue and worsen, but also put the taxpayers on the hook for an indeterminate number of hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars to bail out private institutions. He also tried to push an amnesty bill, and never took care of the border, or anything.



    The only other president that has made these kinds of mistakes might be Woodrow Wilson, but at least he admitted to what he did, later, and genuinely regretted it.

    ___________________
    Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/

  • frodusfrodus Member Posts: 2,396


    Is this yet another test of freedom,or should i say "where" is this great European union that futurist speak of.Will this be last push that is needed to in-power a unified euro power alliance.


    world war 3,,,, no

    Surprised their asking for the US to intervene " I'M NOT "

    Just send in the LvL 70 Rangers and be done with it.

     

    Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.

  • PrecusorPrecusor Member UncommonPosts: 3,589
    Originally posted by frodus


     
    Is this yet another test of freedom,or should i say "where" is this great European union that futurist speak of.Will this be last push that is needed to in-power a unified euro power alliance.
     

    world war 3,,,, no

    Surprised their asking for the US to intervene " I'M NOT "
    Just send in the LvL 70 Rangers and be done with it.


     

     

    hmm

    www.ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2008-08-11_111263932.html

  • frodusfrodus Member Posts: 2,396
    Originally posted by Precusor

    Originally posted by frodus


     
    Is this yet another test of freedom,or should i say "where" is this great European union that futurist speak of.Will this be last push that is needed to in-power a unified euro power alliance.
     

     
    Surprised their asking for the US to intervene " I'M NOT "
    Just send in the LvL 70 Rangers and be done with it.


     

    world war 3,,,, no

     

    hmm

    www.ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2008-08-11_111263932.html



     

    I was just about to say where in the hell did you find that article,then i looked at where you live...great call bro.

    2nd link is sweet

    Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.

  • Tyres100Tyres100 Member Posts: 704
    Originally posted by frodus


     
    Is this yet another test of freedom,or should i say "where" is this great European union that futurist speak of.Will this be last push that is needed to in-power a unified euro power alliance.
     

    world war 3,,,, no

    Surprised their asking for the US to intervene " I'M NOT "
    Just send in the LvL 70 Rangers and be done with it.
     

    Thats no Ranger, thats a Hunter!

    Who let you in the VIP section?

  • BushMonkeyBushMonkey Member Posts: 1,406
    Originally posted by Malickiebloo

    Originally posted by bluberryhaze

    Originally posted by Malickiebloo

    Originally posted by BushMonkey


    Of course don't expect the Bush haters to accept any of it, to them it was all a plot to steal Iraq's oil.

    When in fact it would be more aptly labled a world wide plot to protect multinational business interests.

    Either way we went to Iraq to suit our own interests , not to get Oil or heroically liberate oppressed people. Instead the goal was to create a pro American Iraqi government , providing us with oil and a base of operations in the region. The notion we went anywhere to fight "terrorists" is laughable. Fighting a war on terrorism,By invading muslim nations. Is like waging war on flies,by throwing poo around, You only escalate the problem.



     

    LOL.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

    our troops fighting a sworn enemy of the US, who also blew up wtc, uss cole, and other of our 'interests'.

    i do agree, we went to iraq to suit our interests. big fucking deal. it was a war of opportunity at its most sleaziest... democrats and republicans and the world were down with. 

    but, when we have drawn al queda to iraq and have our military persons killing them it does play into bush's hand of kill them there- and not here on our soil.

    Thanks for the info, Bushmonkey. most righteous reading. i shall spread the gospel to the in-laws and commit some to memory for future family arguments. facts are always better than emotions.

     Giving bush credit for anything going on in Iraq today is unbelievably naive. The only people who deserve credit are the men and woman serving our goverment over there valiantly. The suits in washignton at any level or party deserve nothing but contempt , They didn't plan this war properly and foolishly rushed into a "war of opportunity". on top of that it was an illegal war , the world wasn't behind it at all.

    Al'qaeda is one of many groups operating in Iraq right now,insurgents from all over the region are waging jihad,  using this as an opportunity to kill Americans. However it's a foolish notion we're going to beat them , you don't beat an enemy like this , there is no victory to be had. Every time you kill one another will take their place. Didn't our goverment learn anything when we supported the same people we're fighting, against the russians? They don't give up .



     

     Oh there is a way to beat the Jhad, but no one is willing to go there... yet

    But you will oh you will. I just wonder what western city will be sacrificed before we do.

     Of course we could just surrender now and accept Islam so we don't have to fight anymore.

  • frodusfrodus Member Posts: 2,396
    Originally posted by Malickiebloo

    Originally posted by bluberryhaze

    Originally posted by Malickiebloo

    Originally posted by BushMonkey


    Of course don't expect the Bush haters to accept any of it, to them it was all a plot to steal Iraq's oil.

    When in fact it would be more aptly labled a world wide plot to protect multinational business interests.

    Either way we went to Iraq to suit our own interests , not to get Oil or heroically liberate oppressed people. Instead the goal was to create a pro American Iraqi government , providing us with oil and a base of operations in the region. The notion we went anywhere to fight "terrorists" is laughable. Fighting a war on terrorism,By invading muslim nations. Is like waging war on flies,by throwing poo around, You only escalate the problem.



     

    LOL.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

    our troops fighting a sworn enemy of the US, who also blew up wtc, uss cole, and other of our 'interests'.

    i do agree, we went to iraq to suit our interests. big fucking deal. it was a war of opportunity at its most sleaziest... democrats and republicans and the world were down with. 

    but, when we have drawn al queda to iraq and have our military persons killing them it does play into bush's hand of kill them there- and not here on our soil.

    Thanks for the info, Bushmonkey. most righteous reading. i shall spread the gospel to the in-laws and commit some to memory for future family arguments. facts are always better than emotions.

     Giving bush credit for anything going on in Iraq today is unbelievably naive. The only people who deserve credit are the men and woman serving our goverment over there valiantly. The suits in washignton at any level or party deserve nothing but contempt , They didn't plan this war properly and foolishly rushed into a "war of opportunity". on top of that it was an illegal war , the world wasn't behind it at all.

    Al'qaeda is one of many groups operating in Iraq right now,insurgents from all over the region are waging jihad,  using this as an opportunity to kill Americans. However it's a foolish notion we're going to beat them , you don't beat an enemy like this , there is no victory to be had. Every time you kill one another will take their place. Didn't our goverment learn anything when we supported the same people we're fighting, against the russians? They don't give up .

    their never is an endless supply men for Al'qaeda,moms and dads will start to miss their kids when their not coming home,bush alone order those kids to go and fight they just didnt show up.want to end this real quick...start burying those Al'qaeda in pig blood and it will end over night.

     

    Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Originally posted by Gazenthia

    Originally posted by Malickiebloo

    .Bill Clinton , G.W ,  They all have good and bad things to reflect back on . But none of them except for one committed an international War Crime. Maybe you should look past the Bush love and Bush hate and realize the guy made many mistakes.

     

    Bill Clinton and GW just made mistakes huh?



    Do you have any idea what you are talking about?



    Bill Clinton tossed out important banking and business regulations that led to several recessions, and what is looking to be a global depression. The GMO Patenting and Mansanto monopoly also occurred on his watch. The USA is the only nation on the face of the earth that tolerates that.



    GW not only allowed these things to continue and worsen, but also put the taxpayers on the hook for an indeterminate number of hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars to bail out private institutions. He also tried to push an amnesty bill, and never took care of the border, or anything.



    The only other president that has made these kinds of mistakes might be Woodrow Wilson, but at least he admitted to what he did, later, and genuinely regretted it.

    Did you even read what I wrote ? I said He (BUSH) made many mistakes , not to imply they were "just"  mistakes but to say the guy deserves all the criticism he gets.In response to the everyday Bush may have done this but Clinton did that rebuttal.

    I completely agree with everything you just said ,I'm no fan of either Clinton or Bush.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Originally posted by BushMonkey





     
     Oh there is a way to beat the Jhad, but no one is willing to go there... yet

    But you will oh you will. I just wonder what western city will be sacrificed before we do.

     Of course we could just surrender now and accept Islam so we don't have to fight anymore.

     

    Right , tell that to Israel. They know the violence they face most likely will never trully subside. However that dosen't mean they don't fight it and it certainly doesn't mean they have been defeated by it . They live with it and face it , Because they know they'll always have to.The victory they seek comes from not being scarred into changing their way of life ,remaining a soverign respectable nation. WHo fights when they have to , Not just because the opportunity arises.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • GoldknyghtGoldknyght Member UncommonPosts: 1,519
    Originally posted by Khuzarrz

    Originally posted by Goldknyght


    Well then your argument aswell only furthers that our involvement should be non existant. We did the same thing to Iraq so why cant the russians do this to Georgia. We both had political goals influenced by our reasons for attack. Yet on this one im sure your buddies here will say Iraq was nessacary and this wasn't

     

    'Buddies' can have whatever say they want. Mine however, and I thought yours too, was that Iraq was an illegal war and shouldn't have happened. Neither should this.

     

    The fact is, Georgia had every right to do what they did, civilian casualties or otherwise. Russia however, did not; if Russia were really that horrified by the '2000 dead', and had stepped in with their 1992 peacekeeping powers, they'd be keeping the peace, NOT launching full scale ground assaults into the Georgian heartland.



     

    How could of russia steped in, in 1992. They were still going through there governmental changed due to the end of the soviet union.

    image
  • GoldknyghtGoldknyght Member UncommonPosts: 1,519

    Originally posted by bluberryhaze
    Originally posted by Malickiebloo
    Originally posted by BushMonkey

    Of course don't expect the Bush haters to accept any of it, to them it was all a plot to steal Iraq's oil.
    When in fact it would be more aptly labled a world wide plot to protect multinational business interests.

    Either way we went to Iraq to suit our own interests , not to get Oil or heroically liberate oppressed people. Instead the goal was to create a pro American Iraqi government , providing us with oil and a base of operations in the region. The notion we went anywhere to fight "terrorists" is laughable. Fighting a war on terrorism,By invading muslim nations. Is like waging war on flies,by throwing poo around, You only escalate the problem.

     
    LOL.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
    our troops fighting a sworn enemy of the US, who also blew up wtc, uss cole, and other of our 'interests'.
    i do agree, we went to iraq to suit our interests. big fucking deal. it was a war of opportunity at its most sleaziest... democrats and republicans and the world were down with. 
    but, when we have drawn al queda to iraq and have our military persons killing them it does play into bush's hand of kill them there- and not here on our soil.
    Thanks for the info, Bushmonkey. most righteous reading. i shall spread the gospel to the in-laws and commit some to memory for future family arguments. facts are always better than emotions.

     
    This is BS. We dont even know if Al-Queda Exists. Its somthing the media made up to name terriost groups in the middle east. IF you think the terrorist groups are so well orginazed as a label Al-Queda would give them they would be a hell of alot more effective then they are. <Mod edit>. Lets face it the US is not the most guarded country when it comes to illegals getting into the country. Mexicans do it all the time. So do you really think a orginzied group like Al-Queda wouldnt be using this weakness against the US? Terrorists always terrorize they dont take 7 year breaks.

    image
  • bluberryhazebluberryhaze Member Posts: 1,702

    goldy. wtf.

    i hear all the time that the organization 'al queda' has named a successor to a killed higher up combatant, planner.

    they have press releases. al jazeera gets this info. prior to 911 in the nineties after the firts wtc bombing there was a cell operating directly across the street from where i hung out with the hommies. it was a barber shop, muslim barber shop or arab barber shop as we called it than. the feds busted it than. they at least were, very well organized and  financed throughout the globe.

    but of course you would not credit the bush administration for doing a good job in intelligence gathering or keeping america safe. i really dont think these fuckers called al queda can plan a whole lot and, if they do- the message must be delivered via mule.

    and if you agree there was an al queda that doesnt exist anymore, than it was bush that you will not give credit to, that disemboweled them.

    or, you are the type that thinks 911 was an 'insided job'

    pick one so i can laugh at you.

    you lose.

    -I will subtlety invade your psyche-

This discussion has been closed.