View Full Version : Got that Som'bitch!!
BigAls87Z28
06-08-2006, 11:52 PM
US air strike kills al Qaeda's Zarqawi
06/08/06 10:50 By Mariam Karouny - Source:http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...tm&floc=NW_1-T (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0002/20060608/1051717094.htm&floc=NW_1-T)
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. warplanes killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq blamed for bombings, beheadings and assassinations, and President George W. Bush said on Thursday that American forces had "delivered justice."
In one of the most significant developments in Iraq since the capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Jordanian Zarqawi was killed in a bombing raid on Wednesday in a U-S.-Iraqi operation helped by tip-offs from Iraqis and Jordanian intelligence.
Vowing to fight on, al Qaeda in Iraq confirmed the death of Zarqawi, who beheaded several hostages himself and who appeared in a recent video firing a machine gun in the desert.
U.S. forces displayed at a news conference a picture of the corpse of the bearded Zarqawi with facial abrasions and his eyes closed. The air strike was carried out by two F-16 aircraft with two 500-pound (227 kg) bombs hitting the Zarqawi "safe house."
Zarqawi, in his late 30s and whom Osama bin Laden called the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq, had symbolized the radical Islamic insurgency against U.S. occupation, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he now expected insurgents to seek revenge.
"There will be fierce attempts ... with the death of Zarqawi to fight back," Blair said, adding his death would not end the killing in Iraq but that it was "significant."
Bush said the death of Zarqawi, who had a $25 million bounty on his head, was "a severe blow to al Qaeda," a victory in the war on terrorism, "and it is an opportunity for Iraq's new government to turn the tide in this struggle."
Good work, and I hope that boosts moral for the troops over there. Lets get them home asap.
BigAls87Z28
06-08-2006, 11:58 PM
I know, ive seen it all day ont he news, but I didnt see it posted on here. Thought it was odd.
Anyway, get them home, let the animals destroy themselves.
unstable bob gable
06-09-2006, 12:01 AM
BOOM! Dead! Cooooooooooooooool!
qwikz28
06-09-2006, 12:23 AM
american theory: use violence to destroy violence. :rollseye:
Ghandi FTW
Brando56894
06-09-2006, 12:44 AM
:werd:
fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity
12secondv6
06-09-2006, 08:09 AM
Bye bye dead durka durka
:werd:
fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity
i was thinking about posting that...
bad64chevelle
06-09-2006, 08:24 AM
american theory: use violence to destroy violence. :rollseye:
Ghandi FTW
But what else are we gonna do? Let those MF*ckers keep doing it, and we just sit there? Let our people be killed and say "Oh its okay peace will come" ***** that. Blow these bastarts up, sure its not gonna help all that much since these f*cks are already within our boarders, but what else is there really to do? I say keep those bombs rollin!
BTW Nice sig Jake...
ohh i just noticed the sign, very nice indeed!
qwikz28
06-09-2006, 08:47 AM
But what else are we gonna do? Let those MF*ckers keep doing it, and we just sit there? Let our people be killed and say "Oh its okay peace will come" ***** that. Blow these bastarts up, sure its not gonna help all that much since these f*cks are already within our boarders, but what else is there really to do? I say keep those bombs rollin!
BTW Nice sig Jake...
non-violent protest? education? and probably the biggest factor, STOP FUNDING THEM?
these people are taught to be this way by religion radicals. if we stop funding them then they will have no way to operate and will have no incentive to join the radical groups.
non-violent protest? education? and probably the biggest factor, STOP FUNDING THEM?
these people are taught to be this way by religion radicals. if we stop funding them then they will have no way to operate and will have no incentive to join the radical groups.
what is there to educate us about? and stupid protest dont work, IMO. Cutting funds seems like a good idea but that just wont happen, ever. If someone in this world wants moneybad enough they will get it, no if or buts about it. They can always go to drug trafficing, gun trade, human trade and such things.
what is there to educate us about? and stupid protest dont work, IMO. Cutting funds seems like a good idea but that just wont happen, ever. If someone in this world wants moneybad enough they will get it, no if or buts about it. They can always go to drug trafficing, gun trade, human trade and such things.
if you are talking about the united states, we traffic the most guns out of anyone in the world.
The war on terror cant be won by military force. terrorists are small groups of people who are free to move from country to country. bombing innocent civilians is no better than what they did to us. I do agree that terrorists should be dealt with, but NOT the way we're handling it now. It shouldn't be handled by the military, It should be handled by the CIA. The reason we are usng the military is so we can invade Iraq. Remember "mission accomplished"? yeah, not quite.
if you are talking about the united states, we traffic the most guns out of anyone in the world.
no i was not talking about the US. i was talking about illegal gun trafficing, its number 2 business after illegal drug trade out there. US does not sell guns to regular joes on the streets "bad" people howerver do that. For example its illegal (or it least it was when i was there) to have any form of Ak-47 in my country except if you are a law enforcement or ex-military. well i can find you one for a few hundred bucks in less then an hour, so can probably any person who knows their way around the city... **** ive shot them before, and they're illegal to posses :laugh:
shane27
06-09-2006, 01:09 PM
american theory: use violence to destroy violence. :rollseye:
Ghandi FTWyour right! why the hell are we using violence to destroy dangerous terrorists?! i mean maybe if we ask them nicely to stop what their doing they will! killing a few people along with one of the most dangerous al queda members is defintily worse then leaving him alive to kill thousnads more...what the hell are we thinking!
oh btw did anyone here about how this guy stoped a bus full of children and slaughtered all of them?
andddd if we shouldnt use violence to destroy violence, what should we do?
ppl seem to be quick about saying what we SHOULD'NT be doing but unfortunally they dont have a realistic solution of what we SHOULD do...try to educate these people, i dare you
how should i put this nicely so no one gets their panties twisted up....Killing an Al-Queda member no matter how important he is wont destroy the whole organization, if you think that then im sorry you are retarded. You kill one, another one takes his place. whooppeedoo you killed one, ok now kill the other 15,999 or so members. probably more tho.
shane27
06-09-2006, 01:40 PM
how should i put this nicely so no one gets their panties twisted up....Killing an Al-Queda member no matter how important he is wont destroy the whole organization, if you think that then im sorry you are retarded. You kill one, another one takes his place. whooppeedoo you killed one, ok now kill the other 15,999 or so members. probably more tho.so we shouldnt of tried to kill hitler cuz someone else might of just taken his place
so we shouldnt of tried to kill hitler cuz someone else might of just taken his place
um..who killed hitler? enlighten me. his generals/advisors woulda taken over and still done the same. you are also comparing a country and a terrorist network. those two are completely different. If Bin Laden or one of his buddies comes over and slaughters Bush guess what the war in Iraq and "terrorism" will still go on.
shane27
06-09-2006, 01:48 PM
um..who killed hitler? enlighten me. his generals/advisors woulda taken over and still done the same. you are also comparing a country and a terrorist network. those two are completely different. If Bin Laden or one of his buddies comes over and slaughters Bush guess what the war in Iraq and "terrorism" will still go on.he killed himself becasue he didnt want to be taken alive by us if i remember correctly. and his generals/advisors didnt take over and do the same. when i talk about hitler im not just talking about germany, im talking about those people..the nazis. both the nazis and al queda both kill/killed people and would of/will keep doing it if nothing happened/ happens.
this is like saying we shoudnt punish murderers, becasue people will just keep killing anyway... well no **** but if we dont teach the ones we can catch a lesson it will happen even more then it already does.
bad64chevelle
06-09-2006, 01:53 PM
no i was not talking about the US. i was talking about illegal gun trafficing, its number 2 business after illegal drug trade out there. US does not sell guns to regular joes on the streets "bad" people howerver do that. For example its illegal (or it least it was when i was there) to have any form of Ak-47 in my country except if you are a law enforcement or ex-military. well i can find you one for a few hundred bucks in less then an hour, so can probably any person who knows their way around the city... **** ive shot them before, and they're illegal to posses :laugh:
:werd: AKs are fun to fire though...
he killed himself becasue he didnt want to be taken alive by us if i remember correctly. and his generals/advisors didnt take over and do the same. when i talk about hitler im not just talking about germany, im talking about those people..the nazis. both the nazis and al queda both kill/killed people and would of/will keep doing it if nothing happened/ happens.
this is like saying we shoudnt punish murderers, becasue people will just keep killing anyway... well no **** but if we dont teach the ones we can catch a lesson it will happen even more then it already does.
Thats right he killed himself and poisoned his family when he knew it was over. You know why his generals didnt take over? Cuz there was nohing left of his army, Russians slaughtered 70% of it on the eastern front and were in berlin now fighting for every house. There was no hope for Hitlers "dream" to continue so he just ended it right there.
Um...Nazi were a clear target son, you knew where they were so you can pound the **** outta them. Al-queda is a newtowk they dont rely on one person for command. They are individaul cells who operate by themselves majority of the time with a goal. they dont need high command.
Murders are individuals and have nothing to do with this disscussion, why dont u stray a little bit more off topic, and talk about lunar gravity and how long exposure and then return on earth might kill you...wtf?
shane27
06-09-2006, 02:12 PM
Thats right he killed himself and poisoned his family when he knew it was over. You know why his generals didnt take over? Cuz there was nohing left of his army, Russians slaughtered 70% of it on the eastern front and were in berlin now fighting for every house. There was no hope for Hitlers "dream" to continue so he just ended it right there.
Um...Nazi were a clear target son, you knew where they were so you can pound the **** outta them. Al-queda is a newtowk they dont rely on one person for command. They are individaul cells who operate by themselves majority of the time with a goal. they dont need high command.
Murders are individuals and have nothing to do with this disscussion, why dont u stray a little bit more off topic, and talk about lunar gravity and how long exposure and then return on earth might kill you...wtf? Murders accually has every single thing to do with the topic (its called an analogy, son) . so now your saying we dont have a clear target so we shouldnt be over there? times change and so do wars. just becasue they dont have a target on their faces dosent mean we shouldnt be going after them.
Were one of the only countries that have the balls to defend ourselves, so in this case were the russians trying to do the work and take these ****ers out. back then we werent as powerful as we were now, so now we can do all the necessary work
Murders accually has every single thing to do with the topic (its called an analogy, son) . so now your saying we dont have a clear target so we shouldnt be over there? times change and so do wars. just becasue they dont have a target on their faces dosent mean we should be going after them.
Were one of the only countries that have the balls to defend ourselves, so in this case were the russians trying to do the work and take these ****ers out. back then we werent as powerful as we were now, so now we can do all the necessary work
um..if you think nazis and al-queda are the same then we're done here.... you can kill as many terrorists as you'd like it will not chage a thing. with every person you kill another one hates you and guess what they'll pick up the arms. this is like the war on drugs and when you thought that killing pablo escobar would solve the cocaine problem. um..i think there's more cocaine in US now...
shane27
06-09-2006, 02:25 PM
um..if you think nazis and al-queda are the same then we're done here.... you can kill as many terrorists as you'd like it will not chage a thing. with every person you kill another one hates you and guess what they'll pick up the arms. this is like the war on drugs and when you thought that killing pablo escobar would solve the cocaine problem. um..i think there's more cocaine in US now...not the same but similar, so i guess were done here.
NJSPEEDER
06-09-2006, 02:38 PM
non-violent protest? education? and probably the biggest factor, STOP FUNDING THEM?
these people are taught to be this way by religion radicals. if we stop funding them then they will have no way to operate and will have no incentive to join the radical groups.
how do you intend to educate if you cut funding? the only reason some of these countries have any schools at all is because of international aid.
i agree that war is a horrible way to solve anything. but there comes a point when you have to look out for your own good and the good of those you care for. in this circumstance we are dealing with people who place so little value on life that they are willing to blow themselves up to take us out.
if someone places that low a value on their own life, you are left with no reasonable way to stop them from taking yours without ending theirs.
both sides are correct in some ways. you can't really educate (or re-educate) the present generation of al qaeda members, especially with our controversial history in the middle-eastern region. when you have suicide bombers willing to die for a cause driving straight at you day after day, i think you have to kill those people before they kill more lives. however, educating the next generation of al qaeda members before al qaeda does is important.
ghandi doesn't match up well in this situation though. he protested a legalistic caste-like system, whereas the war on terror is about much more salient idealism. sure, the white europeans had philosophies about white superiority and such, but the main goal was to retain colonial power. extremist muslim terrorist cells are idealist by nature and uncompromising in most cases.
and for the record, hitler constructed the nazi party around himself with no consideration for continuation beyond him for the most part (i can't recall him ever thinking of an heir) whereas terrorist cells are often designed to operate indepently with interchangeable leadership.
shane27
06-09-2006, 11:30 PM
and for the record, hitler constructed the nazi party around himself with no consideration for continuation beyond him for the most part (i can't recall him ever thinking of an heir) whereas terrorist cells are often designed to operate indepently with interchangeable leadership. the only point i was really trying to make about hitler and the nazis is that we cant just leave al queda alone just becasue another one might lead them.
if we just left hitler alone becasue we thought someone else might take his place, who knows what would of happned to the world....and you cant leave these people alone, you have to keep at them even if u dont get rid of them to keep them from doing any more damage then they have already caused.
also about re educating...what if some other country came over here and wanted to educate us or our kids about how we need to live our lives? i dont think that would work.
LS1Hawk
06-10-2006, 08:39 AM
Doesn't anyone think that the whole reason we got into this mess is because we initially did nothing about it? World Trade Center bombing of '93, the string of forgien bombings on US embassies, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000? All we did was investigate and put a couple bad guys on trial. We tried the non violent approach for years, and it obviously didn't work. There comes a point when you have to say enough is enough, and show these people that you're going to stand up for yourself. I think it's more likely that if we didn't go after them that there would've been more attacks on the US had we not. I'm not saying that we're never going to be attacked again, but it's obvious we've now made it harder for them to carry out their plans. Trust me, I don't like it anymore than the next guy. But what we're dealing with is an enemy with a medieval way of thinking that are not inclined to listen to reason.
qwikz28
06-10-2006, 11:47 AM
i think you guys have a misconcieved notion that its only the muslim radicals stirring hatred. thats wrong. muslims in general (disclaimer: not all, but quite a few in muslim countries) in the middle east are predjudice against jews, Christians, americans, etc.... thats part of the reason why i am here ya know. religious persecution.
that being said, education among the muslim countries to show them that everyone is equal and yada yada yada would possibly help with the hatred. i have no idea how to go about this, but it seems like if it were possible, it would work.
it also pains me to say this, but sometimes i think they cant be stopped, by us at least :(
fighting terrorism is like fighting the "war on drugs." there is no one nation that can accept all the blame, so for us to declare war on an entire country because 1/10,000 of the population had a part in what happened to our country is not exactly the best way to go about it. In fact, all it really does is waste insane amounts of money and the lives of our soldiers.
If you want an effective way to handle it, do what spain does. they use intelligence (well, I guess we can't use this because our intelligence agency is completely inept) and once they find out enough info and positions of terrorists, they use police to aprehend them.
that is never going to happen in this country though because it would be as profitable for the bureaucrats :roll:
also about re educating...what if some other country came over here and wanted to educate us or our kids about how we need to live our lives? i dont think that would work.
i think educating children does work. i don't think educating the older generation will be quite as effective, hence the reason i said education and violence are both necessary.
i don't think educating the older generation will be quite as effective,
:werd: back at the evil empire state old people still think that US is evil and nothing is better then Stalin :lol:
BigAls87Z28
06-11-2006, 12:35 AM
Doesn't anyone think that the whole reason we got into this mess is because we initially did nothing about it? World Trade Center bombing of '93, the string of forgien bombings on US embassies, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000? All we did was investigate and put a couple bad guys on trial. We tried the non violent approach for years, and it obviously didn't work. There comes a point when you have to say enough is enough, and show these people that you're going to stand up for yourself. I think it's more likely that if we didn't go after them that there would've been more attacks on the US had we not. I'm not saying that we're never going to be attacked again, but it's obvious we've now made it harder for them to carry out their plans. Trust me, I don't like it anymore than the next guy. But what we're dealing with is an enemy with a medieval way of thinking that are not inclined to listen to reason.
Well, if I recall, Pres.Clinton was lambasted for thinking of putting troops in a war against an enemy with no face, no home country, no real foundation outside of its fanatical religious belives. The non-violent approach? We have been dropping bombs on Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War, enforcing the no-fly zone. We launched cruse missles at targets with precision to take out key targets.
These people wont back down. Doesnt matter if you send 10 Tomahawks for 200k Troops, they still hate us. They will continue to hate us, and having 200k troops police the country between warring factions in Iraq doesnt help things at all. These guys are serious, and there will be no end to this. It will keep going and going.
I still have a huge problem with the US invading a country that never attacked us. We went in on an idea, that Ill admit, I took hook line and sinker, and supported what we were doing, but it became obvious that we had zero exit plan, and that we were gunan become a police force.
I dont blame the troops, and dont take this as I dont support them as I do 11000%. I blame the people that put them there.
This whole thread is gunna get out of hand, and I knew it when I posted it, but in the end, our troops are still there, and hearing every day another 1 or 2 were shot, blown up, or whatever does not help boost the morale at home. Its a mess, but its time to get out.
And if you want my honest opinion, that most of those people are animals, and that it took an animal to keep them contained.
qwikz28
06-11-2006, 12:47 AM
all i'm saying is the non-violent approach is much more effective.
freezing their funds would stop them. that is an effective and realistic solution IMO. only problem is it will never happen because the wealthy rich snobby americans make money off them.
oil? who said something about oil bitch, you cookin? [/black bush]
LS1Hawk
06-11-2006, 11:49 AM
Well, if I recall, Pres.Clinton was lambasted for thinking of putting troops in a war against an enemy with no face, no home country, no real foundation outside of its fanatical religious belives. The non-violent approach? We have been dropping bombs on Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War, enforcing the no-fly zone. We launched cruse missles at targets with precision to take out key targets.
Yes, we have gone into Iraq many times between the first Gulf War and now. But, to my knowledge (and I could be wrong), we've never bombed anyone in response to a terrorist attack prior to 9/11. In regards to what's going in Iraq now, I think it was necessary for us to go in and take out Saddam; the numerous mass graves they've found speak for themselves. The whole WMDs debate, while they never found any actual weapons, they did find materials for producing them. Whether or not they were actually going to make them, I don't know. I do feel now that we should be getting out of there, but you can't necessarily bomb the hell out of a country, and just leave and say clean up the mess. Unfortuantely, we've gotten ourselves in pretty deep in Iraq. But in regards to terrorism, to me it's something you just can't fight while sitting on your hands.
Yes, we have gone into Iraq many times between the first Gulf War and now. But, to my knowledge (and I could be wrong), we've never bombed anyone in response to a terrorist attack prior to 9/11. In regards to what's going in Iraq now, I think it was necessary for us to go in and take out Saddam; the numerous mass graves they've found speak for themselves. The whole WMDs debate, while they never found any actual weapons, they did find materials for producing them. Whether or not they were actually going to make them, I don't know. I do feel now that we should be getting out of there, but you can't necessarily bomb the hell out of a country, and just leave and say clean up the mess. Unfortuantely, we've gotten ourselves in pretty deep in Iraq. But in regards to terrorism, to me it's something you just can't fight while sitting on your hands.
yes you are wrong, you've bombed afganistan before 9/11
shane27
06-11-2006, 12:12 PM
yes you are wrong, you've bombed afganistan before 9/11yeah we bombed some stupid factories that did absoutly nothing so really, we havent done much
clinton was too much of a pussy to fight back which is why we got attacked on 9.11
shane27
06-11-2006, 12:14 PM
freezing their funds would stop them. that is an effective and realistic solution IMO. only problem is it will never happen because the wealthy rich snobby americans make money off them.
[/black bush]see you say its effictive and realistic, but then you say it would never happen, which makes it unrealistic. which is why we have to use force
yeah we bombed some stupid factories that did absoutly nothing so really, we havent done much
clinton was too much of a pussy to fight back which is why we got attacked on 9.11
you did not bomb factories, you bombed "camp sites" where you think Bin Laden was after the bombing of USS Cole. And even if its a useless factory who the hell gives u a right to bomb it?
PBodyGT87
06-11-2006, 12:37 PM
It's really been going on for years now. What people tend to forget is that the Middle East refused to comply with the US and Britain to let us in and search for WMD after the occurance of 911. Had they complied, we wouldn't have used force. But they didn't, so here we are. So OK, we haven't found any. Yeah, I feel bad when men and women in the armed forces die for this. But they accept that they are in the Army, and that they may indeed have that kind of fate. It sucks. But personally I don't think Kerry could have done much better. As long as we're not getting attacked anymore, I'd say we're staying pretty safe here.
yeah we bombed some stupid factories that did absoutly nothing so really, we havent done much
clinton was too much of a pussy to fight back which is why we got attacked on 9.11
a bombing is still a bombing. it would be like someone bombing our country, but they only bombed "some stupid factories" that a lot of people work in. Yeah, thats not a big deal at all.
And if Clinton was such a pussy, why didnt they attack the WTC during the 8 years he was in office?
It's really been going on for years now. What people tend to forget is that the Middle East refused to comply with the US and Britain to let us in and search for WMD after the occurance of 911. Had they complied, we wouldn't have used force. But they didn't, so here we are. So OK, we haven't found any. Yeah, I feel bad when men and women in the armed forces die for this. But they accept that they are in the Army, and that they may indeed have that kind of fate. It sucks. But personally I don't think Kerry could have done much better. As long as we're not getting attacked anymore, I'd say we're staying pretty safe here.
Having a US military presense in the middle east really does nothing for our safety here in the states. all it does is keep the middle east in order. I've said it before, terrorism can NOT be fought effectively with military force. Intelligence leading to the arrest and detainment of terrorists is the only thing that will work. But that doesn't pad the pockets of the US administration so we are never going to see the end of terrorism.
It's really been going on for years now. What people tend to forget is that the Middle East refused to comply with the US and Britain to let us in and search for WMD after the occurance of 911. Had they complied, we wouldn't have used force. But they didn't, so here we are.
yea that was an interesting period of time, however my question is who gave u the right to police the world and tell other countries what they are suppose to do? If a country doesnt want you there, then wtf is the problem? i wonder if Soviets ever let you inspect their 40k of nuclear weapons and god knows how many bio and chemical weapons they had.
NJSPEEDER
06-11-2006, 02:41 PM
all i'm saying is the non-violent approach is much more effective.
freezing their funds would stop them. that is an effective and realistic solution IMO. only problem is it will never happen because the wealthy rich snobby americans make money off them.
oil? who said something about oil bitch, you cookin? [/black bush]
how is freezing the money of a nation that gets 80% or more of their funding from drugs going to change anything? you are talking about nations that the largest percentage of the rural population live in mud brick homes with no electricity or running water.
when the people in power are making all the money they want, legally or otehrwise, and the rest of the population is dirt poor it does no good to cut off funds that mostly go through international aid organizations to fund medical and school facilities.
you seem to be under some delusion that the terrorist and extremist groups that are in question here are getting handed large checks by the US. these people are criminals, and use criminal means to their fund raising.
NJSPEEDER
06-11-2006, 02:49 PM
yea that was an interesting period of time, however my question is who gave u the right to police the world and tell other countries what they are suppose to do?
like it or not, the US is the last remaining super power. this menas we must continue, as we have for decades, to go places in the world to take care of problems.
what other nation has the military or resources to defend the whole world from terrorism and extremist organizations? none.
the only other option is to sit back and watch as all the little pissed off groups in teh world gain power/money/weapons and start attacking innocent citizens just because they see us as bad. it is not worth sitting back and waitng for people to die when we already know we are dealing with people who place absolutely 0 value on life.
if you have the ability and power to go on the offensive, you have to do it. that is how war works.
take care of problems? alright why dont you help people in Rwanda or Darfur? those people actually need your help, but hey who needs them, right? however my guess that 80% of people on this board dont even have a slightest clue about it - cuz its not on CNN, and hey dont dont have "WMD" and all that crap...please...
NJSPEEDER
06-11-2006, 03:05 PM
we are sending those, and many other poor nationas, billions in financial, food, and medical aid each year. i am sure CCN/CSpan/MSN would be all over it if there was some military or blood and guts action to get footage of. but it is mostly just people dying of starvation and deisease, which we all know the news doesn't cover.
don't worry tsar, there are some of us that know the US spends 3 times on emergancy aid(food and medical) internationally as we do domestically. most of it lands on the african continent. i am sure it would make the news if more of them were trying to attack us and the rest fo the world
we are sending those, and many other poor nationas, billions in financial, food, and medical aid each year. i am sure CCN/CSpan/MSN would be all over it if there was some military or blood and guts action to get footage of. but it is mostly just people dying of starvation and deisease, which we all know the news doesn't cover.
don't worry tsar, there are some of us that know the US spends 3 times on emergancy aid(food and medical) internationally as we do domestically. most of it lands on the african continent. i am sure it would make the news if more of them were trying to attack us and the rest fo the world
you want some action and guts?
The Rwandan Genocide was the slaughter of an estimated 800,000 to 1,000,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus, mostly carried out by two extremist Hutu militia groups, the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi, during a period of 100 days so around one million people isnt enough to get your attention? ohh by the way the aid that you send over there lands in the hands of militia and hardly any of it goes to the people its intended for.
The Darfur conflict is an ongoing conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan, mainly between the Janjaweed, a militia group recruited from local Arab tribes, and the non-Arab peoples of the region. Estimates of deaths in the conflict have ranged from 50,000 (World Health Organization, September 2004) to 450,000 (Dr. Eric Reeves, 28 April 2006).
Is that bloody enough for you? Ohh and as far as i remember Iraq wasnt attacking any part of the world during Gulf2 but they did have WMDs :roll:
like it or not, the US is the last remaining super power. this menas we must continue, as we have for decades, to go places in the world to take care of problems.
what other nation has the military or resources to defend the whole world from terrorism and extremist organizations? none.
the only other option is to sit back and watch as all the little pissed off groups in teh world gain power/money/weapons and start attacking innocent citizens just because they see us as bad. it is not worth sitting back and waitng for people to die when we already know we are dealing with people who place absolutely 0 value on life.
if you have the ability and power to go on the offensive, you have to do it. that is how war works.
1) just because we are a superpower doesnt mean we have the right to invade a country for no reason (no WMD found), overthrow their current government and force our way of life upon millions who really dont want it. damn, we're doing such a great job of protecting the world from itself :roll: . And us invading Iraq is not saving the world from terrorism, its just pissing the terrorist factions off more.
2) did you ever stop to think that you would be just as pissed as all those "little pissed of groups in teh world" if the united states was bombed, invaded, overthrown and instilled with a new form of government?
3) we all know how war works, however, this is not something that a war will fix. if it was an entire country that was responsible for what happened, then yes a war would be appropriate. But the fact of the matter is that small cells of terrorists are operating in numerous countries all around the world including the united states. a war focused on one counrty isnt going to bring about any relevant changes in terrorist activity.
NJSPEEDER
06-11-2006, 04:09 PM
you want some action and guts?
so around one million people isnt enough to get your attention? ohh by the way the aid that you send over there lands in the hands of militia and hardly any of it goes to the people its intended for.
Is that bloody enough for you? Ohh and as far as i remember Iraq wasnt attacking any part of the world during Gulf2 but they did have WMDs :roll:
do you want amercia to solve thousand year old regional ethnic/tribal/clan wars next?
you take care of the **** that threatens you first, then move on to other issues.
threats to the US will always be top news compared to trouble that is regional on teh otehr side of the world.
NJSPEEDER
06-11-2006, 04:12 PM
ian, since sept11 and the US' entry into the war on terrorism the number of terrorist strikes has diminished. even the terror organizations themselvces are claiming to have fewer members than ever.
our involvement is making a difference. i know that it isn't a pretty one, but a positive difference non ethe less.
this is in large part due to the death/capture of many top terror operatives and the establishment of a stable government structure that has support from around the world.
do you want amercia to solve thousand year old regional ethnic/tribal/clan wars next? Hey im not the one who tries to police the world and stick your nose in others peoples business.
you take care of the **** that threatens you first, then move on to other issues. How did Iraq threaten your security? i fail to see that one.
Remember war in yugoslavia? kinda along the lines whats happenned in Rwanda and is happening now in Darfur - well you seemed to be all over that ****, didnt ya? you droped bombs and sent troops there, broke the country in half and put their leader on trial. But i guess that somehow different too, even tho both places were slaughtering people for no good reason aka genocide. im sure you'll come up with something creative like it was close to your allies or yugslavians were gonna invade US after they were done with each other. :shrug:
threats to the US will always be top news compared to trouble that is regional on teh otehr side of the world. last time i checked Iraq was in Middle East and US was in North America.
ian, since sept11 and the US' entry into the war on terrorism the number of terrorist strikes has diminished. even the terror organizations themselvces are claiming to have fewer members than ever.
Do you mean terrorist strikes on US? then ill agree with you, if not then there's been plenty around the world after 9/11. you can google if you'd like they dont show every signle one on TV...
When did "terror organizations" say they have fewer members than ever? i doubt that actually came out of their mouths - somehow it seems um...how should i put this nicely, not true.
BigAls87Z28
06-11-2006, 05:46 PM
Terrorist strikes have gone down since we attacked Afganistan/Iraq??!?!?! Every road side bomb, every IED that kills 20 people, THAT is a terrorist act!!
We are in the birth of creation, where people have been fighting for thousands of years, and we wedge ourselves between several warring religouis factions, and we expect that our guns and tanks will just solve itself.
We had Iraq under the microscope since 91. Air Force flying NON STOP over Iraq. They were NO threat to anyone.
Afganastan, I can see because that "goverment" was directly involved in with Sept 11th as well as several other of Osama's attacks.
We did not launch a full military invasion to take out suspected factories and camp sites, and that kept them at bay.
Remember, they didnt "bomb" us, they didnt blow anything up. There was no explosives on board any of the 3 planes. They were trained here, by American flying schools to fly large aircraft, and they used the planes to do the damage.
And now, look at our "free" nation, full of illegal wire taps and the Patriot Acts that can hold you in jail, not disclose your location, or tell you why you are being held against your will, all in the name of "National Security."
Years from now, we will look back on this and realise how we destroyed, yet again, American's liberties just like we do on the McCarthy Era, Internment Camps in WWII, as well as several acts passed durring WWI and Spanish-American War. History repeats itself yet again.
Frosty
06-11-2006, 05:54 PM
Well, if I recall, Pres.Clinton was lambasted for thinking of putting troops in a war against an enemy with no face, no home country, no real foundation outside of its fanatical religious belives. The non-violent approach? We have been dropping bombs on Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War, enforcing the no-fly zone. We launched cruse missles at targets with precision to take out key targets.
These people wont back down. Doesnt matter if you send 10 Tomahawks for 200k Troops, they still hate us. They will continue to hate us, and having 200k troops police the country between warring factions in Iraq doesnt help things at all. These guys are serious, and there will be no end to this. It will keep going and going.
I still have a huge problem with the US invading a country that never attacked us. We went in on an idea, that Ill admit, I took hook line and sinker, and supported what we were doing, but it became obvious that we had zero exit plan, and that we were gunan become a police force.
I dont blame the troops, and dont take this as I dont support them as I do 11000%. I blame the people that put them there.
This whole thread is gunna get out of hand, and I knew it when I posted it, but in the end, our troops are still there, and hearing every day another 1 or 2 were shot, blown up, or whatever does not help boost the morale at home. Its a mess, but its time to get out.
And if you want my honest opinion, that most of those people are animals, and that it took an animal to keep them contained.
I normally don't agree with you but I'm in agreement with you 110%, aside from the Clinton comment lol.
My biggest problem with Iraq is we went in there as their saviors...we there to save them from big bad Saddam(don't get me wrong, he's a piece of **** and should've been shot on the spot) however why are we helping people that really don't want to be helped? Also, I hear ALL THE TIME "why can't they just let us do our thing and be happy we're there". Great...but let's flip the script here. If some country came HERE would any one of us sit here and let their troops do their thing? **** no. It's sooooo easy to sit here in our cushy homes and say what others should do. I'm a Republican but IMO Bush has brought a lot of shame and tainted the party. It pisses me off because I voted for him both times lol.
I support our troops to the fullest extent. Agree with the war or not they're sacrificing more than we'll ever know to even have this simple discussion. God bless them, they're the REAL heroes of our society.
EDIT: Too lazy to fix typos
Frosty
06-11-2006, 05:58 PM
We are in the birth of creation, where people have been fighting for thousands of years, and we wedge ourselves between several warring religouis factions, and we expect that our guns and tanks will just solve itself.
We had Iraq under the microscope since 91. Air Force flying NON STOP over Iraq. They were NO threat to anyone.
Afganastan, I can see because that "goverment" was directly involved in with Sept 11th as well as several other of Osama's attacks.
We did not launch a full military invasion to take out suspected factories and camp sites, and that kept them at bay.
Remember, they didnt "bomb" us, they didnt blow anything up. There was no explosives on board any of the 3 planes. They were trained here, by American flying schools to fly large aircraft, and they used the planes to do the damage.
And now, look at our "free" nation, full of illegal wire taps and the Patriot Acts that can hold you in jail, not disclose your location, or tell you why you are being held against your will, all in the name of "National Security."
Years from now, we will look back on this and realise how we destroyed, yet again, American's liberties just like we do on the McCarthy Era, Internment Camps in WWII, as well as several acts passed durring WWI and Spanish-American War. History repeats itself yet again.
I need to be checked into a hospital since I'm agreeing with you again lol
I find it funny that the Republican Party has always been for smaller governement, staying out of our daily lives. Right, thanks Bush.
It seems like people are willing to give up their freedoms in the name of safety. Our biggest success(our personal freedom) is also are biggest enemy. However, if we start trading in freedoms for security and safety than they've won.
I find it funny that the Republican Party has always been for smaller governement, staying out of our daily lives. Right, thanks Bush.
It seems like people are willing to give up their freedoms in the name of safety. Our biggest success(our personal freedom) is also are biggest enemy. However, if we start trading in freedoms for security and safety than they've won.
1. the republican party is often tied to militarism. there are exceptions to the rule republicanism=smaller government. blanket statements in politics don't always work.
2. how does attaining greater security by sacrificing more personal security means "they" have won? if we are still talking about extremist islamic terrorist cells, most of there goals (immediate at least) reside in the ousting of the west from the middle east. americans alive and well (and secure) in the middle east is pissing them off quite a bit, and i don't think its because they are winning.
policing the world is a tricky subject. i look at it this way...i see some absolutes in the world. for instance...women should be treated like people, not property. slavery is bad. extremist terrorism like al qaeda is a negative, etc. now, as someone correctly pointed out before, america is the only superpower left. i'll take the example of darfur...shouldn't the US "police" darfur if they are unable to and europe chooses to stand by? i think the US should go in their and stop the genocide.
yeah we bombed some stupid factories that did absoutly nothing so really, we havent done much
clinton was too much of a pussy to fight back which is why we got attacked on 9.11
sorry to go back and quote this, but you guys wrote so much in a day.
US involvement in the middle east dates back to the cold war, mainly from the 70's on, NOT JUST the clinton era. the US has been operating in shady ways over there for a while. we did not get attacked b/c of 1 or 2 weak presidents. if anyone wants to go into the details of the terrorist bombings/military responses of these decades, i can elaborate.
Frosty
06-11-2006, 06:42 PM
2. how does attaining greater security by sacrificing more personal security means "they" have won? if we are still talking about extremist islamic terrorist cells, most of there goals (immediate at least) reside in the ousting of the west from the middle east. americans alive and well (and secure) in the middle east is pissing them off quite a bit, and i don't think its because they are winning.
I don't agree with that statement totally. Aside from religious reason a lot of these extrememists hate us for the fact that we're free. We don't live by a strict religious code that basically strips all personal freedoms.
..and yes when I say "they" I mean those we're fighting. So let me ask you something. Would you be ok with our government listening to your phone calls in the name of security?
i'll take the example of darfur...shouldn't the US "police" darfur if they are unable to and europe chooses to stand by? i think the US should go in their and stop the genocide.
well according to tim here they dont present a danger to US therefor we shouldnt worry about them just now. Iraq on the other hand was ready to slaughter US army with WMDs. :shrug:
well according to tim here they dont present a danger to US therefor we shouldnt worry about them just now. Iraq on the other hand was ready to slaughter US army with WMDs. :shrug:
darfur offers bush zero political capital, same reason rwanda was left to their own devices. let me just use this as a push for darfur real quick...do what you can to notify congressmen of your support for stopping the genocide. back on topic, that was just to illustrate my point that i do in fact believe policing a foreign land can be legitimate. i think its pretty messed up that genocides can happen and nothing is done. people say policing shouldn't be done? bs. people are dying with no savior in sight.
I don't agree with that statement totally. Aside from religious reason a lot of these extrememists hate us for the fact that we're free. We don't live by a strict religious code that basically strips all personal freedoms.
..and yes when I say "they" I mean those we're fighting. So let me ask you something. Would you be ok with our government listening to your phone calls in the name of security?
i agree, we are hated for our freedom many times. but freedom isn't the only thing that makes us american. bottom line for me is we are still in the middle east and will be there a long time, so unless the goal of the terrorist group is only to instill terror (which, let me put this to rest quickly, it is almost always not) then they have not succeeded.
Frosty
06-11-2006, 07:07 PM
Agree with your bottom statement but what I meant was if they can make us live in fear or somehow change what this country does then yes, they in a way, have won.
Agree with your bottom statement but what I meant was if they can make us live in fear or somehow change what this country does then yes, they in a way, have won.
I agree completely with you. Our country was founded on freedom. We moved across an ocean and fought so that we could do what we want without persecution. One of the fundamental principles this country was also founded around was that if at any time the people of this nation did not feel the government was doing a good job, we were allowed to step up, overthrow our own government and restructure it to make it work. With the introduction of the "Patriot Act" (I hate that name) it is now illegal to even speak out against our government. Our freedom of speech could have us sitting in a courtroom waiting to be tried for treason if we dont watch what we say. Land of the free....my ass!
To quote one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
do you want amercia to solve thousand year old regional ethnic/tribal/clan wars next?
Isn't that what we're trying to do in the middle east? We take Israel's side and help fight the Muslims? that war goes back thousands of years, has nothing to do with our safety here in America and yet, there we are, dumping a billions into a war we have no business in. and dont tell me its because the muslims bombed the israelis, the israelis have bombed the muslims before too.
Lets just withdrawl troops and nuke the ****ers, end o' discussion.
Frosty
06-11-2006, 09:37 PM
To quote one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
That's the quote I was trying to think of but was too lazy to find it word for word. He's absolutely right.
qwikz28
06-11-2006, 10:54 PM
yes you are wrong, you've bombed afganistan before 9/11
why you? you live in america, you are now one of us.
Lets just withdrawl troops and nuke the ****ers, end o' discussion.
my mother was born and raised in Baghdad
why you? you live in america, you are now one of us.
:shrug: im also a citizen but i still mostly refer to us (russia) and you (america)...
shane27
06-12-2006, 12:03 AM
And if Clinton was such a pussy, why didnt they attack the WTC during the 8 years he was in office? seems alot of people forgot about the WTC bombing in 93
http://www.drj.com/drworld/content/w2_029.htm
I'm fully aware of the bombing, however I would hardly consider that a sucessful terrorist attack. it only killed 6 people and wounded about a thousand others. that only stayed in the media for a few months tops and did not alter our entire nations way of life.
:shrug: im also a citizen but i still mostly refer to us (russia) and you (america)...
you're a true life russian? you just became cool in my book.
you're a true life russian? you just became cool in my book.
hahah thanks :lol:
shane27
06-12-2006, 10:46 AM
I'm fully aware of the bombing, however I would hardly consider that a sucessful terrorist attack. it only killed 6 people and wounded about a thousand others. that only stayed in the media for a few months tops and did not alter our entire nations way of life. LOL succesful or not its a ****ing terrorist attack man. and u tell those thousands of people and their families, friends co workers that it wasnt a succesful terrorist attack. and it accualy altered everyones life because since nothing was really done about it, it setup 9.11
ian and shane, how would each of you define a terrorist attack?
shane, i don't think an insufficient response to the 93 bombing set up 9/11, per se. there is a lot of history and hatred that is being glazed over. maybe the response helped to encourage the attack in that it may have emboldened our enemies.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.