• Why the Coalition sucks in the War on Terror.
    232 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Warhol;22915790]Does US stand fore "united Saturn" because you're not speaking English, I can assure you of that[/QUOTE] well i got glacoma lol dont know how to spell that but it made my eye sight alot worse lets see you try to type when you cant see the keybourd anymore its very hard sorry if my spelling is not the best but just because i didnt spell somthing correctly and you can still understand what i am saying i dont see why you must have a fit about it. also just because i spell it bad does not means that you can dismiss all of the things i said.
Dude, smoke some weed, it cures glacoma this is me blurring mey eyes and looking at the letters. its not as harad as you make it outy to be oh fuck
[QUOTE=Warhol;22915925]Dude, smoke some weed, it cures glacoma this is me blurring mey eyes and looking at the letters. its not as harad as you make it outy to be oh fuck[/QUOTE] yea because being high and being almost blind are the same, but i dont know i never been really high
It's called delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)
[QUOTE=Warhol;22914402]You sight the INC, led by Chalabi, Literally EVER single US intelligence department denounces them. The Military Intelligence Agency has found MANY fraudulent sources from them. Using the INC as a source is fucking horrid. That crime statistic you cited is pretty contradictory to the Baghdad Morgue and the remaining ministry of justice. Chalabi was the Oil Minister and was in bed with Bush. Seriously, what WORSE sources can you find?[/QUOTE] I could start pulling shit from Fox News now couldn't I? So you're telling me that the United States did not go to war to uphold Resolution 1441. The Iraqis never used chemical weapons on the Kurds. These are the main points presented in this first paragraph. All of which come from the Congressional Research Service, so therefore they are invalid? You've really got to be kidding me. These are pure facts that can be found in various places. Also, maybe you should pay attention a little bit more because the CRS is only cited about 3 times throughout the entire essay. [QUOTE=JDK721;22905463]it's not that simple. and the US supplied/helped Iraq develop chemical and biological weapons during the Iraq-Iran war. and Iraqis said they were better off before under Saddam - [url]http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14282[/url] you're missing a lot of citations too.[/QUOTE] Read the full essay on page 3. Citations are included my friend.
[QUOTE=Vocal Massacre;22918282]Read the full essay on page 3. Citations are included my friend.[/QUOTE] your citations are absolute shit [editline]09:20AM[/editline] did you submit your piece of shit paper to any school? if you did, you should have failed
[QUOTE=Vocal Massacre;22867603]I disagree, read my essay on the prior page.[/QUOTE] I read it, and I'm not convinced otherwise.
[QUOTE=starpluck;22918546]I read it, and I'm not convinced otherwise.[/QUOTE] Elaborate.
[QUOTE=Vocal Massacre;22918574]Elaborate.[/QUOTE] Well, most of your shit is unsourced
[QUOTE=Warhol;22918582]Well, most of your shit is unsourced[/QUOTE] Yeah. The last paragraph....
lol, let me eleaborate, you provide shit where you got your claim from... just so happens that your source is literally the worse possible source you can find, I think Paul Wolfowitz is a better source then what you provided, holy shit
[QUOTE=Vocal Massacre;22918574]Elaborate.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to bother refuting claim by claim but rule under Saddam was much better then the U.S occupation. Saddam Hussein was in no way near a threat to U.S National Security, but instead was a proxy war for Israel. Turns out no WMDs were found and they did comply with U.N protocols. A situation today sounds quite awfully similar to that; Iran. Letting history repeat itself?
[QUOTE=Warhol;22918638]lol, let me eleaborate, you provide shit where you got your claim from... just so happens that your source is literally the worse possible source you can find, I think Paul Wolfowitz is a better source then what you provided, holy shit[/QUOTE] Read 8 posts above.... Now that you've read that... The other sources are simply articles from news and magazine articles that present facts. [QUOTE=starpluck;22918688]I'm not going to bother refuting claim by claim but rule under Saddam was much better then the U.S occupation. Saddam Hussein was in no way near a threat to U.S National Security, but instead was a proxy war for Israel. Turns out no WMDs were found and they did comply with U.N protocols. A situation today sounds quite awfully similar to that; Iran. Letting history repeat itself?[/QUOTE] I completely agree with you on that part. Saddam rule was much better than U.S. occupation. However, this is not the point of the essay. The point of the essay is that the U.S. needs to continue occupation. Additionally, the United States was still hot headed from 9/11 and any small threat of U.S. National Security was magnified. It was also speculated that U.N. inspectors were paid off by the Iraqis. However, this is merely a RUMOR. I would not doubt seeing a war with Iran or North Korea in the near future.
[QUOTE=Vocal Massacre;22918282]I could start pulling shit from Fox News now couldn't I? So you're telling me that the United States did not go to war to uphold Resolution 1441.[/quote] The UN was against the war in Iraq, they fucking lied about it and the Un didn't believe them. [quote]The Iraqis never used chemical weapons on the Kurds.[/quote] this is a bit of history. [quote]These are the main points presented in this first paragraph. All of which come from the Congressional Research Service, so therefore they are invalid? You've really got to be kidding me. These are pure facts that can be found in various places. Also, maybe you should pay attention a little bit more because the CRS is only cited about 3 times throughout the entire essay.[/QUOTE] Half of the CRS reports are from the INC, led by Chalabi. You see, the US stretches the truth Chalabi makes shit up
So Warhol, where's that oil we've been stealing? It's been coming in by the tanker each day, right? :downs:
"Importance of Iraqi Oil to the U.S. During December 2002, the United States imported 11.3 million barrels of oil from Iraq." oh, i'm thinking the 11.3 million tons are circulated into the central supply of crude oil
Imported, yes. Outright stole? Uh, no.
There was no government to steal it from. The only remaining officials, IE Chalabi (that bastard is everywhere), were pretty willing to work with Haliburton and KBR [editline]12:29PM[/editline] because it fucking profits them
[QUOTE=Warhol;22918948]The UN was against the war in Iraq, they fucking lied about it and the Un didn't believe them. [/QUOTE] This is still the reason why we went there, irregardless. This is the clear, official reason. You really can't take hidden agendas into account, for no one really knows if they are valid or not. [QUOTE=Warhol;22918948] Half of the CRS reports are from the INC, led by Chalabi. You see, the US stretches the truth Chalabi makes shit up [/QUOTE] Your simple opinion can not make these reports invalid, I'm sorry. Also, it is not about the source. It is clearly the information you take from the source that really matters.
[QUOTE=the_KMM;22920740]Imported, yes. Outright stole? Uh, no.[/QUOTE] well they have to sell the oil dirt cheap because of the huge dept there in to the bank but thats another story
[QUOTE=Vocal Massacre;22927470]This is still the reason why we went there, irregardless. This is the clear, official reason. You really can't take hidden agendas into account, for no one really knows if they are valid or not. Your simple opinion can not make these reports invalid, I'm sorry. Also, it is not about the source. It is clearly the information you take from the source that really matters.[/QUOTE] uh, the source also lied about the reports on the crime statistics.
[QUOTE=Warhol;22939957]uh, the source also lied about the reports on the crime statistics.[/QUOTE] Ok. Did my paper talk about any crime statistics within Iraq? I didn't think so.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22771836]Americans, Britishers, Canadians, and other nationals whose soldiers are serving as part of the Coalition, put aside your blind patriotism for a while and hear me out. I spent the first thirteen years of my life in the Middle East, and I'm familiar, to an extent, with the way people there think. It's easy for the big rich western empire to brand anyone who opposes them a terrorist, but how many of us, through the veil of news propaganda, are looking at the big picture? Let's look at Iraq in this case, since it's the most obvious example by far. The United States really, really had no reason whatsoever to go into Iraq. The claim that sending thousands of armed troops across a border had the noble intention of dethroning a dictator is so much hot air. Since the United States invaded Iraq, many tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died because of firefights, accidents with hellfire missiles, explosives, etc. - that's a LOT of women and children. Unless the Western world suffers under the delusion that the lives of brown people are somehow cheaper than those of Anglo-Saxons, I'm sure we agree that something is wrong. What disgusts me the most by far, however, is the fact that in the event we capture some of the militiamen that are attacking US troops, we try them as terrorists or as common criminals. Sometimes - no, most times - they're held for many years without a hope of a trial. And the trials are shams. It's fucking disgusting. War is bad. People die. Get over it. If the United States expects the enemy to form ranks and march like sheep into a hail of their bullets, they've got another thing coming. Look at it from their point of view. A foreign western nation has invaded their country (or, in the case of foreign national militants, the country of an ally or relative.) Hundreds of people are dying every month. They have no army to defend them. Many of them will have lost people they loved to US explosive ordinance fuck-ups. Are they not justified in resisting the invaders? To try them as criminals is just sickening. They should be treated as POWs. Unless you've played too much Call of Duty and think that one guy with an AK47 can kill hundreds of tanks and helicopters and thousands of troops singlehandedly, you'll know that the guerilla hit-and-run tactics they've been employing are the only ones that will work. I don't claim to know who is right and wrong, but I do consider the enemy legitimate combatants, even if white US politicians who are obviously motivated by racial prejudice try to claim otherwise. If you disagree, please tell me why.[/QUOTE] The true reason for the War on Iraq was never fully justified. The government lied, and if you pay attention, they changed their lies several times. They deserve to be tried as POWs. Lie number 1: Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction (debunked) Lie number 2: Iraq was involved with 9/11 (since when? how? why?) Truth: The Iraq people deserve to be free (end result: we kill as many civilians as we do terrorists, and several years later the war is still going on under a new president)
[QUOTE=Vocal Massacre;22940835]Ok. Did my paper talk about any crime statistics within Iraq? I didn't think so.[/QUOTE] "“Overall violence is down at least 60% since June 2007” (Katzman)" [editline]04:56AM[/editline] lol katzman
I thought at first this was going to be a shitty argument which could be summed up with, "I PLAYED COD4 SO I KNOWZ WHAT I TALK ABOUT" but good show mate. Your points are very fine, and detailed. If anything a normal way of saying this should be, "Fight Guriella with Guriella."
I don't understand the point of your post. It's really easy to sit there and say "OH THE US SHOULDN'T HAVE GONE INTO IRAQ AT ALL!" and that may be true. While I think that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a fine enough reason to go in (You don't want a man as unstable as him anywhere near your key resources...especially not when he would have been playing nice with Iran and North Korea as of late trying to upgrade his weapons stock and get some decent missile systems to replace his crap SCUDs) But i don't personally believe that it was worth it. That doesn't mean the Coalition is doing a crap job. I would say they are doing pretty well considering this isn't a war against a uniformed enemy. I understand the guerrilla fighting, it's all the opposition can do, but still, that doesn't mean you can suddenly okay hiding in public places, mosques, and crowds. There is a difference between fighting guerrilla war and terrorism. The US fighting Britain for it's freedom, guerrilla war, using car-bombs and IEDs on shopping centers, busy intersections, and other public places is not. I'm not saying civilian casualties are avoidable from either side, but when you detonate a trunk's worth of explosive next to 1 hummer, and 5 other cars, you know exactly who's going to get the worst of it. I also think it's stupid to expect right reserved for soldiers when dealing with an insurgent force. They aren't a standing army, and they aren't extending the same rights to captured US soldiers. I'm not saying eye for an eye, but i think it's ridiculous to expect the US to get POW rights for people who are hiding in crowds and shooting out of Mosques.
[QUOTE=JohnStamosFan;22942345]I don't understand the point of your post. It's really easy to sit there and say "OH THE US SHOULDN'T HAVE GONE INTO IRAQ AT ALL!" and that may be true. While I think that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a fine enough reason to go in (You don't want a man as unstable as him anywhere near your key resources...especially not when he would have been playing nice with Iran and North Korea as of late trying to upgrade his weapons stock and get some decent missile systems to replace his crap SCUDs) But i don't personally believe that it was worth it. That doesn't mean the Coalition is doing a crap job. I would say they are doing pretty well considering this isn't a war against a uniformed enemy. I understand the guerrilla fighting, it's all the opposition can do, but still, that doesn't mean you can suddenly okay hiding in public places, mosques, and crowds. There is a difference between fighting guerrilla war and terrorism. The US fighting Britain for it's freedom, guerrilla war, using car-bombs and IEDs on shopping centers, busy intersections, and other public places is not. I'm not saying civilian casualties are avoidable from either side, but when you detonate a trunk's worth of explosive next to 1 hummer, and 5 other cars, you know exactly who's going to get the worst of it. I also think it's stupid to expect right reserved for soldiers when dealing with an insurgent force. They aren't a standing army, and they aren't extending the same rights to captured US soldiers. I'm not saying eye for an eye, but i think it's ridiculous to expect the US to get POW rights for people who are hiding in crowds and shooting out of Mosques.[/QUOTE] your posting format makes your post undecipherable.
As someone who follows politics, I personally think we had no reason to invade Iraq. Al quida was in afghanistan, and we were kn the brink of catching bin laden. We screwed up that entire operation with Iraq, diverting troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, allowing bin laden to exscape
[QUOTE=Warhol;22941133]"“Overall violence is down at least 60% since June 2007” (Katzman)" [editline]04:56AM[/editline] lol katzman[/QUOTE] Wow. You are so God damn ignorant that you don't realize violence and crime are not the same thing. [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;22941361] If anything a normal way of saying this should be, "Fight Guriella with Guriella."[/QUOTE] This has run by my mind a couple of times. An entire switch of ROE could quickly solve problems. Unfortunately, I believe more problems would emerge. It really takes a cross examination of the costs and benefits. On a side note, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980s not only left Afghanistan in shambles, but I believe it would be safe to say the entire region suffered from it. Personally, I think the reason Saddam came to power was the idea of fighting off oppression from the East and West. I think Saddam looked to the West and saw Afghan and hated both the U.S. for deserting them and the Soviets for invading them. Obviously, this is purely my opinion and I have no facts to support my thesis. I will definitely look in to this further. [QUOTE=Newlemming;22941004]The true reason for the War on Iraq was never fully justified. The government lied, and if you pay attention, they changed their lies several times. They deserve to be tried as POWs. Lie number 1: Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction (debunked) Lie number 2: Iraq was involved with 9/11 (since when? how? why?) Truth: The Iraq people deserve to be free (end result: we kill as many civilians as we do terrorists, and several years later the war is still going on under a new president)[/QUOTE] The government blatantly said we are going to uphold Resolution 1441. The Bush administration also added that Saddam's regime was getting to powerful. If you had a chance to take out a major dictator within the Mid-East would you take it? I sure as hell would. Less problems I would have to deal with down. The French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Civil War. Many people died, some non-combatants. This is the price we pay for freedom. Their death was not in vain. You must think more long term.
[QUOTE=crackberry;22942487]As someone who follows politics, I personally think we had no reason to invade Iraq. Al quida was in afghanistan, and we were kn the brink of catching bin laden. We screwed up that entire operation with Iraq, diverting troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, allowing bin laden to exscape[/QUOTE] You and too many other people in this thread are looking too much at the 2010 hindsight and not the actual 2001 reasons for going to war.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.